|
|
Post by Hiromant on May 10, 2019 1:25:49 GMT -5
I'll throw in a different one for shits and giggles about the latest hysteria: the impending mass extinction of plants and animals!!This alarmist song and dance has been going on since the 70s as well when scientists claimed that up to 80% of species would be extinct by 1995. Oops, didn't happen. Let's just repeat the crisis every decade and keep asking for more money. Sound familiar? The article also has a nice image to convey an inconvenient fact to alarmists yet again: despite your 1800-page word salad studies and wildly inaccurate computer models, nothing environmentally catastrophic is or has been happening for the past 50 years. Quit your jobs, you're incompetent. |
|
|
|
Post by knot on May 10, 2019 1:47:15 GMT -5
urania93 Stellar scientific effort, but you've also admitted that Co2 (I spell it that way because it looks nicer), is just one of myriads, more prominent factors in the driving of climate—that's a shot in the foot. The sun is a factor of much greater prominence than Co2 will ever be. I shan't argue with your physics owing to my relative lack of expertise, but you've mentioned that sun-spot activity is lower nowadays—and it is, indeed. Do you know what else is lower nowadays? The midlatitudinal temperature, especially that of Australia and the upper Southern Ocean regional (I choose these regions of the world because I know them well); no matter how much the BOM and NOAA homogenise the datasets, the raw data will always prevail—and what does the raw, unaltered data conclude? That the climate is changing rapidly, but now in quite the opposite direction from the last few dacades; we are entering the early stage(s) of the grand solar minimum. We see that even in the raw datasets, the Arctic and the Scandinavian Peninsular are warming...yet, the lower latitudes are cooling. This is a common lead-up pattern to previous ice ages, which is now repeating itself—this is why the Arctic ice is melting, and the northernmost reaches of the world are warming— not because of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on May 10, 2019 3:36:43 GMT -5
knot, my point in this thread is just that it is too semplicistic to explain all the climate change with a single cause. There are evidently several actors participating to it, no one with a minimum of brain would deny it. Also to use the term driving force sounds too simplicistic, because it makes it sound like a single event triggered a change from a previously stable situation, which is evidently false too. There are many actors involved, at variable extents depending on the period, whose total effect is not simply a sum of the parts but the result of complex mechanisms. What current science says and on which there is general consensus is that human activities are among the causes of the current climate change, and that their contribution is not negligible at all. If you want to focus on CO 2, the extra amount provided by human activities evidently had a measurable impact on climate, which seems likely to increase in the future as carbon dioxide & co concentration is very likely to keep increasing as well. In other words, if the carbon dioxide levels in the last century didn't increase, the climate would be a little different from the current one (from regional to global scale). How this combines with the other factors involved, and how the system will evolve in the future are the main sectors of study now, and so also the ones on which some controversities can arise. Personally, I find the general frame of this problem convincing enough to make me think that it should not be ignored and that it is important to keep monitor the situation and to study how climate change work. Also to be aware that human activities do have large scale effects is important.
|
|
|
|
Post by nei on May 10, 2019 8:59:08 GMT -5
I, Hiromant, Beercules, Adaminaby Strangler, nor Wildcat never said greenhouse gases don't exist. you're all arguing their effect is non-existent, or at least really weak. Definitely remember some of you saying as much. If that's not what you're arguing, what is it actually? Seems like you could have 3 or so "skeptic" positions: 1) The greenhouse effect is so small any alteration humans can do to greenhouse concentration will have negligible consequence. Literally a "denier" position, and imo a stupid crank idea 2) The greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide as known from radiative physics is roughly correct, but since global warming forecasts are from mostly from an increase in water vapor, the climate models forecasting the changes or effects of a water vapor increase are incorrect. For example, Lindzen claims increasing water vapor will also make more clouds that reflect the sun's radiation, leading to smaller global warming than otherwise. This seems perfectly reasonable, but no one here is qualified to gauge the accuracy of water vapor feedback in climate models, or which amount of water vapor impact is correct. Can make some educated guesses, but picking the "little global warming model" is just cherrypicking. that was a typo; I fixed it. Should have written "century or a bit more". It is actually really variable, but the mean is what matters, not an indidivdual molecule. |
|
|
|
Post by nei on May 10, 2019 9:20:47 GMT -5
I'll throw in a different one for shits and giggles about the latest hysteria: the impending mass extinction of plants and animals!!This alarmist song and dance has been going on since the 70s as well when scientists claimed that up to 80% of species would be extinct by 1995. Oops, didn't happen. Let's just repeat the crisis every decade and keep asking for more money. Sound familiar? The article also has a nice image to convey an inconvenient fact to alarmists yet again: despite your 1800-page word salad studies and wildly inaccurate computer models, nothing environmentally catastrophic is or has been happening for the past 50 years. Quit your jobs, you're incompetent.instead of cherrypicking the loudest voices you can find, can you quote actual science? Everytime people post technical stuff you deflect with random nonsense. For example, climate models were wrong. Here's Jim Hansen's predictions in 1988, who is a bit of a climate alarmist [you even quoted him earlier in thread]  www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/06/30-years-after-hansens-testimony/each scenairo (projections made in 1988) is based on different greenhouse gas emissions, scenairo B reflects the trends in world industry that actually has happened. As you can see, scenairo B is a slight overestimate but not that far off and our current trend doesn't match the null "no warming". From the same link, breaking down the warming expected due to natural causes (solar, volcanic, etc) and greenhouse gases. Sun barely does anything  |
|
|
|
Post by nei on May 10, 2019 9:24:36 GMT -5
urania93 Stellar scientific effort, but you've also admitted that Co2 (I spell it that way because it looks nicer), is just one of myriads, more prominent factors in the driving of climate—that's a shot in the foot. The sun is a factor of much greater prominence than Co2 will ever be. I shan't argue with your physics owing to my relative lack of expertise, but you've mentioned that sun-spot activity is lower nowadays—and it is, indeed. Do you know what else is lower nowadays? The midlatitudinal temperature, especially that of Australia and the upper Southern Ocean regional (I choose these regions of the world because I know them well); no matter how much the BOM and NOAA homogenise the datasets, the raw data will always prevail—and what does the raw, unaltered data conclude? That the climate is changing rapidly, but now in quite the opposite direction from the last few dacades; we are entering the early stage(s) of the grand solar minimum. We see that even in the raw datasets, the Arctic and the Scandinavian Peninsular are warming...yet, the lower latitudes are cooling. This is a common lead-up pattern to previous ice ages, which is now repeating itself—this is why the Arctic ice is melting, and the northernmost reaches of the world are warming— not because of us. the lead-up pattern to the ice ages involved rapid cooling of the high latitudes, much more than low latitudes. The sun can't be much of a driver of any current warming, as it's declining slightly (and its increase in the 20th century was small, too). |
|
|
|
Post by Speagles84 on May 10, 2019 9:42:03 GMT -5
Well, I guess some people have difficulty seeing the bigger picture and motivations for the outright demonisation of CO 2, which is more political and economic than scientific, unfortunately. Not trying to offend anyone but it's my thought and the obvious driver behind all the hoopla. If there was little money at stake then they wouldn't give a shit. The media calls CO 2 dirty. It's the new coal baby! (coal is actually dirty) CO s is undeniably the main driver behind global warming. The hystaria is unwarrented however, I agree. Global Warming is disgustingly politicized. This. Also, I don't understand the hate for renewables. Even if the climate isn't shifting due to man made forces, why wouldn't we want cleaner air and water? Coal and oil, in particular, pollute the air so badly - who doesn't want clean air? You'd seriously rather have slightly cheaper power and breath shit youre entire life? |
|
|
|
Post by nei on May 10, 2019 9:56:10 GMT -5
CO s is undeniably the main driver behind global warming. The hystaria is unwarrented however, I agree. Global Warming is disgustingly politicized. This. Also, I don't understand the hate for renewables. Even if the climate isn't shifting due to man made forces, why wouldn't we want cleaner air and water? Coal and oil, in particular, pollute the air so badly - who doesn't want clean air? You'd seriously rather have slightly cheaper power and breath shit youre entire life? could also be an urban vs rural thing: air pollution doesn't matter much in rural areas, while removing fossil fuel plants and dirty trucks in NYC would be welcome coal sucks and should not be used anymore; there are cleaner and more efficient sources of power. Besides the air pollution, the extraction is by the far the dirtiest of any energy source. An all renewable energy source might be impractical with current technology due to storage and weather issues. But we're nowhere near that level yet. Hopefully with technology advances, renewables will improve; in the meanwhile, we can increase renewables to 20-30% [not sure of the best number] as well as increase nuclear, increase conservation so less energy gets wasted [which saves some $] while closing the oldest, dirtest power plants. |
|
|
|
Post by nei on May 10, 2019 12:45:59 GMT -5
Climate science and AGW is much more solid and less sketchy than nutritional science  |
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on May 11, 2019 1:37:07 GMT -5
California celebrated the third anniversary of the start of its permanent drought this week.  Of course, two of the three winters that followed had record amounts of snow to the point where some people had to tunnel out of their homes. Oops.
The reaction of the infallible consensus after ski resorts were open until July?
|
|
|
|
Post by nei on May 11, 2019 9:21:50 GMT -5
The reaction of the infallible consensus after ski resorts were open until July From one headline in Wired and the San Francisco Chronicle you can get the consensus ?  C'mon use better sources |
|
|
|
Post by Lommaren on May 19, 2019 8:45:37 GMT -5
Got to love it when leftists who know nothing about weather and climate try and make a shock headline over there being " 84F near the Arctic Ocean". I see little sense in trying to educate the NPC soyboys in the comment section, but I've the following to say here to people who actually know a thing or two about climate and weather patterns: First of all, AGW is real but way slower than AOC's knee-jerk reflexes. Then; counter-points: 1) Arkhangelsk's record high for May is 31.8°C, so it (29°C) wasn't even close to a record. 2) Arkhangelsk does not sit on the Arctic Ocean and is not particularly near the open sea of it either. 3) Arkhangelsk does have an uninterrupted landmass to its south all the way to the Black Sea. 4) Scandinavia nearby has been below-average during the first half of May. 5) Continental subarctic climates get sudden heat spikes when the days are long and wind direction are favourable. 6) Arkhangelsk did reach 34.4°C as its all-time record and that wasn't exactly this week. 7) High-pressure systems and heat anomalies do happen all the time.
8) Arkhangelsk is close enough to the North Atlantic and the rotational flow of maritime air that it's still quite warm for its latitude, even being in Russia.
That being said, I assume facts hurt their feeling and that the world will still end in twelve years 
Finally, I'd appreciate if global warming would bring a single 20°C day here this May  |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on May 19, 2019 10:24:42 GMT -5
Got to love it when leftists who know nothing about weather and climate try and make a shock headline over there being " 84F near the Arctic Ocean". I see little sense in trying to educate the NPC soyboys in the comment section, but I've the following to say here to people who actually know a thing or two about climate and weather patterns: First of all, AGW is real but way slower than AOC's knee-jerk reflexes. Then; counter-points: 1) Arkhangelsk's record high for May is 31.8°C, so it (29°C) wasn't even close to a record. 2) Arkhangelsk does not sit on the Arctic Ocean and is not particularly near the open sea of it either. 3) Arkhangelsk does have an uninterrupted landmass to its south all the way to the Black Sea. 4) Scandinavia nearby has been below-average during the first half of May. 5) Continental subarctic climates get sudden heat spikes when the days are long and wind direction are favourable. 6) Arkhangelsk did reach 34.4°C as its all-time record and that wasn't exactly this week. 7) High-pressure systems and heat anomalies do happen all the time.
8) Arkhangelsk is close enough to the North Atlantic and the rotational flow of maritime air that it's still quite warm for its latitude, even being in Russia.
That being said, I assume facts hurt their feeling and that the world will still end in twelve years
Finally, I'd appreciate if global warming would bring a single 20°C day here this May
However, the 29.1C recorded as early as 11 May is a new record and thus very notable. To get a similar reading so early in the month you have to go back to 1957. Early month record highs are much lower than the 29.1C recorded.
These are Arkhangelsk's daily record highs from 1 to 12 May:
19.9 (1931)
22.2 (1987)
21.1 (1987)
22.5 (2002)
23.9 (1979)
22.1 (2004)
24.4 (1982)
25.1 (1982)
23.6 (1982)
27.6 (2010) 29.1 (2019)
29.3 (1957)
Interesting as well is that the 29.1C high was the first 20C day of the year. The next day it had a low of 18.4C, which itself would've been the highest temp this year without those 29.1C and 27.5C high readings. The mean on the 12th was 15.7C above average, which in Turku would translate as a 26.0C mean, say for example a 35C/17C diurnal. That shows how much above normal it was.
I don't see the reason for shock headlines, but that people generally have a poor idea of weather and climate shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Nevertheless, Arkhangelsk hit a record.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lommaren on May 19, 2019 10:39:35 GMT -5
Well, it's definitely very warm for 11 May, absolutely 100 % true Ariete . Still, it's barely within 2.5°C of the monthly record, like you pointed out 0.1°C underneath the all-time record for the 1st-12th and so forth. Of course the world is getting warmer, but Kulinski is such a laughable alarmist to the point it's just silly whenever he talks about the climate. When I saw the video title I thought it had happened in Inuvik or some place where it's actually really close to the external Arctic Ocean, that title is really misleading, but I don't know whether that's through ignorance/incompetence or opportunism. Having said that, I lean towards that he doesn't really know much about the earth's climate and weather patterns at all. The low was interesting, however, just as the heavy thunderstorm here yesterday was. May has definitely been an interesting month in Northern/NE Europe last few years to say the least. Like he said "southern Russia is supposed to be cold", that sounds like some dumb shit like those who believe that permafrost means that Siberia is supposed to be freezing in summertime. The real news in that segment is that we're dumping more and more Co2 out though and that's definitely a real problem, but the left-wing bubble mentality on climate change do themselves no favour.
Funnily, Inuvik has actually recorded 30.4°C in May near the Arctic Ocean according to Environment Canada, this at 68°N in 2010. It has also a -4.5°C average low. The latter fact and the chinook effect across the Canadian landmass is not as convenient for headlines though... |
|
|
|
Post by nei on May 19, 2019 12:09:16 GMT -5
Of course the world is getting warmer, but Kulinski is such a laughable alarmist to the point it's just silly whenever he talks about the climate. But why is what Kulinski says about climate interesting? Makes more sense to pay attention to people who know enough about the subject, or at least interested in climate for its own sake rather than just politics. Lots of people here quote sensationalist headlines. Most of the "climate alarmist" headlines are a bit more sensible once you go to the source. For example, Kulinski got his info from the less sensationalist Washington Post, which probably got its from a press release from a scientific group or agency. Each additional "layer" of quoting often ends up losing information or just quality. Yea, I get it's fun to catch something misleading or debunk it yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on May 19, 2019 12:20:09 GMT -5
Yeah, Kyle is a political commentator with a political science major, not a climate scientist. I only looked at Artukainen, but the highest temp recorded since 2003 between 1 and 12 May is 26.8C on the 7th 2004, so that Arkhangelsk record is surely noteworthy.
The earliest >25C temp recorded is 5 May at the airport.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lommaren on May 19, 2019 13:35:25 GMT -5
But why is what Kulinski says about climate interesting? Makes more sense to pay attention to people who know enough about the subject, or at least interested in climate for its own sake rather than just politics. Lots of people here quote sensationalist headlines. Most of the "climate alarmist" headlines are a bit more sensible once you go to the source. For example, Kulinski got his info from the less sensationalist Washington Post, which probably got its from a press release from a scientific group or agency. Each additional "layer" of quoting often ends up losing information or just quality. Yea, I get it's fun to catch something misleading or debunk it yourself. My whole point is that he and other political commentators like him needlessly scare people when what happened in Arkhangelsk was firmly within "the range of probability". Most likely through sheer lack of knowledge on the subject. It comes across as quite cult-ish to be honest, even though I respect his integrity as a person so I don't think he'd consciously lie, I think he just doesn't know how inland climates, solar cycles and frontal systems over landmasses work. No denying there are more records than usual nowadays, but it's not like it was 29°C in a place where polar bears live in spring and they suffered heat strokes. |
|
|
|
Post by 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 on May 20, 2019 16:53:07 GMT -5
Cool graph of central Greenland average temps past 10,000 years knot  Hmm. Ok...low sunspot numbers occurred at the same time as suppressed temperatures in the northern hemisphere and then an increase in sunspots roughly coincided with rising temperatures. Ok.  Nah, climate change is primarily caused by higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2. It was proven in a lab, so it must be true because Earth's atmosphere is a lab.  |
|
|
|
Post by nei on May 21, 2019 9:27:36 GMT -5
Cool graph of central Greenland average temps past 10,000 years knotyou realize that graph stops at 1950 so no recent arctic warming is visible there? Ice cores also smooth over a long time period so the 1950 point may be something like 1850-1950 averaged. You could tack on recent temperatures but ice cores aren't measuring exactly the same thing as thermometers. Also, 10,000 years had somewhat stronger at summer solistice from precession (earth was closest to the sun in northern hemisphere summer, increased high latitude sun annually since most sunlight is from around summer solstice there. no offense, this is a moronic argument. Unless you'd like to overturn radiation physics, CO 2 must be an important greenhouse gas. Given the radiation absorbed from the sun, the current earth's temperature must be what it is from the greenhouse effect (I'm talking about even without climate change). Here's a good short summary, may have posted it before: geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdfWithout a greenhouse effect, the earth's average temperature should be roughly -18°C [from blackbody radiation equations]. From the physics of greenhouse gases known from the lab and derived from other physical theories, the earth's temperature can be calculated to be close to the actual observations -> greenhouse gas theory predictions can match what we observe. Besides the inside of a lab, satellite observation can see the result of the greenhouse effect… less infrafred radiation escaping the earth |
|
|
|
Post by nei on May 21, 2019 9:29:16 GMT -5
But why is what Kulinski says about climate interesting? Makes more sense to pay attention to people who know enough about the subject, or at least interested in climate for its own sake rather than just politics. Lots of people here quote sensationalist headlines. Most of the "climate alarmist" headlines are a bit more sensible once you go to the source. For example, Kulinski got his info from the less sensationalist Washington Post, which probably got its from a press release from a scientific group or agency. Each additional "layer" of quoting often ends up losing information or just quality. Yea, I get it's fun to catch something misleading or debunk it yourself. My whole point is that he and other political commentators like him needlessly scare people when what happened in Arkhangelsk was firmly within "the range of probability". Most likely through sheer lack of knowledge on the subject. It comes across as quite cult-ish to be honest, even though I respect his integrity as a person so I don't think he'd consciously lie, I think he just doesn't know how inland climates, solar cycles and frontal systems over landmasses work. No denying there are more records than usual nowadays, but it's not like it was 29°C in a place where polar bears live in spring and they suffered heat strokes. I get it, obviously your choice what to post on, just don't find political commentators talk on climate all that intersting when you can talk about more technical stuff. |
|
