Climate Change(d)?

[TSwizzle]

There is nothing unusual going on with the climate. The claims of "unprecedented extreme weather events" is male bovine excrement put out by political hacks and climate activists like just stop oil and a few on here. These "unprecedented extreme weather events" are indeed precedented. CO2 does not control the earth's climate. It is a trace gas in the atmosphere that has very little impact on climate.

There is a bit of truth and fiction here. CO2 isn't a major component of the atmosphere. CO2 isn't a primary driver of the climate.

And yet you obsess about it. This needs to stop. You should have noticed that the "net zero" targets are being abandoned.

That is why it has taken a lot of it to shift the temperature higher. Which it has done in a mathematically predictable and proven way.

lol, no it hasn't.

Religion doesn't have math to back it up. You are on the dogma side of this disagreement.

lol. This is like a religionist trying to use science to describe miracles. You suck at math is what I say.

 

[Swammerdami]

In this context what does "imperceptible" mean?

It means the change in temperature is so sleight to be not noticeable.

Sleight of hand?

And you didn't answer any of my other questions. Too difficult?

 

[TSwizzle]

autocorrect got me again.

 

[Elixir]

There is nothing unusual going on with the climate.

There are prior examples of geologically abrupt mass extinctions, if that’s what you mean. Other than impacts and events like the Toba eruption, nothing as sudden as what is happening now, is shown in evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is that some people either don't understand science or "people believe what they want to believe and disregard the rest".

My idiot bro in law once told us, "I can't believe in climate change because I have grandchildren" I guess that helps him not feel guilty about all his travel by plane and driving a gas guzzling SUV.

Yup, this is a perfect illustration of the problem. They seem to be working on the notion that if enough people believe X that X will be the truth. Thus a belief in global warming is dangerous because it could cause warming.

And the left is by no means immune to this. Again and again I get predictions mistaken for desires. They think X is good. I say X will cause Y. I'm accused of supporting Y. No, I presented it as a reason X isn't good!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When it is impacting agricultural processes broadly, that is bad. We are observing shifts at the moment. USDA growing zones are definitely shifting. Weather patterns are adjusting and the temperatures rising in spite of la Nina, el Nino is troublesome. But it isn't causing mass migration. It isn't killing our grain production.

Yup. Half her snow peas produced zero peas before the warming temperatures killed them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The concept isn't complex. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more heat retention. We've dumped huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere faster than the environment can absorb it for 150 or so years. If we continue to dump more CO2 into the atmosphere, what is the basis for the Earth cooling?

This obsession with CO2 needs to stop.

You'll probably get your wish. When there's nobody left to obsess about it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is nothing unusual going on with the climate. The claims of "unprecedented extreme weather events" is male bovine excrement put out by political hacks and climate activists like just stop oil and a few on here. These "unprecedented extreme weather events" are indeed precedented. CO2 does not control the earth's climate. It is a trace gas in the atmosphere that has very little impact on climate. Earth's climate is variable and chaotic.

It really is a religion for you people. You even have a deity for it, CO2.

You have never responded to the fact that without the greenhouse effect we wouldn't be here. The blackbody temperature of Earth is well below freezing, we would snowball.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Earth's climate is variable and chaotic.

You keep repeating this, but we haven't observed "chaotic". We've seen a trend.

No. Earth's climate is very chaotic--when you look at a small enough scale you can't make any lasting predictions (what's the weather going to be on May 1st? Our best predictions are no better than chance.) It's fairly predictable when you look at a big enough scale (is the 10-year rolling average going to be higher 10 years from now than it is today? Virtually certain, and if it isn't we have bigger problems.) As with so many things there's a kernel of truth blown way out of proportion, a blanket denial goes against that kernel and thus will be dismissed as provably false.

 

[bilby]

No. Earth's climate is very chaotic--when you look at a small enough scale you can't make any lasting predictions (what's the weather going to be on May 1st? Our best predictions are no better than chance.)

It's slightly more interesting than that. At very long scales (decades or more) the climate is quite predictable, and at medium scales (from a few days up to a year or two) it is very unpredictable. But as you shrink the scale still further, it becomes very predictable again. The weather in ten minutes will be much the same as it is now; and with a fairly complex model, and lots of good observational data, forecasts can be very accurate out to two, three, or even four days ahead.

Not only that, but by comparing rival models (most of which are very good, but which use different inputs and different algorithms), you can estimate how good your forecast is - if a lot of models converge, your forecast might be very good out to two weeks; If they diverge, then you should only be confident about the next couple of days.

You can still achieve much better than chance forecasts, even in the highly unpredictable range, by just looking at history. What's the weather going to be like on May 1st? If you say "the same as May 1st last year", that's going to have a far better probability of being correct than just chance. It will often be wrong, but not as often as a coin-toss.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Earth's climate is variable and chaotic.

You keep repeating this, but we haven't observed "chaotic". We've seen a trend.

No. Earth's climate is very chaotic--when you look at a small enough scale you can't make any lasting predictions (what's the weather going to be on May 1st? Our best predictions are no better than chance.) It's fairly predictable when you look at a big enough scale (is the 10-year rolling average going to be higher 10 years from now than it is today? Virtually certain, and if it isn't we have bigger problems.) As with so many things there's a kernel of truth blown way out of proportion, a blanket denial goes against that kernel and thus will be dismissed as provably false.

Yes, thank you for that worthless pedanticism.

 

[scombrid]

Imperceptible? The plants in our garden have noticed. We switched crops to tropicals because we haven’t had a freeze in over ten years and we don’t get enough chill hours anymore for our plums and peaches to set fruit. Then there is the impact of elevated night humidity and temps on my early morning workouts. I certainly perceive a difference between 72F and saturated 78F. High wet bulb has a huge impact on athletic performance and safety at high levels of effort.

 

[TSwizzle]

A blast from the past as climate Czar John Kerry tells us the Arctic will have ice free summers



What a clown.

 

[DBT]

HIGHLIGHTS
Since satellite-based measurements began in the late 1970s, Arctic sea ice extent has decreased in all months and virtually all regions.

The September 2022 ice extent was 4.87 million square kilometers (1.88 million square miles), tied with 2010 for eleventh lowest in the satellite record. That's 1.54 million square kilometers (595,000 square miles) smaller than the 1981-2010 average—an area larger than Alaska.

The smallest daily extent of 2022 occurred on September 18, when the total ice extent bottomed out for the summer at 4.67 million square kilometers (1.8 million square miles).

Between 1979 and 2021, sea ice cover at the end of summer shrank by 13.0 percent per decade relative to the 1981–2010 average.
That's a loss of 31,100 square miles—an area the size of South Carolina—per year.

The ice that survives year-round is thinner and more fragile than it used to be. Old, thick ice made up a third of the Arctic Ocean ice pack at the winter maximum in March 1985. In March 2020, it accounted for less than 5%.

Climate Change: Arctic sea ice summer minimum

The amount of sea ice that survives the Arctic summer has declined by 13 percent per decade since the start of the 43-year satellite record.

www.climate.gov

 

[Swammerdami]

The problem is that some people either don't understand science or "people believe what they want to believe and disregard the rest".

My idiot bro in law once told us, "I can't believe in climate change because I have grandchildren" I guess that helps him not feel guilty about all his travel by plane and driving a gas guzzling SUV.

Yup, this is a perfect illustration of the problem. They seem to be working on the notion that if enough people believe X that X will be the truth.

I'll be condemned for saying so, but "idiot bro in law" is thinking rationally here!! He's not a scientist and doesn't want to be. He wants a good life for his grandchildren, and for himself wants to be content about his grandchildren's future. Kids are taught to believe in Sana Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and Heaven. Sometimes it's good to adhere to a fantasy over reality. I'd feel differently if "idiot bro in law" were a politician or a scientist or the key tutor to his grandchildren. As is, it sounds like he's self-aware enough to know his belief is emotional rather than scientific. I hope his subconscious takes over and urges him to vote rationally on Election Day, but other than that -- more power to him!

Posters at this message-board are mostly science-oriented people. It is curiosity -- a desire for almost-useless knowledge -- that motivates my own interest in climate change. The recent discovery that the Boltzmann equation can be rewritten to demonstrate exceptions to Navier-Stokes fluid dynamics seems even more fascinating, though more useless and with details beyond my ken.

The personal effect I can have on global warming is infinitesimal. My children are already concerned; my duty is to inspire them with optimism. Influential pundits have a duty to point their followers in the right direction, but am I influential? IIDB is my main venue of expression and, because I'm obnoxious, if I take a stance on an issue many of you will take the opposite stance out of spite!

I don't know southernhybrid's bro-in-law and there may be good arguments against him. But the viewpoint which is rational for society as a whole is not always best for an individual.

 

[Elixir]

if I take a stance on an issue many of you will take the opposite stance out of spite!

NO WE WON’T!

 

[southernhybrid]

The problem is that some people either don't understand science or "people believe what they want to believe and disregard the rest".

My idiot bro in law once told us, "I can't believe in climate change because I have grandchildren" I guess that helps him not feel guilty about all his travel by plane and driving a gas guzzling SUV.

Yup, this is a perfect illustration of the problem. They seem to be working on the notion that if enough people believe X that X will be the truth.

I'll be condemned for saying so, but "idiot bro in law" is thinking rationally here!! He's not a scientist and doesn't want to be. He wants a good life for his grandchildren, and for himself wants to be content about his grandchildren's future. Kids are taught to believe in Sana Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and Heaven. Sometimes it's good to adhere to a fantasy over reality. I'd feel differently if "idiot bro in law" were a politician or a scientist or the key tutor to his grandchildren. As is, it sounds like he's self-aware enough to know his belief is emotional rather than scientific. I hope his subconscious takes over and urges him to vote rationally on Election Day, but other than that -- more power to him!


I don't know southernhybrid's bro-in-law and there may be good arguments against him. But the viewpoint which is rational for society as a whole is not always best for an individual.

Considering he's a dentist who had to take a huge number of advanced science courses, he is or should be rather well educated in science. I think his undergraduate degree is in biology. He also voted for Trump and at least until a couple of weeks ago was still defending Trump's tariffs. Not sure about how he feels now that he's lost over a million bucks in the stock market. Mr. Sohy and I frequently say that he's proof that having an advanced degree doesn't necessarily equate with intelligence. All my bro in law has ever cared about is how much money he can hoard. He's a jerk and I've never seen him act rationally about anything. He lost a lot of my late in laws money by carelessly trading stocks from their account. He's an idiot, which is why we rarely have anything to do with him. I guess your comment made me want to vent about him. Sorry.

 

[Elixir]

Not sure about how he feels now that he's lost over a million bucks in the stock market.

He should have gotten most of it back by now, unless that million was a small fraction of its pre-idiot value, in which case - so what?

 

[Swammerdami]

... Mr. Sohy and I frequently say that he's proof that having an advanced degree doesn't necessarily equate with intelligence. All my bro in law has ever cared about is how much money he can hoard. He's a jerk and I've never seen him act rationally about anything. He lost a lot of my late in laws money by carelessly trading stocks from their account. He's an idiot, which is why we rarely have anything to do with him. I guess your comment made me want to vent about him. Sorry.

My fault. I reacted to (and defended) only a tiny tidbit of information. I should have guessed there was worse by your "idiot" designation!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Earth's climate is variable and chaotic.

You keep repeating this, but we haven't observed "chaotic". We've seen a trend.

No. Earth's climate is very chaotic--when you look at a small enough scale you can't make any lasting predictions (what's the weather going to be on May 1st? Our best predictions are no better than chance.) It's fairly predictable when you look at a big enough scale (is the 10-year rolling average going to be higher 10 years from now than it is today? Virtually certain, and if it isn't we have bigger problems.) As with so many things there's a kernel of truth blown way out of proportion, a blanket denial goes against that kernel and thus will be dismissed as provably false.

Yes, thank you for that worthless pedanticism.

It's not worthless.

The thing is so much right wing deception is based on things like this.