Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-08-2022, 11:39 AM
 
Location: Canada
14,735 posts, read 14,947,487 times
Reputation: 34855

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dozerbear View Post
I have lived in Washington all 52 of my years. I'm curious about what these "radical" changes that have apparently occurred to the climate in the past seven years. Sure, we have had a few oddball weather events, but those happen from time to time. With the exception of the heat wave in June, the weather we have been seeing has been seen before.
If you are only 52 years old that means you have only had the past 25 years to actually recognize any radical changes from what you have been accustomed to in your own environment. If you haven't noticed the changes then you haven't been paying any attention to your own local environment or the overall environment of the North Pacific coastal climate. So maybe you should start doing that now. Pay attention.

That doesn't necessarily mean you as an individual can do anything about environment and habitat changes but paying attention may give you a head start on adapting your lifestyle to radical changes when you can no longer ignore them because they are jumping on top of you and punching you in the belly.

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-08-2022, 01:41 PM
 
Location: on the wind
23,143 posts, read 18,601,296 times
Reputation: 74845
Quote:
Originally Posted by dozerbear View Post
I have lived in Washington all 52 of my years. I'm curious about what these "radical" changes that have apparently occurred to the climate in the past seven years. Sure, we have had a few oddball weather events, but those happen from time to time. With the exception of the heat wave in June, the weather we have been seeing has been seen before.
Like way too many folks, you are confusing local annual weather variation with long term large scale climatic change. They're different.

Last edited by Parnassia; 05-08-2022 at 02:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2022, 04:30 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,205 posts, read 5,068,813 times
Reputation: 17659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
If you are only 52 years old that means you have only had the past 25 years to actually recognize any radical changes from what you have been accustomed to in your own environment. If you haven't noticed the changes then you haven't been paying any attention to your own local environment or the overall environment of the North Pacific coastal climate. So maybe you should start doing that now. Pay attention.

That doesn't necessarily mean you as an individual can do anything about environment and habitat changes but paying attention may give you a head start on adapting your lifestyle to radical changes when you can no longer ignore them because they are jumping on top of you and punching you in the belly.

.
Don't confuse the radical land use changes with human population growth and its effect on Nature with "climate change."---I posted earlier the data on the PNW-- only ~2degF warming over the last century.. You need a thermometer to measure that. Neither you nor any other species can sense that...Don't forget your daily span of temps is in the range of 20deg, and the yearly extremes are on the order of 70-100deg.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2022, 01:22 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,205 posts, read 5,068,813 times
Reputation: 17659
Zoisite-- here's a timely article about your weather-- The PNW just experienced the coldest Apr in the 43 year history of the satellite record...and the average for that period is exactly "zero." https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/...fic-northwest/

Don't confuse the natural fluctuations in weather with Climate Change....Normal is normal. It means half the data points are below normal and half are above....Note the maps in the article-- some areas of the world experienced very cold weather, while other experienced very hot weather. It all averages out.

You don't check the UAH satellite record/world temperature average each AM to decide what clothes to wear that day. You look at the thermometer on the back porch....and you can't count on another Ice Age coming just because your Apr was so cold.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2022, 03:39 AM
 
133 posts, read 95,029 times
Reputation: 428
I’ve taken a side interest in ‘climate change’ for a couple of decades now, and agree with most of the points that have been made by GuidoLaMoto.

The link (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/...of-proportion/) in which the known temperature changes are graphed in Kelvin, certainly places a different perspective on the near-surface temperature changes from those graphs that show the changes as anomalies from specified means.

The basis of the 'global warming' theory, IMO, represents some of the worst science I’ve ever seen. I blame James Hansen for kick-starting the panic. As a young atmospheric scientist, he apparently gained a couple of notches on his belt, when he correctly predicted the temperature drop after the Mt Agung volcanic eruptions, and again when he predicted that the clouds on Venus contained sulphuric acid.

There was a 1980s paper under James Hansen’s name on this site -- http://people.oregonstate.edu/~schmi...ansen81sci.pdf. As you can see it contained a reference to papers and Hansen. This was the paper in which Hansen affirmed that he had checked temperature recordings for the previous century at stations from all over the world and found that the average overall near-surface temperatures had increased. But he did not state his findings in such terms. Instead, he announced that there was ‘global warming’, a term that implies much more than increases in average near-surface temperatures.

He also announced that carbon dioxide was the cause, and that the United Nations should set up an intergovernmental panel to investigate and co-ordinate research into the situation.

It’s history now, that he made some very unscientific assumptions in his conclusions. He did not check that the recording stations were still sited in the same positions with the same structures over the previous century or so, or that the instrumentality and site micro-climates had not changed.

It was left to a retired weatherman (Anthony Watts) to harness 600 volunteers to check the 1200-odd units in the USA.
This resulted in a correction and in adjustments of the original figures. But the damage was done. The notion that the globe was overheating and that carbon dioxide emissions were the cause, took off, the IPCC was formed and ‘global warming’ became an industry. Hansen was made Director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

This particular paper also contained the statement by Hansen himself that a cooling effect of approximately an average 0.5 degrees C, occurred from the 1940s to 1970s in spite of a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

I don’t know what happened to that website relating to Hansen’s findings and philosophy, but the link now brings up a reference to a Professor Schmittner at Oregon State University.
.................................................. ........
There are too many aspects of bad science involved in this ‘climate change’ for me to enumerate and discuss, but the foundations above are enough for me to be a skeptic.

I agree that there has been approximately a 1 degree C rise in near-surface average air temperatures over the last 100 or so years, but the science associating it with an increase in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide is far from sound, to my mind. I agree with guidoLaMoto that we would be unable to sense changes in temperature of this magnitude.
.................................................. ..............................
The most unscientific aspect of the ‘Climate Change’ philosophy to my mind is the fact that the IPCC has only a Plan A to ‘change the climate’ -- that plan being to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In spite of the Kyoto Protocol, the Marakesh Accord and the Paris Agreement, the carbon dioxide concentrations measured at Cape Grim, for example, show no signs of a blip of any kind. The policy is NOT working. See Image 1.

One of the directives of the IPCC is to make Policy Recommendations for Governments to act upon. They have provided no recommendations for population growth suppression even though there is a correlation coefficient of 0.95 between world population in any given year and total world carbon emissions. See Image 2. Increases in population have wider ramifications than those of just ‘climate changes. See Image 3.

A possible Plan C is to promote more research into Cloud Engineering. There is evidence that lessening of clouds and aerosols in the atmosphere results in more insolation and higher average near surface temperatures. See Image 4. Even if the latter has nothing to do with the current state of climate, it would be useful information to utilise on occasions.

But it’s obvious to me that Plan A is not working. With apologies, it’s like pushing **** up hill with a rake. If populations increase, more people breath out carbon dioxide and pass methane, as do their extra pet animals and food animals, more cars belch out more gases, and proportionately more industry is required for all of their consumables.

guidoLaMoto has his feet on the ground.
Attached Thumbnails
What Climate Change?-cape-grim-carbon-dioxide-2022.png   What Climate Change?-population-v-carbon-emissions-2.jpg   What Climate Change?-population-effects-2.jpg   What Climate Change?-brightening-atmosphere.jpg  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2022, 10:35 AM
 
Location: Canada
14,735 posts, read 14,947,487 times
Reputation: 34855
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
Zoisite-- here's a timely article about your weather-- The PNW just experienced the coldest Apr in the 43 year history of the satellite record...and the average for that period is exactly "zero." https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/...fic-northwest/

Don't confuse the natural fluctuations in weather with Climate Change....Normal is normal. It means half the data points are below normal and half are above....Note the maps in the article-- some areas of the world experienced very cold weather, while other experienced very hot weather. It all averages out.

You don't check the UAH satellite record/world temperature average each AM to decide what clothes to wear that day. You look at the thermometer on the back porch....and you can't count on another Ice Age coming just because your Apr was so cold.
Thanks, I appreciate your response but I don't trust that website. I know you do but that person has a bad track record. I think it's a mistake for that guy to only focus on one month in spring and reference it as an anomoly. I'd be more interested to read his explanation for the above trend of being colder and wetter than average having already been an ongoing trend in the northern North Pacific regions for the past 8 months, because that's how long it's actually been. Eight months, not one month. One wet and cold but reasonably calm month of April alone has been irrelevant by comparison.

When the heat dome and heat waves and drought finally pulled up stakes in mid-August from the Pacific west and moved on to the already drought stricken prairies and parked itself there, the cold and wet came to the coastal west regions and it stayed and stayed and it's still here and has caused untold wide spread devastation and destruction to agriculture, livestock farms, marine life, infrastructures, highways and the evacuations of entire flooded towns like never before. Why didn't he say so? What is he trying to avoid and downplay by not mentioning what hell the past full 8 months has actually been like for the Pacific coastal regions?

I don't care as much about what's happening in the atmosphere because it naturally follows that whatever is happening in the atmosphere is a consequence of what's happening in both the deeper and surface waters of the Pacific and Arctic Oceans. The oceans are the engines that drive the various climates and temperatures of the planet, not the atmosphere. I'd be far more interested in his analysis of what's happening in the waters but with his track record of diversion, withholding and avoidance I have a feeling he would deliberately avoid mentioning the most salient points that actually need to be known.

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2022, 12:10 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,205 posts, read 5,068,813 times
Reputation: 17659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
... withholding and avoidance I have a feeling he would deliberately avoid mentioning the most salient points that actually need to be known.

.
Please be specific. I've seen no evidence of any of that. You seem to be repeating blindly the criticisms of the site stated by Warmists who can't refute the data....Many well known, published scientists and engineers make comments after each article. They are intellectually honest for the most part and don't let any questionable data or conclusions go unchallenged.

The article cited does state the case-- it's the oceans that are determining these changes. A 'La Nina" condtion has been in effect in the east Pacific for months now.

The GHG Effect is real. We're only arguing the degree (no pun intended) to which it influences weather/climate. The physicists tell us that without any co2. the world temps would average ~0degC. The effect of co2 is exponential, so the first 100ppm, gets it up to 10*, the next 100ppm up to 15* and less and less warming with each increment of 100ppm from there. From ~450ppm and up, there will be essentially no more warming We're at ~15.5*C now with co2 416ppm. The doubling period for co2 results in a 1* rise in temps, and we're almost at the "horizontal slope" of the graph now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2022, 03:53 PM
 
Location: Canada
14,735 posts, read 14,947,487 times
Reputation: 34855
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post

Please be specific. I've seen no evidence of any of that. You seem to be repeating blindly the criticisms of the site stated by Warmists who can't refute the data.....
Sigh. No. I'm not going there with specifics. I know you see no evidence of what I say I see there (or don't see as the case may be ..... for example what happened to the past missing 8 months between September and April and the coldest west coast November and December in 30 years that aren't mentioned in his site? .... did they cease to exist because he doesn't want to see them and only wants to see April?) but then I think you don't want to see it either and if someone refuses to see something then they simply don't see it. It's a brain quirk that we're all capable of.

So there's no point in me going into specifics about that guy's data because it won't be there for you, you won't see it just like he doesn't want to see the missing months between September and April.

I form my own conclusions, just like you do, and I don't pay attention to or parrot criticisms that warmists or who ever may have been saying about that site. The only times I ever hear about or take a boo at his site is when you post a link to something he said.

What the heck are warmists anyway? Is warmist another new buzz word like leftist and rightist are buzz words for certain people who don't see things the same way that certain other people see them?

So whatever a warmist is, what term is used that means the opposite of a warmist? Is it coldist?

.

Last edited by Zoisite; 05-09-2022 at 04:15 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2022, 06:56 AM
 
1,089 posts, read 1,240,016 times
Reputation: 1709
One poster here has been trying to dismiss the significance or influence of 1C change in global temperature. We could try and calculate the gazzillions of watt hours of energy it takes to increase the oceans and atmosphere by this much or the huge amount of nuclear bombs that would need to be set off to get this much temperature increase.. But.. we have fairly recent historical perspectives to go by.

In the last 2000 years and prior to our current time, there has been a "medieval warm period" somewhere around 1000 years ago and "the little ice age" around 400 years ago.

Note from the plot below that the global temperature difference between the medieval warm period and the little ice age is maybe .8C Other global average temperature plots show even less than this. But take a look at the impacts to better understand just what 1C can mean. Local temperature variations were higher than this but we are still only talking like 2C.

Regarding the little ice age..
https://theconversation.com/the-orig...-europe-178187
Quote:
Starting in the early 14th century, average temperatures in the British Isles cooled by 2°C, with similar anomalies recorded across Europe. Much colder winters ensued. Rivers and coastal seas froze, grinding trade and communications to a halt. Crops and livestock withered while downpours spoiled harvests, unleashing widespread hunger and hardship
.

Regarding the Medieval warm period
https://theconversation.com/climate-...-period-155294
Quote:
During the Medieval warm period, an increase in solar radiation and decrease in volcanic eruptions created a La Niña-like event that changed the usual patterns
Quote:
As northern Europe became warmer, agriculture spread and generated food surpluses. At the time, England was warm enough to support vineyards, centralised governments in Europe were becoming stronger, people no longer needed fortifications to protect their once limited arable lands, and many people left seeking new lands.
FYI, you are not going to find a scientific paper along the lines of "only 1 C, why thats nothing when you choose what to wear" LOL.. Anyone trying to use this 1C as just a small number is trying to deceive you about the importance.

This site shows a few global temperature reconstructions over the last 2000 years https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...Comparison.png


FYI,

https://instaar.colorado.edu/researc...ittle-ice-age/
Quote:
indicates that the Little Ice Age began abruptly between A.D. 1275 and 1300, triggered by repeated, explosive volcanism and sustained by a self-perpetuating sea ice-ocean feedback system in the North Atlantic Ocean.
And.. as someone pointed out already.. overall warmer is better than colder.. (looking on the bright side)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2022, 09:05 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,205 posts, read 5,068,813 times
Reputation: 17659
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
One poster here has been trying to dismiss the significance or influence of 1C change in global temperature. We could try and calculate the gazzillions of watt hours of energy it takes to increase the oceans and atmosphere by this much or the huge amount of nuclear bombs that would need to be set off to get this much temperature increase.. But.. we have fairly recent historical perspectives to go by.

In the last 2000 years and prior to our current time, there has been a "medieval warm period" somewhere around 1000 years ago and "the little ice age" around 400 years ago.

Note from the plot below that the global temperature difference between the medieval warm period and the little ice age is maybe .8C Other global average temperature plots show even less than this. But take a look at the impacts to better understand just what 1C can mean. Local temperature variations were higher than this but we are still only talking like 2C.

Regarding the little ice age..
https://theconversation.com/the-orig...-europe-178187
.

Regarding the Medieval warm period
https://theconversation.com/climate-...-period-155294




FYI, you are not going to find a scientific paper along the lines of "only 1 C, why thats nothing when you choose what to wear" LOL.. Anyone trying to use this 1C as just a small number is trying to deceive you about the importance.

This site shows a few global temperature reconstructions over the last 2000 years https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...Comparison.png


FYI,

https://instaar.colorado.edu/researc...ittle-ice-age/


And.. as someone pointed out already.. overall warmer is better than colder.. (looking on the bright side)
Interesting choice of graphs. Everyone else seems to think current temps are just now getting even wth the Medeaval Warm Period. Michael (Piltdown)Mann managed to erase it completely in his infamous but thotoughly discredited Hockey Stick Paper that is the basis for the continuing political lies of the IPCC by using only data from one lousy tree in Siberia.

You correctly called me out about a year ago when I used the famous temp graphs that show the MWP to be 0.6* and the RWP to be 0.8* warmer. I called it 6.0 & 8.0 respectively-- honest but careless eror on my part-- Conventional editorial style is to put the "0" in front of the decimal point. They didn't and I missed that, logically deducing that if Iceland were only 0.6 * warmer in the Mid Ages, how could they have a thriving grape growing/wine producing industry?...Someone is lying to us becaue we KNOW they were growing grapes there.....How do you explain the discrepancy?

Keep in mind that averages mean little-- The "average human being" has one testis, one ovary and one breast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top