climate change thread

[RopeFiend]

You missed it entirely.  That's not RATE OF CHANGE, it's a delta off of the average from 1981 to 2010.  They couldn't go back before that because satellite global temperature data didn't exist before 1979, and it wasn't very stable until 1981.  They stopped the average in 2010 or else you'd constantly be hitting a moving target.  This is just a difference from a somewhat-recent averaged temp.  If you want to see the current temp, go to the source data at UAH -   it's also falling.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

edit: here's the original UAH data, also a 'delta' from a defined average temp:



Here's the latest graph, even cooler yet:



They're both essentially the same, but I find Dr. Spencer's version easier to follow.

Here's the same graph, with the El Niño events marked:



If you don't see a correlation to what's actually driving global temperatures (and not fucking 'greenhouse gasses'), then you're blind.

Here's a possible reason for the recent drops: lower total heat from the sun, the lowest in a long time.



That's from NOAA, https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
and from looking at the current cycle, it's going to go lower yet before it rises several years from now.  I'd recommend a wool blanket for the near future.  Of course, one good El Niño could flip that the other direction.

Remember, you heard it here first!     Global COOLING warning!

I'm not going to start crying MAUNDER MINIMUM for several years, as it's too early to tell what the current solar cycle is going to do.

[Jed_]

Cuz spewing pollutants into the atmosphere at an accelerated rate could not possibly affect the climate?

Keep smoking RF, I’m sure that being bad for you is all fraudulent too.

[RopeFiend]

So what caused the last Ice Age?  It's well too late for dinosaurs on mopeds.  The climate DRIVES ITSELF, without any help from us.  Water vapor is so wildly more prominent in global temperature change that the ONLY way you can see a difference due to 'greenhouse gasses' is at the poles, where there's no moisture to swamp the effects.  Ya know what?  There's no detectable change at the poles that anyone can attribute to 'greenhouse gas'.  It's a lie.

[Jed_]

Ya know what?  There's no detectable change at the poles that anyone can attribute to 'greenhouse gas'.  It's a lie.

I’ll tell the starving polar bears not to worry.

[psiberzerker]

So what caused the last Ice Age?

The last total ice age, the last sub-ice age, or the "Little ice Age) in the Rennaissance?  Which "Last ice Age"?

the ONLY way you can see a difference due to 'greenhouse gasses' is at the poles, where there's no moisture to swamp the effects.  There's no detectable change at the poles that anyone can attribute to 'greenhouse gas'.

False, and False.  El Niño, and La Niña are both measurable at the tropics, and drive the Tropical Storm Cycles.

Also:


*fixed image size ~ RF

^Changes measured around one of the poles, where there's "No Moisture."  Which is bullshit, because water vapor sublimates at sub-zero temperatures, without going though the liquid state.  (Where all that snow came from in the first place.  if it grew in crystal out of the ocean, then it would be saline.  It isn't.) All of the assertions quoted betray dangerous ignorance of the basics of climatology, and Ignorance is how we got into it in the first place.

You're still arguing with an unprecedented consensus of climate scientists, and the best climate science we've ever had.  With nothing but ignorant assumptions.

[RopeFiend]

Really?  The IPCC is the brightest and best?  Aren't these the same folks that are relying on computer models, instead of trying to make sense out of the reality?

I'll just drop this here:  https://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles.html

And yes, I look around to make sense out of all the data, versus the nonsense that's spread via 'models'.  According to a computer model of a bumblebee many years ago, the bumblebees couldn't fly.  Oops.  The bumblebees soundly ignored the model.  They'd forgotten to model in the little counterweights under the wings, thinking them unimportant.  I guess to the bumblebees they ARE important, as they're still flying.  They eventually corrected the model and agreed that yes, bumblebees COULD fly.  The bumblebees continued to ignore the model.

The climate is gonna do what the sun, oceans, and clouds all dictate, and so far I haven't seen ANY actual proof that we've had an effect that can't be explained via natural climate changes.

Global warming: the biggest fucking farce in the 2000s.  It's all due to the oceans and PDO.

edit: you might want to try this -

Code: [Select]

[img width=630] to keep from having an insanely large pix attachmentI also add a URL around the whole IMG tag to link in the original photo.

[psiberzerker]

The climate is gonna do what the sun, oceans, and clouds all dictate, and so far I haven't seen ANY actual proof that we've had an effect that can't be explained via natural climate changes.

Global warming: the biggest fucking farce in the 2000s.  It's all due to the oceans and PDO.

Okay, so because bumblebees, you admit that the climate does change, ignore the actual data, and your own observations (The changes of the seasons in your lifetime) and then turn around to blame the oceans?

The climate is changing.  The question is, what are we doing bout it?  We don't need your belief to keep doing that.  Again, it's not JUSt the "Best, and Brightest."  it's all but 3% of the entire meteorological community, working together, and checking each other's work.

That's called Peer Review.  You're not a Peer, so keep siding with the 3% of qualified scientists, and the other 97% will keep fixing it without you.

[RopeFiend]

You can look at data and try to make sense of it, or you can produce bogus computer models that TRY to mimic reality.  Which one is more effective at predicting the future?  I'll give ya a hint: computer models NEVER accurately portray reality, and especially so on something as complex as the Earth's climate.

The climate changes all the time, without any help.  Here's a graph of the temperature in Greenland since the end of the last Ice Age ~10,000 years ago:



I can see a marked falling temperature for the last 3,000 years, which would normally signal the end of the current 'warm cycle' between lengthy Ice Ages.  The basic climate of the planet has been Ice Age, with brief 2,000 to 15,000 year warm periods for the last half million years or so.  I'm ALL FOR global warming if it keeps us out of the next Ice Age, but we haven't pumped near enough aerosols and such up to make that significant of a difference.


http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html

My favorite graph from that paper is this one:



We're already starting to trend down, just like the green prediction shows.  We're NOT rising, as the IPCC computer models predict.  It's still way too early to see what Solar Cycle 25 is going to do.  If it's low like Cycle 24, the cooling will continue.  Most of the predictions I've seen show it either very low or nonexistent, but it'll take several years to know for sure.  I'll wait.  All it would take to bollix the current downward trend is one more good El Niño event.  It'll happen, the question is WHEN? and HOW MUCH?

I'd recommend laying in an efficient wood-burning stove if we go into another significant Solar Minimum.  The extra CO2 and particulates will help to warm the planet a minuscule amount.  I don't THINK a Solar Minimum in imminent, but I can't tell from the current data.

[psiberzerker]

Here's a graph of the temperature in Greenland since the end of the last Ice Age ~10,000 years ago:

This is what we call Cherry Picking Data.  Not data analysis, you know why it's called Global Warming?  Here's a hint:  It's GLOBAL.  Not looking for that smoking gun on an island that wants to be a continent when it grows up, you know what the primary energy on Greenland is?  Geothermal.  

You have to look at the entire, MASSIVE equation, not look for the 1 point, on 1 graph, out of context, that appears to invalidate the gestalt of the entire theory.  That's why it's called Peer review, and not cherry picking data.

Thanks for specifying the Ice Age you're talking about this time.  "Cave men" is primarily a myth debunked by Anthropoligists.  What you get for looking up "Science" on anti-science blogs.

[RopeFiend]

Did you just fall off the hay wagon, or what?  OF COURSE it's a localized reading when it goes way the fuck back in time.  Thermometers are a recent invention, so they have to go by coring a chunk of (glacier, permafrost, something) and then calculate a temperature based on what they see in the core.  Any other history model has too many variables to calculate a realistic deviation from current temperature, it's got to be at a point location.

You don't think cavemen were logging the temperature with a digital thermometer, do you?

I looked up the methodology for the EPICA and Vostok cores, but couldn't understand how they were deriving a somewhat-realistic temp.  The EPICA and Vostok cores were both in the Antarctic (not a habitable zone).  Greenland is at least semi-habitable.

[psiberzerker]

I looked up the methodology for the EPICA and Vostok cores, but couldn't understand how they were deriving a somewhat-realistic temp.  The EPICA and Vostok cores were both in the Antarctic (not a habitable zone).  Greenland is at least semi-habitable.

You're going to have to explain to me the correlation between habitation in the area, and "Realistic temps.' First of all, what makes a term realistic, and secondly, what affect were you expecting from prehistoric habitation?

[Lois]

I just know that the experts say global warming is happening and I know to trust expertise.

There are folks out there that think expertise counts for nothing and are fine with not having a certified pilot fly airplanes either.  Sorry, but I'm not one of them.

[Jed_]

I just know that the experts say global warming is happening and I know to trust expertise.

There are folks out there that think expertise counts for nothing and are fine with not having a certified pilot fly airplanes either.  Sorry, but I'm not one of them.

By experts, you mean actual scientists Lois.  While I’m not a climatologist, I am an actual scientist.  If my fellow scientists have a near universal consensus on this issue, then knowing how science works with peer review, I’m inclined to believe them rather than some self-appointed ‘researcher’ on the matter.  It’s why I love science, it’s self correcting in ways nothing else is with only the truth mattering.

[joan1984]

  It is a good topic to discuss, and fascinating to contemplate, and then we get to the MONEY. There is no 'concensus' in science, when speaking beyond a theory, where opinions are welcomed, along with the facts behind opinions.

  Few argue not to be witnessing changes as to how our planet 'seems' today, as compared to whatever 'history' we may personally recall, or have recalled for us by those we trust and believe.

  Facts are found in polar icecap samples, cores taken in Greenland and other accessible locations, and analysis of such cores can help us all understand the changes and significant points provided by historical events.

  How much to pay to seek such 'facts', then how much to pay to 'interpret' the findings, and how much to believe the details of such findings enough to use such analyses to predict the future, is all subject to debate, and we spend lots on such items. To what end should we spend more?

  The folks doing the research would like much more spending. It is what they do! Spending less affects such scientists directly, and there are others affected by what we spend money on, and thus politicians must deal with lobbyists in this regard.

  TAXING individuals to "prevent" the future seems a fools game on it's face.
Carbon Credits seems a scheme for AlGore and others to get rich, and not much beyond that, other than the power associated with regulation/regulators and the natural lure of getting rich doing slick presentations, getting awards for caring... lol.

  The Future Is Now. TAXES for Now must be our discussion, with reduction of TAXES being the goal, and righting items where there is benefit now and in the foreseeable future, and foreseeable monetary advantage for all taxpayers.

  Where there is foreseeable monetary advantage for a local area, say saving recreational beachfronts in a particular City/State, using new infrastructure to ward off Ocean Level Rise in that City/State, then that should be a discussion for and about the taxpayers of that City/State. 

  Individuals who may benefit may elect to spend now to reap rewards later, and their spending/solutions may benefit society in the local area later, but the taxpayers need not be the ones funding every project. It should by Individuals who can see benefit to offset today's spending to them, directly... maybe the ability to attract more customers to their businesses, with hard numbers since they are footing the bills themselves, and demanding performance from the results of their investments... quite different than Government spending for the sake of getting reelected next November.

  Real facts, real spending by interested investors for profit, real discussion of how all these items affect the average citizen, all make lots of sense.

  Confiscation of wealth of you, or me, individuals trying to make a life better for our selves and our families, to somehow, hocus-pocus, keep distant island sea levels lower than they likely will be in 50 years, is wrong. Better those islanders plan to move their huts to higher ground, if they have no monetary benefit to fixing their own problems via self investment in infrastructure.

  Frankly, our Nation has bigger fish to fry.

  Urban decay and violence, overcrowding of near indigent people (fully financed by our Government = indigent) and moving those folks to less valuable real estate locations for their continued subsistence, other States or whatever may be the solutions so the cities now overrun may return to functional communities for those who are not indigent, or near indigent, may be a great start.

  Clear the way for future prosperity in the very near and near term, and tend to such dependent communities in a humane manner, just out in the boonies, where there is space to deal with the dependent's needs. Converting of the least desirable land areas, for such new community creation, understanding the nature of the place will all be government funded, may open up valuable space to those who can provide a sound tax base for our cities.

  Just an idea for thought...

[psiberzerker]

  Frankly, our Nation has bigger fish to fry.

Okay, I'm not going over the entire cliche ridden rationale, but I'll pick this one point:

1, it's not a Federal problem, it's Global, and therefore International.  Nobody expects America to fix it for the world, we're no longer the single greatest contributor (Behind both Brazil, and China) and we have to COOPERATE with the world, for the world.

2, We have the resources to deal with All of our problems.  A country that lets the roads go, to expand, and shore up the power grid is not an effective nation.  This goes against the "For the people" ideals we're founded on in the first place.  All the problems are problems we have to address as a nation.  However, we can't pick favorites.  A mother who favors one child, and neglects the others is a bad parent, right?

We can't ignore this, and we don't have to deal with it alone.  In fact, we couldn't even if the people in denial all of a sudden came onboard.  This is Humanity's problem.  The question is are you going to join the human race in dealing with it, or stand back and say it never happened?

[joan1984]

We can't ignore this, and we don't have to deal with it alone.  In fact, we couldn't even if the people in denial all of a sudden came onboard.  This is Humanity's problem.  The question is are you going to join the human race in dealing with it, or stand back and say it never happened?

  I will choose to work against efforts to alter the climate, as I don't see any upside to such schemes. We should look at how to best cope with foreseen issues on a Local and State basis. I agree this is not a Federal issue, but is very much a community issue, where items that impact the community bear review, discussion, and perhaps redress, not to return the status quo, but to minimize negative economic effects we believe may occur.

  Best done on a private basis, by those with a financial stake in the land or whatever may require remediation, or abandonment and retrenching in the case of the solution being 'higher ground', much as we handle flood plains today in any community where flooding has demonstrated as a problem for economic prosperity, and retaining a healthy tax base.

[Lois]

Why shouldn't we act collectively through our elected representatives?  I could not repair the street on my own, so how could I possibly address global warming on my own?  Or do only the rich get a voice?

Of course at this point it might be too late to do much to prevent it, but I still think we should do what we can.  At the very least we should work to mitigate the consequences of global warming.

[RopeFiend]

You asked for 'consensus', so I deliver.

I just know that the experts say global warming is happening and I know to trust expertise.

Yeah.  Experts.  If my dad had ignored the 'experts' at the American Heart Association, he might still be alive today.

If you look at the last graph I submitted from the UAH satellite, global COOLING is happening.  That's real data, not some worthless computer model.  I expect the trend to continue since we're in a weak La Nina and the sunspots are *gone*.

[_priapism]

Oday otnay upsetway Operay.  Eway eednay ishay echnicaltay
expertiseway.  Ustjay ogay alongway ithway itway.

[psiberzerker]

I will choose to work against efforts to alter the climate, as I don't see any upside to such schemes.

Okay, then what are you doing to stop it?  You're working against all efforts from professionals in the field, governments, and international cooperation here.

Good luck with that.