Climate Change Discussion

[Glacier]

Would also be interesting to see how much the UHI effect has had on average temps over the period of record. Likely the main driver of overnight temps warming at a faster rate when compared to daytime temps.

Actually, with warming due to GHGs, you would expect more than 100% of the warming to occur at night. On the moon you get temperatures of like 100 in the day and -100 at night. On earth you get temperatures of 20 in the day and 0 at night because of our greenhouse gasses.

As you add more GHGs, the night will go to 2 degrees and the day to 19...

[Abby_wx]

Interesting. If anthropogenic CO2 emissions were the independent variable, rhetorically, wouldn't warming be more uniform over the months? This lends to disproving anthropogenic contributions as needing a "climate emergency." Well, we are flirting with criminalizing dissent--wink, wink, Charlie Angus.

I think the climate is too chaotic for the warming to be uniform. Even if it started out uniform, something could happen like an ice sheet starts melting and throws an ocean current out of whack. Suddenly you're getting different SST temps (much like ENSO patterns) which would influence atmospheric temperature and moisture patterns on a seasonal basis.

[Abby_wx]

Would also be interesting to see how much the UHI effect has had on average temps over the period of record. Likely the main driver of overnight temps warming at a faster rate when compared to daytime temps.

I think it plays a small role, based on the studies I've read. They compared urban and rural stations and saw the warming signal was similar, except for a few outliers where UHI played an outsized effect.

Cliff Mass had a blog years ago where he covered this, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

[Glacier]

Only 2005 and 2015 had lower snowpack than this year...

cwhat12.png

chwasdfw.png

cwajt3.png

[tyweather]

Sea surface temperature research provides clear evidence of human-caused climate change

https://phys.org/news/2024-03-sea-surfa ... human.html

[tyweather]

It is hard to imagine how humans could be impacting the climate through use of fossil fuels but the cumulative impact is huge with greater and greater amounts used each year. This graphic from Visual Capitalist paints a pretty good picture at the staggering scale of annual production of fossil fuels, which when burned produces vast amounts of CO2, which warms the atmosphere, along with other pollutants as well which affect health. Basically large mountains of pollutants goes up into the atmosphere each year. The volume shown would be the equivalent volume of 5,190 Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption volumes each year.

[Glacier]

According to scientists, Penticton will be hotter than Tucson, AZ in just 26 years. I don't mean to sound like a climate change denier, but I am highly skeptical of such a claim. I also dispute any claims about less water. The Okanagan valley has been getting wetter over time, and the river flows have shown this...

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/04/03/ ... er-Future/

pentictonmean2.png

okriverstreamflow2b.png

[tyweather]

Less aerosols from China has led to heat waves in the NE Pacific https://phys.org/news/2024-05-north-pac ... osols.html

[Weather101]

Why do we even have a discussion about this? You don't need to believe in climate change; it doesn't change the fact that it's true—objective truth. Deny it all you want, but it is happening whether you want to lie to yourself or not.

[Weather101]

Sea surface temperature research provides clear evidence of human-caused climate change

https://phys.org/news/2024-03-sea-surfa ... human.html

If 97 engineers told you not to cross that bridge, but three random people said to do it because it's safe, whom are you going to believe? The people who built the bridge and have all the factual information about it, or the three random people who just don't believe in engineering?

The fact that scientists who study this and have been doing this their whole lives say climate change is real, then I'm not sure what else there is for people to argue about. Science will always prevail.

[Typeing3]

Why do we even have a discussion about this? You don't need to believe in climate change; it doesn't change the fact that it's true—objective truth. Deny it all you want, but it is happening whether you want to lie to yourself or not.

Climate change is real. Always has been -- nature is just like ridges and troughs in the jet stream, always in a state of flux.

The point of contention/discussion regarding climate change in the modern era that is most certainly up for debate, however, is to what extent it is influenced by anthropogenic activities -- is it 10%? 25%? 50%? 90%?

[Weather101]

Climate change is real. Always has been -- nature is just like ridges and troughs in the jet stream, always in a state of flux.

The point of contention/discussion regarding climate change in the modern era that is most certainly up for debate, however, is to what extent it is influenced by anthropogenic activities -- is it 10%? 25%? 50%? 90%?

You literally have members here saying it's a hoax and fake. But yes, I agree with you 100%.

[tyweather]

Crazy heat waves are popping up all over the world. We got ours in 2021 9f course and are mentioned in the article

https://phys.org/news/2024-11-unexplain ... globe.html

[Mattman]

Orange guy wins down south. Blue states see drought and wildfires mid winter. States with most climate change deniers see a very cold January and the red states see an unusual snowstorm. Every comment on X is now saying this single cold wave disproves climate change.

It's purely coincidental but it's funny how it has played out.

You’re in for a rough 4-8 years as I’m happy you nor other who think like you are no longer near the levers of power. Go ahead and bluster with passive-aggressive language of “denier” and continuing to refuse to listen to what the other side says.

It’s the revenge of the normies. We’re sick of meddlesome government, and meddlesome educated folk that advocate for punitive control of people’s lives as a way to control climate. You think that more control of people = controlling the weather, ultimately. How arrogant. You and some others strike me as one that agrees with the bozo eruption last year of Health Minister Mark Holland who chided Canadian families for taking road trips. Scratch beneath the surface of the AGW-is-catastrophic group there’s a strong antihuman undertone, as though it’s a sin against nature to procreate and then a sin compounded to take one’s offspring on a holiday. Holland intimated as much.

Us normies are also sick of the intellectual dishonesty. “Climate change” is a gloss applied to every disaster. No need to demonstrate how AGW is responsible, just merely throw it out there as a reason for LA’s fires, for example.

All of this demonstrates the reason for the growing institutional distrust, be it in climate science or medicine. It’s ideology possessed by people like you that are the cause of the distrust. It then comes across as self-righteousness indignation on your part when the normies push back, as they did in the US and will in Canada. The more you passive-aggressively slander and try and fear-monger, the stronger we’ll push back, the less we’ll listen to “experts.” Your words demonstrate why MAGA had a resurgence and why Canadians are flocking to Poilievre and giving the middle finger to green, meddling government.

Yeah, this is a rant. The other thread is dead, however. Moderators, I would be disappointed if you deleted Nito’s original post, others post about this, and my post. I would be more disappointed if you just deleted mine. Climate change discussions are linked to meteorology. But it’s the other side that made this political along with the pejoratives that go with it. You, Nito, responded with a politically loaded response to an observation that wasn’t political. Some normie, any normie, needs to stand up to this manipulative, dishonest ideology and question it. I’m not lambasting you personally, Nito, but I’m after the ideology that possess you and others. Stop chasing for straw men on X. The discussion us “deniers” want is adaptation vs. punitive, fear-based, redistributive measures. That’s a productive conversation. But I haven’t seen you other others here that are big into catastrophic AGW venture into that direction.

[Storm]

You’re in for a rough 4-8 years as I’m happy you nor other who think like you are no longer near the levers of power. Go ahead and bluster with passive-aggressive language of “denier” and continuing to refuse to listen to what the other side says.

It’s the revenge of the normies. We’re sick of meddlesome government, and meddlesome educated folk that advocate for punitive control of people’s lives as a way to control climate. You think that more control of people = controlling the weather, ultimately. How arrogant. You and some others strike me as one that agrees with the bozo eruption last year of Health Minister Mark Holland who chided Canadian families for taking road trips. Scratch beneath the surface of the AGW-is-catastrophic group there’s a strong antihuman undertone, as though it’s a sin against nature to procreate and then a sin compounded to take one’s offspring on a holiday. Holland intimated as much.

Us normies are also sick of the intellectual dishonesty. “Climate change” is a gloss applied to every disaster. No need to demonstrate how AGW is responsible, just merely throw it out there as a reason for LA’s fires, for example.

All of this demonstrates the reason for the growing institutional distrust, be it in climate science or medicine. It’s ideology possessed by people like you that are the cause of the distrust. It then comes across as self-righteousness indignation on your part when the normies push back, as they did in the US and will in Canada. The more you passive-aggressively slander and try and fear-monger, the stronger we’ll push back, the less we’ll listen to “experts.” Your words demonstrate why MAGA had a resurgence and why Canadians are flocking to Poilievre and giving the middle finger to green, meddling government.

Yeah, this is a rant. The other thread is dead, however. Moderators, I would be disappointed if you deleted Nito’s original post, others post about this, and my post. I would be more disappointed if you just deleted mine. Climate change discussions are linked to meteorology. But it’s the other side that made this political along with the pejoratives that go with it. You, Nito, responded with a politically loaded response to an observation that wasn’t political. Some normie, any normie, needs to stand up to this manipulative, dishonest ideology and question it. I’m not lambasting you personally, Nito, but I’m after the ideology that possess you and others. Stop chasing for straw men on X. The discussion us “deniers” want is adaptation vs. punitive, fear-based, redistributive measures. That’s a productive conversation. But I haven’t seen you other others here that are big into catastrophic AGW venture into that direction.

You need help.