Climate Change(d)?

[GenesisNemesis]

It doesn't apply to Santa Monica, which sits in a bubble where the climate never changes.

It is a catastrophic 77f in Santa Monica today.

So your little bubble world holds up for another day. Meanwhile, worldwide climate change is happening over many decades.

 

[DBT]

It doesn't apply to Santa Monica, which sits in a bubble where the climate never changes.

It is a catastrophic 77f in Santa Monica today.

So your little bubble world holds up for another day. Meanwhile, worldwide climate change is happening over many decades.

Lol, that’s the way climate change works fella. It changes over time and it is variable.

Climate change has always been happening, has anyone denied it? The issue now is our input, that our industrial/economic activity on a planetary scale is having an effect. That is what you conveniently ignore.

 

[TSwizzle]

It doesn't apply to Santa Monica, which sits in a bubble where the climate never changes.

It is a catastrophic 77f in Santa Monica today.

So your little bubble world holds up for another day. Meanwhile, worldwide climate change is happening over many decades.

Lol, that’s the way climate change works fella. It changes over time and it is variable.

Climate change has always been happening, has anyone denied it?

Certainly not I. But I am frequently called a “climate denier”.

The issue now is our input, that our industrial/economic activity on a planetary scale is having an effect. That is what you conveniently ignore.

I don’t ignore it but I do dismiss the claims of climate collapse, climate apocalypse, climate crisis etc etc etc.

 

[DBT]

It doesn't apply to Santa Monica, which sits in a bubble where the climate never changes.

It is a catastrophic 77f in Santa Monica today.

So your little bubble world holds up for another day. Meanwhile, worldwide climate change is happening over many decades.

Lol, that’s the way climate change works fella. It changes over time and it is variable.

Climate change has always been happening, has anyone denied it?

Certainly not I. But I am frequently called a “climate denier”.

The issue now is our input, that our industrial/economic activity on a planetary scale is having an effect. That is what you conveniently ignore.

I don’t ignore it but I do dismiss the claims of climate collapse, climate apocalypse, climate crisis etc etc etc.

What you say suggests that you acknowledge that human activity is a factor in climate change, just that our input is not enough to cause future problems.

Is that correct?

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.usgs.gov/programs/cmhrp/news/new-research-reveals-alarming-future-californias-coastline

We will be dead by 2100, but I do weep for the future, especially those who will be born in this century? Of course, what would scientists know about the impact of a rapidly changing climate. Rapid as in hundreds of years as opposed to hundreds of thousands of years.

California's stunning coastline, famous for its pristine beaches and breathtaking vistas, faces an uncertain future as new research estimates that between 24 to 75 percent of California's beaches could become completely eroded by the end of the century with no interventions. With a sea-level rise of one meter (~3 feet)—considered likely by 2100 by the State of California—a quarter of the state's coastline would see significant erosion where the beach would be completely drowned. A more extreme, low-probability rise of 3.0 meters could lead to the loss of up to three quarters of beaches.

The study, A model integrating satellite-derived shoreline observations for predicting fine-scale shoreline response to waves and sea-level rise across large coastal regions, applies advanced technology to estimate shoreline change, highlighting the potential impact of sea-level rise and other local processes on California's coastal landscapes. Led by a team of scientists from the USGS Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center and the University of South Wales, Sydney, the study aims to address the lack of comprehensive monitoring data for California's extensive coastline.

The researchers utilized observations of historical shoreline positions derived from satellite imagery instead of relying solely on traditional shoreline survey data, such as on-site GPS measurements or Lidar (Light Detection and Ranging) from aircraft. By combining these observations with data on waves, sea-level rise scenarios ranging from 0.25 to 3.0 meters, and other local factors, the team developed a sophisticated model to simulate shoreline change along the entire 1,760-kilometer coastline.

 

[TSwizzle]

lol, another rapture, doomsday prediction. Oh no, the end is nigh

You should change your name to “The Mail Man”. You never fail to deliver

It’s a catastrophic 80f in the Valley, oh the humanity!!

 

[DBT]

You didn't answer my question.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So who is excited for COP31?!!!! I know I am!!

It was subverted long, long ago. What you hear from them is very watered down compared to reality. And the science isn't settled on methane hydrates yet--they're completely omitted from the projections due to the lack of understanding. But the worst case estimates for methane hydrates are worse than the worst case on CO2.

But reality is outside right now. I'm hundreds of miles inland, tropical storms are news, not local. Might throw a few rain clouds our way, that's about it.

A few years back Hilary came in our general direction--not remotely a direct hit but the flooding cut off an entire community (summer homes only, so evacuation wasn't a big issue.) We had a trail called Trail Canyon. It ended up with a 20' deep canyon cut through the trail.

Rachel is outside now, it's been pouring for hours.

 

[TSwizzle]

It doesn't apply to Santa Monica, which sits in a bubble where the climate never changes.

It is a catastrophic 77f in Santa Monica today.

So your little bubble world holds up for another day. Meanwhile, worldwide climate change is happening over many decades.

Lol, that’s the way climate change works fella. It changes over time and it is variable.

Climate change has always been happening, has anyone denied it?

Certainly not I. But I am frequently called a “climate denier”.

The issue now is our input, that our industrial/economic activity on a planetary scale is having an effect. That is what you conveniently ignore.

I don’t ignore it but I do dismiss the claims of climate collapse, climate apocalypse, climate crisis etc etc etc.

What you say suggests that you acknowledge that human activity is a factor in climate change, just that our input is not enough to cause future problems.

Is that correct?

human activity has negligible impact on the climate. There is zero evidence for it.

You need to understand that the earth’s climate changes naturally and the earth’s climate is variable.

 

[Elixir]

You need to understand that the earth’s climate changes naturally

If you had any inkling WHY “earth’s climate changes naturally”, you might begin to understand humans’ impact.

 

[southernhybrid]

You didn't answer my question.

His replies are usually an Or telling us the temperature in Santa Monica, which has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[DBT]

It doesn't apply to Santa Monica, which sits in a bubble where the climate never changes.

It is a catastrophic 77f in Santa Monica today.

So your little bubble world holds up for another day. Meanwhile, worldwide climate change is happening over many decades.

Lol, that’s the way climate change works fella. It changes over time and it is variable.

Climate change has always been happening, has anyone denied it?

Certainly not I. But I am frequently called a “climate denier”.

The issue now is our input, that our industrial/economic activity on a planetary scale is having an effect. That is what you conveniently ignore.

I don’t ignore it but I do dismiss the claims of climate collapse, climate apocalypse, climate crisis etc etc etc.

What you say suggests that you acknowledge that human activity is a factor in climate change, just that our input is not enough to cause future problems.

Is that correct?

human activity has negligible impact on the climate. There is zero evidence for it.

You need to understand that the earth’s climate changes naturally and the earth’s climate is variable.

That is not what I need to know, but what you believe.

Meanwhile:

"Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences.

Since the mid-1800s, scientists have known that CO2 is one of the main greenhouse gases of importance to Earth’s energy balance. Direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere and in air trapped in ice show that atmospheric CO2 increased by 50% from 1800 to 2025. Measurements of different forms of carbon (isotopes, see Question 3) reveal that this increase is due to human activities. Other greenhouse gases (notably methane and nitrous oxide) are also increasing as a consequence of human activities. The observed global surface temperature rise since 1900 is consistent with detailed calculations of the impacts of the observed increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases (and other human-induced changes) on Earth’s energy balance and cannot be explained without considering human influences.

Different influences on climate have different signatures in climate records. These unique fingerprints are easier to see by probing beyond a single number (such as the average temperature of Earth’s surface), and by looking instead at the geographical and seasonal patterns of climate change. The observed patterns of surface warming, temperature changes through the atmosphere, increases in ocean heat content, increases in atmospheric moisture, sea level rise, and increased melting of land and sea ice also match the patterns scientists expect to see due to human activities (see Question 5).

The expected changes in climate are based on our understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat. Both this fundamental understanding of the physics of greenhouse gases and pattern-based fingerprint studies show that natural causes alone are inadequate to explain the recent observed changes in climate. Natural causes include variations in the Sun’s output and in Earth’s orbit around the Sun, volcanic eruptions, and internal fluctuations in the climate system (such as El Niño and La Niña). Calculations using climate models have been used to simulate what would have happened to global temperatures if only natural factors were influencing the climate system. These simulations yield little surface warming, or even a slight cooling, over the 20th century and into the 21st. Only when models include human influences on the composition of the atmosphere are the resulting temperature changes consistent with observed changes."

How do scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities? | Royal Society

How do scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities? Answer

royalsociety.org

 

[TSwizzle]

Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences.

No they don’t know. That’s why climate catastrophe is a religion.

Besides, the earth’s climate has been remarkably stable and well within natural variability.

It’s a catastrophic 66f today. I may have to wear a sweater today.

 

[pood]

On deaf Swizzle ears.

We have been over and over this with him. It is as pointless to try to educate him as it was to try to educate peacegirl.

One objection I have to the quoted piece above from @DBT is that the current climate change IS a result of natural causes, when we realize that humans are part of the natural world, not separate from it. But humans (being natural) have vastly speeded up the rate of climate change far beyond what has been found in the past in a natural world without humans. That is the whole point.

We have shown Swizzle the charts showing him the stunning spike in CO2 emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution, far beyond the normal historical pattern. He ignores it all and retreats to “sure, Jan” and . We, of course, have also shown him the scientific studies explaining this.

This is like trying to convince peacegirl that it is not possible for us to see the sun instantly even though she admits it takes light from the sun time to arrive at the eye. It’s a fool’s errand, but I understand why we all (myself included, of course) get sucked into these rabbit holes. We are simply stunned that some people can be so obtuse and perversely uneducable.

 

[DBT]

Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences.

No they don’t know. That’s why climate catastrophe is a religion.

Besides, the earth’s climate has been remarkably stable and well within natural variability.

It’s a catastrophic 66f today. I may have to wear a sweater today.

How our input into climate change has been examined and understood has been explained.

 

[Elixir]

No they don’t know. That’s why climate catastrophe is a religion.

Besides, the earth’s climate has been remarkably stable and well within natural variability.

What self-mockery!
“I know more than all the scientists! Natural variability!”
Like Donald, his leader, who knows more than all the generals. Just keep repeating - someone will bite.
Science rejection is a right wing religious doctrine. Brainworm Bobby, Bugeye Kash, Donny the Rapist Fraud, and Swiz all subscribe.

 

[pood]

Science rejection is a right wing religion.

Exactly, Trump supporters hate science in general because it disconfirms their right-wing religious beliefs.

 

[bilby]

human activity has negligible impact on the climate.

This is demonstrably untrue.

There is zero evidence for it.

There is mountains of evidence for it.

You need to understand that the earth’s climate changes naturally and the earth’s climate is variable.

You need to understand that literally nobody is arguing otherwise.

You also need to understand that the current rate of change vastly exceeds anything seen in Earth's history as a life-bearing planet, outside of mass extinction events; And that the only plausible explanation for the rapidity of the current change is the burning of fossil fuel by humans since the Industrial Revolution.

That you do not understand these things shows a remarkable resistance on your part to learning facts about reality. It's not like the evidence is hard to find. Or like the theoretical underpinning is complex.

If you burn fossil fuel, carbon that has been locked away underground for millions of years is released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat. We have burned a huge quantity of coal, oil, and gas. As a result, global average temperatures are rising rapidly - more rapidly than at any time in geological history (other than during mass extinction events).

That's it. What part of that do you dispute, and what is the contrary evidence? Be specific.

 

[Elixir]

human activity has negligible impact on the climate.

This is demonstrably untrue.

There is zero evidence for it.

There is mountains of evidence for it.

You need to understand that the earth’s climate changes naturally and the earth’s climate is variable.

You need to understand that literally nobody is arguing otherwise.

You also need to understand that the current rate of change vastly exceeds anything seen in Earth's history as a life-bearing planet, outside of mass extinction events; And that the only plausible explanation for the rapidity of the current change is the burning of fossil fuel by humans since the Industrial Revolution.

Thst you do not understand these things shows a remarkable resistance on your part to learning facts about reality. It's not like the evidence is hard to find. Or like the theoretical underpinning is complex.

If you burn fossil fuel, carbon that has been locked away underground for millions of years is released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat. We have burned a huge quantity of coal, oil, and gas. As a result, global average temperatures are rising rapidly - more rapidly than at any time in geological history (other than during mass extinction events).

That's it. What part of that do you dispute, and what is the contrary evidence? Be specific.

If Swiz “needed” to understand Any of that, he would be dead by now. Not only does he not “need” to understand, his lack of understanding is a utilitarian feature of his worldview.
Asking what he disputes is like asking me what I dispute about multiverse theory. I don’t know, but I I don’t like it. (At least this version of me doesn’t)
And obviously, if “contrary evidence” to anthropogenic global warming existed, the anti-climate changes blowhards like Swiz would be flaunting it. The best they can do is recite Santa Monica weather reports.

 

[TSwizzle]

Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences.

No they don’t know. That’s why climate catastrophe is a religion.

Besides, the earth’s climate has been remarkably stable and well within natural variability.

It’s a catastrophic 66f today. I may have to wear a sweater today.

How our input into climate change has been examined and understood has been explained.

lol. It really is a religion for you.

You have zero evidence that the climate has changed in any measurable way due to human activity. There has been an imperceptible increase in global average temperature (a meaningless metric) and everything else presented are dubious studies that “suggest” we are on the brink of climate apocalypse.

I just can’t take you seriously fella. It’s like talking to a flat earther.