The Delusion of Climate Change

a reply to: Krazysh0t

All of your links came up behind a paywall... I have access to IEEE, but not others. From the abstracts alone, here are my impressions:

1. Quite possible there is a link. The urban island effect, especially on temperature sensors that have been overtaken by commercial expansion, is a major source of the higher recorded temperatures IMO. That is one reason why I do not fully accept the reported increases in global average temperature. The others are: lack of long-term consistent data, primarily in uninhabited/remote/undeveloped areas; scale of reported temperature increases compared to scale of 'normal' temperature fluctuations. In summer, it is also almost self-evident that higher temperatures would lead to increased power usage. Not so sure the same could be said during the wintertime.

2. Interesting proposal. I know both the recent California drought and the extreme winter cold in the Deep South are a result of a drastically changed Jet Stream trajectory. It's no stretch of the imagination to believe that other droughts (like the one we are in right now) are also connected. I am still not convinced what has caused this shift, but I have heard it is caused by volcanic activity in the South Pacific.

3. I was actually able to access this one at work. Somewhat inconsistent on a few points, but there is a general trend. I noticed, however, that the "low Ph" was using 1100 ppm CO2... that's a far cry from what we have today. If we reached 1000 ppm in a short time (say a decade or two), I would start to become concerned.

4. Sorry, but the abstract on this one read biased to me. Perhaps the article itself isn't, but I have no way to verify that.

That is one of the biggest political slam dunks in favor of Climate Change,

Nah, it just means Exxon is as bad as Jim Hansen. I try to ignore them both.

The PROBLEM is that many of the deniers cannot separate a science discussion from a political one when it comes to this topic.

Nor can many of the supporters.

It's human nature to focus on the good of one's 'side' of a debate and the bad on the opposing 'side.' But the truth is that both sides typically use similar tactics and have similar shortcomings. May we someday rise above our nature in that respect.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Interesting proposal. I know both the recent California drought and the extreme winter cold in the Deep South are a result of a drastically changed Jet Stream trajectory.

The locations of the polar jet streams (which I assume you are talking about) are determined by the interface between polar (cool) air masses and temperate (warmer) air masses. The jet stream is a result of climate and weather, not a cause.

www.weatherquestions.com...

a reply to: Phage

Very well. Allow me to restate.

There is an observable connection between the Jet Stream and some of the weather anomalies in the mainland US.

I still don't know the cause.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
As far as "knowing" the cause, I suppose that is a matter of degree. However there is very much evidence which shows what determines the location of a jet stream. It would appear that the location of the jet stream is primarily dependant upon temperature variation between large air masses. Since the northern polar jet stream seems to be demonstrating recent "unusual" characteristics and since computer models and the physics which drive those models predicts this sort of thing and observations indicate that the world is warming...

Is it unreasonable to think that the observed warming correlating to modeled behavior imply that the behavior of the jet stream is due to warming? While it can't be "known", it sure as hell can be indicated. Strongly so.

There's a lot of reasons for climate change but i very well doubt its due to flatulating cows as spoken by the dishonest words of Gore himself. I suppose these people will come up with a 10001 reasons as to why global warming is taking place which to me isn't really an issue at all.

originally posted by: rexsblues
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No my OP is arguing against the liberal position that something can be done about it. I've mentioned 3 or 4 seperate times now that I'm not denying climate change is real.

6.5 Billion, is a pretty good estimate of the number of people who can't actually comprehend the nature of the subject or could care less, thus the point of the OP.

So AGAIN...what are you advocating that's remotely in the realm of possibility????? What is your position? What are you defending?

I'm not even going to expect a mattered response, but try debating my point this time, if you can.

So your thread is just a bunch of negativeness, "Guys don't worry about Climate Change because we can't fix it and there is no point in trying!"

The only delusion in this thread belongs to the people who are too stupid to acknowledge overwhelming scientific consensus.

a reply to: Dr X

Guess what? Stupid is running the world now, the prez elect is a denier about the changing climate. So, it is hopeless.

a reply to: Phage

I do know the following, Phage:

• The direction of the Jet Stream has changed across North America in the last decade.
  
• Colder air is somehow being funneled from the Arctic into the Eastern half of the US.
  
• Warmer air is being trapped in the Southwestern US.
  
• Pacific storms which used to bring snow to the Sierra Nevada are instead moving north and missing California.
  
• This change is sporadic. The variation was not as severe last winter.
  
• Average temperatures in my area were below normal for the last few years... as tracked by NOAA, reported by Weather Underground, and analyzed by me personally.

I also know (thanks to a conversation with you a few years back) that the Bering current has warmed, contributing to Arctic melt. This coincides with the new location of the Jet Stream in the Pacific. I fail to see any reasonable cause and effect between this general phenomenon and carbon dioxide levels in the range we see them. If one exists, I would be amazed that the pop-sci alarmists haven't publicized it 24/7.

It is very easy to look at a variation and say "Look! There's proof of Global Warming!" It's more difficult to determine the mechanism by which it can be attributable to Global Warming.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: rexsblues
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No my OP is arguing against the liberal position that something can be done about it. I've mentioned 3 or 4 seperate times now that I'm not denying climate change is real.

6.5 Billion, is a pretty good estimate of the number of people who can't actually comprehend the nature of the subject or could care less, thus the point of the OP.

So AGAIN...what are you advocating that's remotely in the realm of possibility????? What is your position? What are you defending?

I'm not even going to expect a mattered response, but try debating my point this time, if you can.

So your thread is just a bunch of negativeness, "Guys don't worry about Climate Change because we can't fix it and there is no point in trying!"

Now you get it.

a reply to: rexsblues
So basically you are worse than a denier. You are short changing humanity's ingenuity. Still have your head in the sand though. Just for different reasons than I originally assumed.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No my heads just closer to the ground, you need to work on getting yours out of the sky.

I am not an expert, but it hard to deny the climate change due to human activities. What bothers me most at the moment, is reduction of species of some animals, they suffer because of us and can disappear soon. This reduction is catastrophic ( according to this source ), we can lose giraffes and grey parrots in the closest future.

rexsblues:

'Climate Change' is in fact 'Human Climate Change'. Which is quite frankly how the issue should be termed, but that in itself is an admission to the real, blasphemously unmentionable problem of overpopulation.

There is already a term which you could have used to indicate you know what you are talking about, and it is 'Anthropogenic Climate Change'. I think you should google it and then you can truthfully say you have done some research on the subject.

...overpopulation is a very real problem...

Indeed it is, and it makes climate change even more disastrous. It is a proven fact, obviously not to you, but that's irrelevant, that man's industrial activities over the last 300 years have contributed to a destabilising effect upon the world's temperate climate zones. Climate change is not something happening right now, it is something we are heading into. What we are experiencing globally right now is climate disruption, which is the precursor to climate change.

The many variables of dynamics in play which determine the type of climate zones around the planet are intensifying in their effects due to the 'greenhouse' gases and the toxic pollutants we are loading, and have loaded into the atmosphere and across the land masses and into the seas and oceans. We are contributing into making our habitats somewhat uncomfortable in which to live. Not only are we making it uncomfortable for our own species, but we are making them deadly to other species as well.

Here, take a look at this, it is happening right now, and it is man's industrial activities to blame...

www.news.com.au...

...now by all means disagree, pretend it is not happening if you want, but loading the atmosphere with greenhouse gases is pollution. Climate disruption which will eventually lead to a climate change is down to us polluting. Some climate scientists now claim that we have passed a Rubicon in which we can act to inhibit the effects our polluting is bringing about. Self-feeding loops are at play now, and it is out of our hands. We can't even do anything to lessen the effects and the impact they will have. All we can do is prepare for them(if we have the will to do so) , and hope they are not as bad as what is predicted?

Now here is the real issue. The climate changes all the time. It is phasal in its intensity, but tends to return to stability when the dynamics settle down, for instance, a passing storm, even a hurricane or a typhoon. These are short-lived events and once they pass things settle back into a stability, helping to maintain our environments comfortable to live in. The problem with anthropogenic loadings is that they disrupt the dynamics, intensify them, and aid them into lasting longer.

You know damn well governments are not going to do anything genuine about CO2 emissions, apart from a few token gestures to appease the public. Politicians dare not place restrictions on economies, industries will be allowed to continue loading their pollutants into the environment, so nothing is really going to be done...and that is the issue.

Of course, you are not going to see a global climate change, you will see a system of staggered changes over a period of time, and they won't happen in the same places all the time either. We are very susceptible to rapid changes in the climate, we can handle slow gradual change far better, but when it hits suddenly and with ferocity, people die. Of course, we can adapt, but adaptation is not something everyone will be able to do. When climate disruption begins to force the issue, people are going to migrate to where the climate is stable and temperate, and that brings about conflict.

There are so many things to consider on how climate disruption is going to affect our traditional habitats, and how it is going to force people to act and behave, that the climate is actually the least of our immediate concern. The damage is going to occur to human relations and societal convictions long before the climate overtakes us. Fact is, every aspect of human life and endeavour is in a complete and total mess, and climate is just another of the issues that is going to hit us...whether you believe it or not.

I heard that if you shrunk the earth to the size of a billiard ball, it would be smoother than one.

The earth is a big place.

I tend to stress, with french people, that american culture puts more focus on solutions than on "Blame".

But this is one subject that escapes that rule. Jeezus people - this is happening. Whose fault it is is irrelevant. The reality of now is here. Who the # cares who or what caused it??? We must face reality, period!

But this sentiment will be ignored for the very profitable arguments, and separating quality they have, in terms of the american public... while some of the world prepares and adapts, y'all will be busy arguing about blame...

This is a good interview with Judith Curry dealing with the models

I can't figure who or which is more or less delusional or not...

...Those who seek infinite growth in a finite space?.

...Those who don't consider polluting or damaging the space we occupy until the damage has already been done?.

I do know though, that a lot of people have a lot to say about things they know little about. And when someone who possesses more knowledge about a certain thing than most, they are disregarded out of what mostly amounts to ignorance and denial.

Whatever...

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
I heard that if you shrunk the earth to the size of a billiard ball, it would be smoother than one.

The earth is a big place.

And our lives depend upon a microscopically thin film covering that billiard ball. The Earth's biosphere is extremely vulnerable. If the magnetosphere shuts down, that thin film would be blown away and Earth would become a second Mars. If too much carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, the Earth would heat up and become a second Venus. These are facts. The details are subject to debate, but Earth has been getting warmer while the Malankovitch cycle says it should be cooling.