Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[SnoSki14]

3 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

CNBC reports that “ The world surpasses key warming threshold [+1.5°C] across an entire year for the first time!!! Ruh roh...let's all tremble in our boots.... but of course with that threshold crossed it not surprisingly delivered absolutely nothing catastrophic or life threatening to our planet.  Now we used to hear that +1.5°C above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial average temps would be the scary “tipping point.” Me thinks the climate alarmists will need to push that baby back to maybe +2.0°C or surely 2.1 °C.  That cataclysmic "tipping point" will most surely happen at that point.....right????

2C is the tipping point but you'd be a fool to think horrific events already hadn't transpired. 

Billions in damages, millions of acres burned, catastrophic flooding & fires, devastating heat waves, crawl out from under your rock. 

[bdgwx]

3 hours ago, Cobalt said:

Oh, that is definitely interesting. Has sunspot activity gone up along with the recent warming, or is it just a temporary blip unrelated?

Yes. Solar output is correlated with warming/cooling of the climate system. The modulation is at most 0.4 W/m2 of radiative force from trough to peak. To put that into perspective the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) is currently around +1.9 W/m2. So this uptick in solar activity accounts for at most 10% of the energy uptake. Of course, once SC25 peaks and solar output drops in the next few years the solar effect will turn negative. The rate at which the climate takes excess energy will decline a bit as a result, but the EEI still going to be significantly positive meaning that the planet will continue to warm.

[dseagull]

4 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

CNBC reports that “ The world surpasses key warming threshold [+1.5°C] across an entire year for the first time!!! Ruh roh...let's all tremble in our boots.... but of course with that threshold crossed it not surprisingly delivered absolutely nothing catastrophic or life threatening to our planet.  Now we used to hear that +1.5°C above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial average temps would be the scary “tipping point.” Me thinks the climate alarmists will need to push that baby back to maybe +2.0°C or surely 2.1 °C.  That cataclysmic "tipping point" will most surely happen at that point.....right????

Propaganda has been terrifyingly effective since the dawn of mankind.  

 

We adapt.  

 

....or we dont... That's science.  

 

The cure can't be worse than the problem.  For some reason, mankind cannot seem to work past that.

 

Having said that, our biggest enemy is ourselves and division (only second to those who wish to use perceived "crisis" for control.)   

[dseagull]

2 hours ago, SnoSki14 said:

2C is the tipping point but you'd be a fool to think horrific events already hadn't transpired. 

Billions in damages, millions of acres burned, catastrophic flooding & fires, devastating heat waves, crawl out from under your rock. 

Proven fact that physical ignition (arson) is responsible for nearly 70 percent of forrest fires.   The vast majority of the remainder is mostly caused by humans, neither "climate change" or weather related ignition.

 

According to NJ.gov, 99 percent of forest fires are caused by humans, with 52.9% caused BY ARSON.  

 

(Remember, this has risen in recent times... due mostly to social media and traditional media broadcasting "Red flag warnings."  There are sick individuals.  That's a given.   There are also politically motivated individuals.  Thankfully, controlled burns are now being conducted in a safer manner and more frequently, to avoid worse wildfires..) 

 

Here is a link to the official government site....

https://www.nj.gov/pinelands/infor/educational/curriculum/pinecur/cffnj.htm

  (I have fought plenty of fires.  I have gone to many conferences, concerning the matter.  Please do not blame forrest fires on climate change.  This argument failed in both the great Australian fires and the recent Canadian fires to a lesser extent, mainly due to the Canadian censorship and lack of free press.)

 

People set fires.... There are many ways to mitigate disasters from wildfires that are willfully ignored.  Some governing bodies even propose legislation that all but ensures worse fires and more harm to human life and property. 

 

Again, a people problem...not a climate problem.   We possess the ability to ensure these wildfire events either do not occur or do not get out of control.  Arson will ALWAYS get worse when agendas exist. 

[wishcast_hater]

36 minutes ago, dseagull said:

Proven fact that physical ignition (arson) is responsible for nearly 70 percent of forrest fires.   The vast majority of the remainder is mostly caused by humans, neither "climate change" or weather related ignition.

 

According to NJ.gov, 99 percent of forest fires are caused by humans, with 52.9% cause by humans.  

 

(Remember, this has risen in recent times... due mostly to social media and traditional media broadcasting "Red flag warnings."  There are sick individuals.  That's a given.   There are also politically motivated individuals.  Thankfully, controlled burns are now being conducted in a safer manner and more frequently, to avoid worse wildfires..) 

 

Here is a link to the official government site....

https://www.nj.gov/pinelands/infor/educational/curriculum/pinecur/cffnj.htm

  (I have fought plenty of fires.  I have gone to many conferences, concerning the matter.  Please do not blame forrest fires on climate change.  This argument failed in both the great Australian fires and the recent Canadian fires to a lesser extent, mainly due to the Canadian censorship and lack of free press.)

 

People set fires.... There are many ways to mitigate disasters from wildfires that are willfully ignored.  Some governing bodies even propose legislation that all but ensures worse fires and more harm to human life and property. 

 

Again, a people problem...not a climate problem.   We possess the ability to ensure these wildfire events either do not occur or do not get out of control.  Arson will ALWAYS get worse when agendas exist. 

Now we have a tipping point? What nonsense, no one can honestly say what the earths temperature SHOULD BE.  There is over a 100 degree difference between Siberia and Death Valley but now people are claiming what the ideal temp SHOULD BE?  Wow.

[dseagull]

18 minutes ago, wishcast_hater said:

20 minutes ago, wishcast_hater said:

Now we have a tipping point? What nonsense, no one can honestly say what the earths temperature SHOULD BE.  There is over a 100 degree difference between Siberia and Death Valley but now people are claiming what the ideal temp SHOULD BE?  Wow.

 

Aren't you supposed to be in a locked and padded room without food and water?

 

I'm supposed to die with my entire generation and "climate denial" (which may be the dumbest descriptor I have ever heard.)

 

Its difficult to have a conversation with individuals who would rather fling insults than have a productive debate.  

[SnoSki14]

2 hours ago, wishcast_hater said:

Now we have a tipping point? What nonsense, no one can honestly say what the earths temperature SHOULD BE.  There is over a 100 degree difference between Siberia and Death Valley but now people are claiming what the ideal temp SHOULD BE?  Wow.

Science doesn't care what you think.

If people want to live in a fantasy world where everything is great then they can do so but the world will be affected either way. 

And as far as fires go, humans may trigger them but droughts and high temperatures will exacerbate them. 

[wishcast_hater]

5 hours ago, dseagull said:

Aren't you supposed to be in a locked and padded room without food and water?

 

I'm supposed to die with my entire generation and "climate denial" (which may be the dumbest descriptor I have ever heard.)

 

Its difficult to have a conversation with individuals who would rather fling insults than have a productive debate.  

When you resort to insults you have lost the argument. I stated my position on the previous page. 

[dseagull]

1 hour ago, wishcast_hater said:

When you resort to insults you have lost the argument. I stated my position on the previous page. 

Yes you did.  Clearly and concisely, without useless insults.   More than likely falling on deaf ears, but well said. 

[ChescoWx]

10 hours ago, SnoSki14 said:

2C is the tipping point but you'd be a fool to think horrific events already hadn't transpired. 

Billions in damages, millions of acres burned, catastrophic flooding & fires, devastating heat waves, crawl out from under your rock. 

Okie name just 1 event that has never happened before?? all the above have always happened in history....

[hazwoper]

15 hours ago, dseagull said:

Propaganda has been terrifyingly effective since the dawn of mankind.  

 

We adapt.  

 

....or we dont... That's science.  

 

The cure can't be worse than the problem.  For some reason, mankind cannot seem to work past that.

 

Having said that, our biggest enemy is ourselves and division (only second to those who wish to use perceived "crisis" for control.)   

Trump lost......

[hazwoper]

For those that don't understand the science of burning FF and releasing carbon, which has been locked in our crust since the dawn of time, and how it is absolutely negatively impacting our climate and in turn our species should probably go back and get an education.

[dseagull]

18 minutes ago, hazwoper said:

Trump lost......

Huh? Trump?  What are you even talking about a former president for?   Sounds like the man is living in your head rent free.  

 

As for the education, I can assure you that I am well educated.   I can also assure you that many other scientists that have opposing views are also incredibly educated.  

 

In essence, you have proven my point for me.  Those who believe climate change is primarily anthropogenic in form, generally seem to insult others with opposing views, rather than discuss the issues with them.   To these people, it is "settled science," which quite simply does not exist.  It goes against the premise of science.  

 

I won't insult you, but I do suggest you diagnose why you mentioned a former president in this forum.  It's not a good look, but also a common theme among those who have allowed politics to enter every facet of their lives. 

 

You also seem to forget that "fossil fuels" have allowed humans to advance. Without this form of energy, we may still be in the stone age.  Convenient facts to omit.   We tend to do better as a species when we use facts, rather than emotions to form arguments or have polite debate. 

[hazwoper]

4 minutes ago, dseagull said:

Huh? Trump?  What are you even talking about a former president for?   Sounds like the man is living in your head rent free.  

 

As for the education, I can assure you that I am well educated.   I can also assure you that many other scientists that have opposing views are also incredibly educated.  

 

In essence, you have proven my point for me.  Those who believe climate change is primarily anthropogenic in form, generally seem to insult others with opposing views, rather than discuss the issues with them.   To these people, it is "settled science," which quite simply does not exist.  It goes against the premise of science.  

 

I won't insult you, but I do suggest you diagnose why you mentioned a former president in this forum.  It's not a good look, but also a common theme among those who have allowed politics to enter every facet of their lives. 

 

You also seem to forget that "fossil fuels" have allowed humans to advance. Without this form of energy, we may still be in the stone age.  Convenient facts to omit.   We tend to do better as a species when we use facts, rather than emotions to form arguments or have polite debate. 

Ohhhh....so you're a scientist.  Gotcha.  LOL.

The science is settled for your information.  The release of carbon from the burning of fossil fuels that have been held up in the earth's crust since well before the dawn man are ABSOLUTELY, 100% increasing global temperatures.  Its settled science Mr. Scientist.

[dseagull]

Just now, hazwoper said:

Ohhhh....so you're a scientist.  Gotcha.  LOL.

The science is settled for your information.  The release of carbon from the burning of fossil fuels that have been held up in the earth's crust since well before the dawn man are ABSOLUTELY, 100% increasing global temperatures.  Its settled science Mr. Scientist.

Arguing with angry people that are not interested in having conversations is generally a waste of time.   I do hold a degree in oceanography, correct.  I never insinuated that I am a "scientist," nor did I argue that my views are settled science or absolutely correct.  

 

I would suggest that you educate yourself about the carbon cycle that has repeated itself many times since the formation of our planet.   

 

Like i said previously, I won't insult you.  I wish you the best as a fellow American, and wish you all of the luck over the next few years.   

[dseagull]

...Also, I have stated many times that anthropogenic global warming is real.  I argue that it is not the primary driver.  I also argue that we cannot allow the solution to these problems to be worse than the problem itself. We can adapt.  I'm not sure what your mental state is or what is going on in your life, but you should read closely before replying.  You are doing yourself a disservice, allowing your emotions to dictate your words. 

[hazwoper]

1 minute ago, dseagull said:

Arguing with angry people that are not interested in having conversations is generally a waste of time.   I do hold a degree in oceanography, correct.  I never insinuated that I am a "scientist," nor did I argue that my views are settled science or absolutely correct.  

 

I would suggest that you educate yourself about the carbon cycle that has repeated itself many times since the formation of our planet.   

 

Like i said previously, I won't insult you.  I wish you the best as a fellow American, and wish you all of the luck over the next few years.   

You are clueless about the general climate cycle that has repeated itself since earths formation and its difference from mans continued increases in carbon releases due to burning of FFs.

Also, I have a degree in Environmental science, but would never call myself a scientist either.  BUT, I am educated enough to understand the difference between the general cycle of carbon on our planet over billions of years and the man caused massive release of carbon in just the last 100-150 years.

[hazwoper]

3 minutes ago, dseagull said:

...Also, I have stated many times that anthropogenic global warming is real.  I argue that it is not the primary driver.  I also argue that we cannot allow the solution to these problems to be worse than the problem itself. We can adapt.  I'm not sure what your mental state is or what is going on in your life, but you should read closely before replying.  You are doing yourself a disservice, allowing your emotions to dictate your words. 

OK, that is a fair point.  I, too am not saying that there are not general variabilities in climate over time, BUT the difference is that I understand that the science is clear that what we are doing is absolutely increasing temps far greater than if we hadn't been here.

[dseagull]

Just now, hazwoper said:

You are clueless about the general climate cycle that has repeated itself since earths formation and its difference from mans continued increases in carbon releases due to burning of FFs.

Also, I have a degree in Environmental science, but would never call myself a scientist either.  BUT, I am educated enough to understand the difference between the general cycle of carbon on our planet over billions of years and the man caused massive release of carbon in just the last 100-150 years.

Good luck sir.   Have a nice existence.  Address your own internal issues, and try to get past presidents off your mind.  Your immediate health is much more important than insulting complete strangers over the internet that are trying to have civil discussions. 

[hazwoper]

I am also not saying that the use of FFs over the last century and a half was not a necessary evil for us as a civilization to grow.  The thing is that we have come to a place in time where the previous status quo is not sustainable for the longevity of our species and our planet.  We have come quite a way since the early 19900s and the time is now to use our collective brains to make for a better planet and one that will continue to thrive long after you and I are gone.

[hazwoper]

4 minutes ago, dseagull said:

Good luck sir.   Have a nice existence.  Address your own internal issues, and try to get past presidents off your mind.  Your immediate health is much more important than insulting complete strangers over the internet that are trying to have civil discussions. 

[dseagull]

Just now, hazwoper said:

Again... you seem to be arguing with yourself and pointlessly insulting someone that you do not know.   A good way to avoid this (because it will limit opportunities in life,) is to think before you post.  Ask yourself if you would converse this way in a face to face situation.  You don't know me. I don't know you.  It's a psychological phenomenon, the way people tend to communicate with others through their keyboards. 

 

Sincerely,  good luck.  

[hazwoper]

1 minute ago, dseagull said:

Again... you seem to be arguing with yourself and pointlessly insulting someone that you do not know.   A good way to avoid this (because it will limit opportunities in life,) is to think before you post.  Ask yourself if you would converse this way in a face to face situation.  You don't know me. I don't know you.  It's a psychological phenomenon, the way people tend to communicate with others through their keyboards. 

 

Sincerely,  good luck.  

Maybe respond to my other two posts above?  Of course you won't.  You know why?  Because, again, the science is settled.  While NO ONE can say that the warming we have been seeing is 100% due to man (of course it isn't as there are no real 100% certainties when it comes to climate),  man most certainly has been the main factor in the increases over the last century.

And BTW, I only put you down because of how absurdly ridiculous your arguments are.  

[dseagull]

1 hour ago, hazwoper said:

Maybe respond to my other two posts above?  Of course you won't.  You know why?  Because, again, the science is settled.  While NO ONE can say that the warming we have been seeing is 100% due to man (of course it isn't as there are no real 100% certainties when it comes to climate),  man most certainly has been the main factor in the increases over the last century.

And BTW, I only put you down because of how absurdly ridiculous your arguments are.  

Sir, with all due respect...

 

I'm not sure what you are asking me to respond to.  You initiated dialogue by responding, "trump lost," to one of my posts.   

 

You then went on to insult my intelligence.   Immediately after, you either accused me of making statements which I didn't make, or you did not take the time to read my prior posts.  This was quickly followed by more insults.   

Then, you explained why you were "puting me down," by lazily insulting me further.  Finally, you purposely attempted to antagonize someone who clearly stated that they no longer wished to have unproductive conversation.  Against my better judgment, I will bluntly and politely offer my suggestion to you one final time.

 

Share the transcript of our conversation with someone who you associate with in-person.  If you are married, perhaps share it with your wife.  You are displaying not only incredibly rude behavior, but you are also incoherent in your attempt to argue against points which I had never posted on this forum.   Your attempts to inject politics and political affiliation with my very broad assertions (which I said could be wrong,) are foolish, presumptive, and juvenile.   You are displaying multiple levels of detachment from the reality of what I hoped would be a polite conversation.   You don't know me.  I CERTAINLY DON'T KNOW YOU.  I can only judge a complete online stranger by how they choose to conduct themselves and communicate with me.  With what I have witnessed thus far, I do not wish to continue a conversation.  

 

Politely sir, you seem like you need to address some mental health issues.  If I am wrong, you should at least consider treating those who you do not know with a little bit of respect.  I am embarrassed for you, but wish you the best. 

 

[wishcast_hater]

You cannot have a civil discussion with these people. Everything is emotionally driven, the world is going to end and there is no hope unless we (according to them) go back to the Stone Age and stop using oil and stop emitting Co2. The next step on the agenda is to declare war on mankind itself and start killing off people or limiting birth rates to save the planet.


.

[Cobalt]

19 hours ago, bdgwx said:

Yes. Solar output is correlated with warming/cooling of the climate system. The modulation is at most 0.4 W/m2 of radiative force from trough to peak. To put that into perspective the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) is currently around +1.9 W/m2. So this uptick in solar activity accounts for at most 10% of the energy uptake. Of course, once SC25 peaks and solar output drops in the next few years the solar effect will turn negative. The rate at which the climate takes excess energy will decline a bit as a result, but the EEI still going to be significantly positive meaning that the planet will continue to warm.

Oh. What about the other 90%? Where does that come from?

[Wannabehippie]

I think this is the best place to post this article, and hear what everyone thinks about it.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/09/climate/atlantic-circulation-collapse-weather-climate/index.html

[bdgwx]

2 hours ago, Cobalt said:

Oh. What about the other 90%? Where does that come from?

Based on the consilience of evidence...GHGs, aerosols, and land use changes. And at the risk being labeled stubborn I'm still not so sure Hunga Tonga isn't contributing a tenth or two to the EEI.

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, Wannabehippie said:

I think this is the best place to post this article, and hear what everyone thinks about it.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/09/climate/atlantic-circulation-collapse-weather-climate/index.html

It’s an interesting paper and it confirms “tipping” behavior related to the AMOC. Tipping abruptly from one stable state into another one has been found elsewhere, so I don’t believe it is too surprising that researchers found that the same could hold true for the AMOC. IMO, had they found against tipping, that would have been a more surprising outcome.

The full paper is here:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk1189

 

[dseagull]

Fascinating article.  Equally terrifying if it were to verify.  Unfortunately, most of us have read and consumed a myriad of similar "scary" articles that have not verified over the past 3-5 decades.   While this could be the tipping point, this article is only highlighting one of many potential studies that have resulted in any number of potentially devastating outcomes.  

 

This is where sensationalism comes into play.   There also exists a tipping point for where people no longer pay attention to every single prediction or publication.   CNN is still somewhat mainstream, although part of a dying type of "journalism."   Similar to the "boy who cried wolf," many media outlets have overplayed their hands with sensationalism (in an effort to gain clicks or views for advertising profits,) and as a result, reach fewer and fewer members of an audience that is growing skeptical.  

 

Having offered that perspective, I will admit that I am inclined to believe that ocean currents and the rate at which gyres are able to reach and maintain stability, PROBABLY have the most rapid and drastic effects on the climate of our earth.  Our oceans (as sinks,) and mediums of thermal energy, are responsible for the vast majority of weather on earth.  When the red flags go up, we need to invest resources to determine all possible outcomes. 

 

This sudden of a climate disaster is more in line with other types of geological extinction events.  Many scientists have always theorized that this very scenario is responsible for most of the sudden climate swings, not unlike an impact from a large meteor or other space object.  

 

If this sort of cataclysmic even were to verify, there is unlikely any way to prepare for it effectively.  The tipping point, would ultimately become an extinction event for a large swatch of the world's population.  

 

Or... this could be just another sensational study and article, following a host of others.  This doest mean that we should write it off, but rather delve into the scenario, and scrutinize it carefully.   It has very meaningful merit, regardless.