Climate Change Discussion

[Monty]

It would be interesting to hear more on this subject. Is it entirely due to CO2, or are there another factors at play (what)?

I remember all of the talk about a cold period beginning around 2017... +/- two years as the margin of error, if I recall correctly. Well, it's been three years and we're at the bottom of the solar cycle... so this cold must be really taking its time.

The low solar equals high latitude blocking theory certainly fell flat on its face this season. Blocking has been almost non existent this winter. And the stratospheric PV has been on steroids.

[Abby_wx]

I agree with you on this for a couple of reasons, and similar to you I do believe climate is changing I am just not convinced CO2 is THE reason

first: historically we've had way warmer periods that weren't tied to CO2 emissions, this is from the University of Oslo department of Geosciences

Unfortunately that graph is for a single location, so it tells us nothing about the temperature around here during the time periods indicated.

For example, most contemporary research seems to refute the idea that the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomena. The bulk of evidence points to current global temperatures being the warmest in the past 2000 years.


https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/07/2 ... at-werent/
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... arm_Period
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 145919.htm


Agree with the rest of your post, though.

[moonshadow0825]

Unfortunately that graph is for a single location, so it tells us nothing about the temperature around here during the time periods indicated.

For example, most contemporary research seems to refute the idea that the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomena. The bulk of evidence points to current global temperatures being the warmest in the past 2000 years.


https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/07/2 ... at-werent/
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... arm_Period
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 45919.htmI


Agree with the rest of your post, though.

thanks and thanks as well for those links, I would have been nice to be able to read the full paper from research gate as the abstract was interesting.

I agree with you that the bulk of the work on the Medieval Climate Anomaly (apparently that's the new term ) is limited to areas with civilizations that routinely recorded climate data such as Northern Europe and China and may not apply elsewhere. Unfortunately the rest has to be done by proxy which then invites interpretation of results .

I think the real issue is climate science is relatively new and cannot be considered "settled". a quick Google search "medieval warm period (insert location)", like the CO2 search, brings up pages of scientific articles that contradict each other, almost all of which are peer reviewed.

for example, looking for research on a warm period in the southern hemisphere I found in quick succession I found an article that claimed it didn't exist
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/magazine/2 ... ifferences

and another that said it did in the Western Antarctic but less obviously in the Eastern portions
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8219303190

both papers about Antarctica published and peer reviewed yet both papers coming to completely different conclusions.

There was a 3rd paper focused on the southern hemisphere that claimed warming could be found globally at higher elevations and inland locations but that coastal locations may have cooled because of an upswell of deep water

[Glacier]

"Being a skeptic isn’t hard. Being a consistent skeptic is really hard."
- Cameron Bertuzzi

[Glacier]

New climate report from the Okanagan.

okreport.png

They claim that the summer is the driest season of the year!

LOL!!!!!

Pentictondailyprecip.png

[Forrest Gump]

Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All
Front Cover
Michael Shellenberger
HarperCollins, Jun. 30, 2020 - Science - 432 pages
4 Reviews
Climate change is real but it’s not the end of the world. It is not even our most serious environmental problem.

Michael Shellenberger has been fighting for a greener planet for decades. He helped save the world’s last unprotected redwoods. He co-created the predecessor to today’s Green New Deal. And he led a successful effort by climate scientists and activists to keep nuclear plants operating, preventing a spike of emissions.

But in 2019, as some claimed “billions of people are going to die,” contributing to rising anxiety, including among adolescents, Shellenberger decided that, as a lifelong environmental activist, leading energy expert, and father of a teenage daughter, he needed to speak out to separate science from fiction.

Despite decades of news media attention, many remain ignorant of basic facts. Carbon emissions peaked and have been declining in most developed nations for over a decade. Deaths from extreme weather, even in poor nations, declined 80 percent over the last four decades. And the risk of Earth warming to very high temperatures is increasingly unlikely thanks to slowing population growth and abundant natural gas.

Curiously, the people who are the most alarmist about the problems also tend to oppose the obvious solutions.

What’s really behind the rise of apocalyptic environmentalism? There are powerful financial interests. There are desires for status and power. But most of all there is a desire among supposedly secular people for transcendence. This spiritual impulse can be natural and healthy. But in preaching fear without love, and guilt without redemption, the new religion is failing to satisfy our deepest psychological and existential needs.

[PortKells]

That's a nice sounding story Gump. I wish it were true. These fires, weather patterns, hurricane seasons and extremely low arctic sea ice are just a few examples of why its wrong. How much worse can it get before we start to take it as seriously as it clearly is? I mean, we've only warmed up a degree and a bit globally. What's it going to look like at 2 degrees? 3 degrees? What's it going to look like as things accelerate further, due to positive feedback loops like arctic methane releases? What would it take to convince you guys?

[AbbyJr]

You don't need too see the future too pick up a pattern. It's like having a bleeding hand and pretending it's fine and not happening but that's beside the point. Even if the earth goes back into a cold cycle it won't be in our lifetime anyways so it really is a invalid point since we won't experience it. I'm simply talking about how our snowfalls per year have been undercut from the 50s and 60s. A single degree of warmth can take us from having a snowfall too a slop fest or just straight rain and you been seeing that the past decade. I really don't see us having top tier cold like the 50s and 60s let alone snowfall. I know you love cold and snow so you get passionate which is great so hopefully we see a decent winter.

I don't think its an invalid point to say that we can not know with certainty the future of the climate. My point is that its silly to say that it the top tier cold experienced in the 50s and 60s will never happen again in our lifetime simply on the basis that the earth is warming. You go on to say that even if the earth goes back into a cold cycle, it won't be in our lifetime. But you know this how? If the earth does goes back into a cold cycle, which you state is a possibility, then who's to say it won't get as cold as the 50's or 60's? I'm not saying it will, but rather that making such a statement with so much certainty seems rather bold. Certainly not a statement I'd be comfortable making myself. But you see, this is my problem with the mainstream man made climate change theory. They talk as if the climate doesn't go in cycles but rather it was one way and then mankind came along and caused it to change in such a way so as to cause catastrophic effects. To clarify, I'm not saying you believe man made climate change is catastrophic. However, thats the mainstream belief that I firmly reject.

By the way, I'm sorry if my comments earlier came across as insulting. I did not intend to be insulting in any way, shape, or form.

[Ovonucks]

I don't think its an invalid point to say that we can not know with certainty the future of the climate. My point is that its silly to say that it the top tier cold experienced in the 50s and 60s will never happen again in our lifetime simply on the basis that the earth is warming. You go on to say that even if the earth goes back into a cold cycle, it won't be in our lifetime. But you know this how? If the earth does goes back into a cold cycle, which you state is a possibility, then who's to say it won't get as cold as the 50's or 60's? I'm not saying it will, but rather that making such a statement with so much certainty seems rather bold. Certainly not a statement I'd be comfortable making myself. But you see, this is my problem with the mainstream man made climate change theory. They talk as if the climate doesn't go in cycles but rather it was one way and then mankind came along and caused it to change in such a way so as to cause catastrophic effects. To clarify, I'm not saying you believe man made climate change is catastrophic. However, thats the mainstream belief that I firmly reject.

By the way, I'm sorry if my comments earlier came across as insulting. I did not intend to be insulting in any way, shape, or form.

Literally anyone with a brain (I'm assuming you have one of those) knows that us humans have had a huge impact on the climate. Anyone with a brain (again, assuming you have one) knows that the Earth's climate goes in cycles. I've given you resources in the past that confirm that the crisis we are in his man made. I'm assuming you never read those because it didn't fit your view point. I don't understand how someone on a weather forum could be so dense to this issue. I want to post on here a lot more, but seems like any time I log in John is posing some ridiculous political thing or you're denying man has anything to do with climate change. Makes it so hard to post here.

[AbbyJr]

Literally anyone with a brain (I'm assuming you have one of those) knows that us humans have had a huge impact on the climate. Anyone with a brain (again, assuming you have one) knows that the Earth's climate goes in cycles. I've given you resources in the past that confirm that the crisis we are in his man made. I'm assuming you never read those because it didn't fit your view point. I don't understand how someone on a weather forum could be so dense to this issue. I want to post on here a lot more, but seems like any time I log in John is posing some ridiculous political thing or you're denying man has anything to do with climate change. Makes it so hard to post here.

Moderators, please move these discussions to the climate change thread. I do apologize that we ended up debating it here. That was my fault.

Well climate change alarmists have had many failed prophecies in the past. My main argument is that its not settled science because not every scientist agrees. Both Dr. Patrick Moore and Joe Bastardi disagree with the man made climate notion. There seems to be an active force trying to silence the scientists who oppose the mainstream man made climate change theory, which is ridiculous. I recall there was a debate scheduled between multiple scientists on both sides but the protestors on the man made climate change side stopped it. But why? Why not allow debate? All the media ever presents is the man made apocalyptic climate change notion. But what about the scientists that disagree with it?

I do find your statement that the earth's climate goes in cycles and us humans have a huge impact to be rather strange. Are you saying man is the main reason the earth's climate goes in cycles? If so, than thats probably one of the most bizarre claims I've heard.

We can agree to disagree here. I would rather not get into an unproductive argument on this forum.

[Ovonucks]

Moderators, please move these discussions to the climate change thread. I do apologize that we ended up debating it here. That was my fault.

Well climate change alarmists have had many failed prophecies in the past. My main argument is that its not settled science because not every scientist agrees. Both Dr. Patrick Moore and Joe Bastardi disagree with the man made climate notion. There seems to be an active force trying to silence the scientists who oppose the mainstream man made climate change theory, which is ridiculous. I recall there was a debate scheduled between multiple scientists on both sides but the protestors on the man made climate change side stopped it. But why? Why not allow debate? All the media ever presents is the man made apocalyptic climate change notion. But what about the scientists that disagree with it?

I do find your statement that the earth's climate goes in cycles and us humans have a huge impact to be rather strange. Are you saying man is the main reason the earth's climate goes in cycles? If so, than thats probably one of the most bizarre claims I've heard.

We can agree to disagree here. I would rather not get into an unproductive argument on this forum.

This will be last post on this today, just wanted to clarify how you took my statement. I didn't say we are the cause of the warming cycles. Earth's climate throughout history goes through warming and cooling. Fact. Humans are the main cause of this current RAPID increase. This is the fastest the earth has warmed in thousands of year. Also fact.

[Weather101]

I don't think its an invalid point to say that we can not know with certainty the future of the climate. My point is that its silly to say that it the top tier cold experienced in the 50s and 60s will never happen again in our lifetime simply on the basis that the earth is warming. You go on to say that even if the earth goes back into a cold cycle, it won't be in our lifetime. But you know this how? If the earth does goes back into a cold cycle, which you state is a possibility, then who's to say it won't get as cold as the 50's or 60's? I'm not saying it will, but rather that making such a statement with so much certainty seems rather bold. Certainly not a statement I'd be comfortable making myself. But you see, this is my problem with the mainstream man made climate change theory. They talk as if the climate doesn't go in cycles but rather it was one way and then mankind came along and caused it to change in such a way so as to cause catastrophic effects. To clarify, I'm not saying you believe man made climate change is catastrophic. However, thats the mainstream belief that I firmly reject.

By the way, I'm sorry if my comments earlier came across as insulting. I did not intend to be insulting in any way, shape, or form.

Dude this isn't even difficult to understand lol it's one thing to be passionate but another to turn a blind eye too a pattern. I'm not sure how long you are thinking you might live for but by 2050 scientists have the climate being even warmer then it is today. That's 30 years from now which means our winters will also be warmer. So even if your age 25 your going to be around 55, By 2070 it's predicted 3 billion people will be living in places with "near un-liveable" temperatures. A lot of people will be living with a average temp of 29c with the climate being even more hotter. So yes in our lifetime we will not see a cooling cycle of our planet. You keep saying how do I know this ? It's called science and just because you want too have false hope and close your eyes doesn't mean it will change anything. It's like walking into a store and asking what's the price of the TV and they say 3000 dollars ? Are you going too say no not true? Of course not because it says right there...
I'm not saying anything about man made or not I'm simply stating the earth is warming and that isn't going too stop anytime soon. The snowfalls keep going down and yeah there is going too be years we see more snow then others, We tend to have a week to cash in then it's back too rain but the overall trend is in the stats. We are not going too see cold like the 50s and 60s so you really need to stop giving into false hope.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... t-52543589

[wetcoast91]

Doing a MSC in Atmospheric Science years ago saw me conduct numerous projects (experiments) in the field as it pertains to the influence of man made CO2 and CH4 emissions and climate change.

Yes there are what I now deem to be external factors within and outside the atmosphere. Overall...the one constant is that humans are having a major impact on the climate and the outlook is one that sees a warming climate in the poles.

[AbbyJr]

Dude this isn't even difficult to understand lol it's one thing to be passionate but another to turn a blind eye too a pattern. I'm not sure how long you are thinking you might live for but by 2050 scientists have the climate being even warmer then it is today. That's 30 years from now which means our winters will also be warmer. So even if your age 25 your going to be around 55, By 2070 it's predicted 3 billion people will be living in places with "near un-liveable" temperatures. A lot of people will be living with a average temp of 29c with the climate being even more hotter. So yes in our lifetime we will not see a cooling cycle of our planet. You keep saying how do I know this ? It's called science and just because you want too have false hope and close your eyes doesn't mean it will change anything. It's like walking into a store and asking what's the price of the TV and they say 3000 dollars ? Are you going too say no not true? Of course not because it says right there...
I'm not saying anything about man made or not I'm simply stating the earth is warming and that isn't going too stop anytime soon. The snowfalls keep going down and yeah there is going too be years we see more snow then others, We tend to have a week to cash in then it's back too rain but the overall trend is in the stats. We are not going too see cold like the 50s and 60s so you really need to stop giving into false hope.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... t-52543589

I'm not reading that source because it's from the media. Send me a link to an actual study done by scientists and I'll read it.

[Weather101]

I'm not reading that source because it's from the media. Send me a link to an actual study done by scientists and I'll read it.

Dude I can send you 100 studies done by scientists your still not going too care ? Let alone believe it so I'm not wasting my time. Your just going too put your naive blinders on it's pretty ridiculous.