Global Temp Changes

[winsor 187]

gowlerk

So....Winsor, are you actually buying this?

Do you wish me to believe that you think it is in any way possible that the population can grow unchecked on the basis of finite resources without resulting in catastrophe? Surely you have an IQ above room temperature (Fahrenheit to be generous).

The specifics in the article are plus or minus. The overall questions are: when and how bad?

'Climate change' is a symptom more than a problem. If we had nothing more important about which to worry, we would be in comparatively great shape.

[gowlerk 1,929]

Population growth in western countries is negative, excluding immigration. Once the curse of religion is lessened and more of the female population gain control of their reproduction, population growth will subside.

While I will agree that nothing lasts forever, and that mankind will eventually go extinct for one or many reasons, I can see no reason to think it will happen before we are affected by climate change.

I don't pretend to know what the effects will be. And I am not claiming they will be disastrous, but they may be.

Saying that we shouldn't worry because we are doomed anyway is pretty much the same as the Christian fundamentalist believing that the end times are near and the magic man in the sky is going to save them and damn the rest.

It is just a means of coping by ducking behind a flawed idea that nothing matters anyway.

Quote

If we had nothing more important about which to worry, we would be in comparatively great shape.

I agree. But I believe that we are in comparatively good shape. I believe that the luckiest people in the world, with the brightest future ever held by mankind, are those being born today in western democracies. ( I stole that thought from Warren Buffet )

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,435]

>Do you wish me to believe that you think it is in any way possible that the
>population can grow unchecked on the basis of finite resources without resulting
>in catastrophe?

Nope.

>'Climate change' is a symptom more than a problem. If we had nothing more
>important about which to worry, we would be in comparatively great shape.

Climate change is similar to smoking. It's a small problem that grows with time - and you can put off with dealing with it for a long time.

Consider a 17 year old. He has a girlfriend, doing poorly in school, his parents are breaking up. He smokes. Does he really have to quit? If that's the only thing he has to worry about, he'd be in great shape. And he just found out his girlfriend might be pregnant. So he keeps smoking.

Now he's 20. He's in college, working two jobs, trying to pass his courses. He keeps smoking. Should he worry about quitting? It's the least of his problems.

Now he's 31, struggling to keep his job in the economic downturn. He can barely feed his kids. Still smoking, but he has bigger problems than some vague threat in ten years.

Now he's 37 and has a persistent hacking cough and is always out of breath. But he has a lot to do. He'll quit smoking tomorrow, or the next day, once he has time.

Now he's 45 and has metastatic lung cancer. He finally has a reason to quit.

We may get to 2100 and find that with the overpopulation problem, we can't even feed our own people - and that problem will be exacerbated by warming. We may get there and find that with a combination of women's education, incentives to have less kids and better food production, we've avoided the worst of the overpopulation problem - but we still have problems with warming. After a Trump tweet starts World War III we may get to 2100 with half our current population - and find that humanity's recovery is hampered by the warming.

Fools react to things after they happen. Most people react as they happen. The wise prepare for things before they happen - and often find that they can avoid the problem to begin with.

[winsor 187]

This article supports the position the neither 'Alarmists' nor 'Deniers' should have much input in the sober evaluation of models vs. data.

Humans have an impact on the ecosystem. What else is new?

Having said that, the supposition that humans are the driving force in global heat transfer dynamics is rather self-absorbed. A significant factor? Most assuredly. The single most overwhelming prime mover? Not bloody likely.

The crying of wolves does not negate the presence of wolves so much as discredit the messenger. Having fuckwits like Al Gore 'explain' global heat transfer dynamics is simply painful to consider, a textbook example of the Dunning Kruger effect.

The shrill, emotion laden presentation of data does little to support much of any stance, and it has certainly garbled the issue of 'Climate Change' beyond recognition.

Railing against any particular religion, whether it be Scientology, Communism or Global Climate Change, is fundamentally pointless, but sometimes the volume gets a bit too much and I wish people would turn it down.

As you were.

[brenthutch 388]

"Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’
The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists."

Wow, first the IRS and now NOAA? A new twist to "My dog ate my homework"

[kallend 1,649]

The oceans join the conspiracy.

www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/world/ocean-oxygen-nature/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 388]

Trump's science advisor.

"William Happer, an eminent physicist at Princeton University, met Trump last month to discuss the post and says that if he were offered the job he would take it. Happer is highly regarded in the academic community, but many would view his appointment as a further blow to the prospects of concerted international action on climate change.
“There’s a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult,” Happer told the Guardian. “It’s like Hare Krishna or something like that. They’re glassy-eyed and they chant. It will potentially harm the image of all science.”

[kallend 1,649]

brenthutch

Trump's science advisor.

"William Happer, an eminent physicist at Princeton University, met Trump last month to discuss the post and says that if he were offered the job he would take it. Happer is highly regarded in the academic community, but many would view his appointment as a further blow to the prospects of concerted international action on climate change.
“There’s a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult,” Happer told the Guardian. “It’s like Hare Krishna or something like that. They’re glassy-eyed and they chant. It will potentially harm the image of all science.”

Indeed, many of Trump's nominees are unqualified or seriously flawed. The GOP controlled Senate is only just beginning to find the backbone to question them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 388]

Speaking of "seriously flawed" I can't wait for Pruitt to take over the EPA. I predict, when he forces them to produce their internal emails and the unveil the machinations of their climate models, hard drives will be crashing so fast it will make the IRS blush. That is why they are busy copying their files on non-government servers.

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

Speaking of "seriously flawed" I can't wait for Pruitt to take over the EPA. I predict, when he forces them to produce their internal emails and the unveil the machinations of their climate models, hard drive will be crashing so fast it will make the IRS blush.

Ah yes, I'm sure that the US EPA is the sole author of climate science and their control over the world community of scientists will be revealed like a Scooby Doo villain.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,435]

Yep, Trump is the most anti-science president in decades.

[brenthutch 388]

Your Scooby Doo reference is apt, as government funded climate "scientists" are preparing for their "Ruh Roh" moment.

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

Your Scooby Doo reference is apt, as government funded climate "scientists" are preparing for their "Ruh Roh" moment.

Zoinks!!

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[brenthutch 388]

Jinkies even.

[kallend 1,649]

Now the Antarctic has record low sea ice. (The land-ice has been disappearing for a long time now).

phys.org/news/2017-02-antarctic-sea-ice-extent-lowest.html

And the Arctic continues to lose sea ice.

phys.org/news/2017-02-sea-ice-poles-january.html#nRlv

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 388]

I will see your ice and raise you snow.

From your link

"Snow has been falling more heavily than usual in the Northern Hemisphere, where snow cover extent during January reached 890,000 square miles above the 1981–2010 average.
"This was the sixth largest January Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in the 51-year period of record," said the study.
"The North American snow cover extent was the 13th largest on record, while the Eurasian snow cover extent was the seventh largest."

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

I will see your ice and raise you snow.

From your link

"Snow has been falling more heavily than usual in the Northern Hemisphere, where snow cover extent during January reached 890,000 square miles above the 1981–2010 average.
"This was the sixth largest January Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in the 51-year period of record," said the study.
"The North American snow cover extent was the 13th largest on record, while the Eurasian snow cover extent was the seventh largest."

Neither article claims to hold the key piece of evidence and they say it very clearly. The first one describes that while the sea ice was at it's lowest, there was recently a record maximum and the highly variable swings require long term observation. What it does point to is an increase in that variability.

One oft cited reason for this is that warming sea and air temps cause the jet stream to extend North and South bringing moist air with it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/17/global-warming-causing-extreme-weather-jet-stream-waves

It would be nice to find out that this is Earth's way of rebounding by bringing snow to the poles but we also know that moist air holds much more energy than the cold air these regions typically see. The result is described in the linked articles as the third warmest January within the records began in 1880. Snow does not equate to ice, snow and continued low temperatures does.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[gowlerk 1,929]

brenthutch

I will see your ice and raise you snow.

From your link

"Snow has been falling more heavily than usual in the Northern Hemisphere, where snow cover extent during January reached 890,000 square miles above the 1981–2010 average.
"This was the sixth largest January Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in the 51-year period of record," said the study.
"The North American snow cover extent was the 13th largest on record, while the Eurasian snow cover extent was the seventh largest."

Yes more heat causes more evaporation and more precipitation. What is your point?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,435]

>The North American snow cover extent was the 13th largest on record . . .

More locally, the Mira Mesa Skating Rink had its 21st coldest ice temperature on record. Global warming has ended!

[brenthutch 388]

Snow has a much higher albieto than sea ice, a greater wintertime extent and occurs at a lower latitude reflecting much more energy. If you are worried about global warming (I'm not), you would want to trade sea ice for snow pack all day long.

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

Snow has a much higher albieto than sea ice, a greater wintertime extent and occurs at a lower latitude reflecting much more energy. If you are worried about global warming (I'm not), you would want to trade sea ice for snow pack all day long.

Assume you meant albedo, the measure of energy back into the solar system? Can you provide some sources or are you pulling a Trump-Staff and just saying things. You break open quite an extensive can of worms considering that sea ice is also covered in snow and that in warmer climate there is also less snow over the course of a year at those lower latitudes. That would lead me to think that while there could be more snow in a given period that the combination of less snow on the ground and less sea ice means less albedo.

Again, your sources, without quoting "skepticalscience.com"?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[brenthutch 388]

https://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/nh_snowcover/

[DJL 232]

Great, now we just need data on your claim about the difference in albedo between sea ice and snow coverage. Also there's that detail of sea ice having snow on it and also that if there's less sea ice there's less of an area for snow to lay upon since it won't sit on top of open water, also regardless of snowfall depth is there now a greater area on which that snow falls?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[brenthutch 388]

It's all there in the link provided, poke around you might just learn something.

[DJL 232]

OK. The information supporting global warming is available through this link. Just go poke around a little bit: The fucking internet, lol

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher