Record Cold, US and Europe: Global Warming?

[carpedm9587]

So - if all those cooling effect aerosols had remained in use, we wouldn't be in this mess?

IIRC, the issue was not "cooling effects," it was impact on the protective ozone shield in our atmosphere. But it has been a while - I could be wrong.

[carpedm9587]

There's enough evidence out there telling us that the official "adjusted" data can't be trusted, and the raw numbers always tell a different story. Besides, that article pulls the same "average" bait-and-switch that I warned about earlier.

Anyway, that's now what I was asking: Who predicted that global warming would cause record cold temperatures? Nobody predicted that, because it doesn't make a lick of sense. On the contrary, we were told that cold and snow would be a thing of the past by now. And this isn't just a fluke, either.

Source:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25750[/ATTACH]

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/...res-in-the-us/

© Copyright Original Source

I have to admit I have not had a chance to review the data, but even if I accept it as accurate without checking it, the evidence appears to be cherry picked. The author appears to have chosen data about one country - one date out of the year - and is trying to use it to argue against a global phenomenon that is measured on all days of the year? This is somewhat like pointing to three glaciers that are actually growing and saying "see - you're wrong!" When you look at ALL glaciers worldwide, the overwhelming trend is towards retreat. Depending on the local of the glaciers, growth of some is almost inevitable/predictable. It's related to the effect of global warming on snowfall.

Likewise, when you look at ALL dates of the year, across ALL countries, the overwhelming trend is towards warming.

[seer]

This appears to be another tactic being used by climate change deniers - but the evidence is not what it appears. Acid rain was real, and environmental controls were implemented, especially into the 1990s, that significantly changed acidification. It appears that this was a success story of what CAN be done when we set out to do it: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-dirty-legacy/

The article is specific to the Appalachian area, so cannot be contrued to be "global," but the sources it cites appear to check out (I spot-checked a few).

Nonsense, ph levels were going up long before the clean air act of 90, I gave the graft earlier. And carp, I'm not climate change denier, I believe the climate has been changing since the earth has been around.

[seer]

Umm... the first seems to me to be obvious. If you take the average temperature per day at specific locations around the planet, you can derive the average daily high at that location. You can then plot that location over time. If you assign a color to those points, and do it for points around the planet consistently, you can then get a trendline for what is happening globally. If more of the spots show an increasing average temperature, then the global trend is to warming. If, over time, more of those spots show a decreasing temperature, then the trend is to global cooling. If there is a random or flat distribution, then the climate is relatively stable. I'mnot sure why you would have a problem with that, from a mathematical basis.

I asked what the average for the earth's temperature should be. There isn't one.

I actually said nothing about "better" or "worse." When the climate changes, there are corresponding consequences to ecology, geology, and other earth systems. Some of those will be positive (e.g., farming areas extending northwards, longer growing seasons) and others will be negative (e.g., impact of rising seas on coastal cities, weather events with increasing severity, etc.). Others are difficult to predict (e.g., migration of species, extermination of species, etc.).

Right so we have no idea if a warmer earth, over all, will be worse. As a matter of fact, as the earth gets greener there is more plant life to suck up Co2...

[carpedm9587]

Nonsense, ph levels were going up long before the clean air act of 90, I gave the graft earlier. And carp, I'm not climate change denier, I believe the climate has been changing since the earth has been around.

I saw the graph - I just cannot find the source to validate the nature of the data. Do you have the source? The graph appears to run counter to this 1983/4 study by the USGS (https://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2249/report.pdf).

As for the term "climate change denier," I used the term in a general sense - not necessarily specific to you. In general, one of the tactics used by those who deny the reality of the current trend in global climate change is to point to the Acid Rain "scare" as an example of why not to listen to the climate change claims.

In my experience, "climate change denier" can mean a range of things to different people, including:

1. denying that climate change is occurring at all
2. denying that the current trend is towards warming
3. denying the humans activity is having a measurable impact on it
4. denying that human action can make a difference

Based on your responses, I am assuming that #1 is not a fit, but one or #2-4 is?

[tabibito]

Not so long since, #3 would have read "human activity is the sole cause," and anyone positing #3 would have been howled down and called some rather interesting names.

[carpedm9587]

I asked what the average for the earth's temperature should be. There isn't one.

As far as I know, there is no "should be." The average temperate of the earth is measurable and climbing. What impact that has is then the issue. The earth has no "should." We humans have a "should." So, if we like ocean levels where they are, and ecosystems as they are, the average temperature should be what it has been in the last two millenia. If we think higher oceans are better, the average temperature "should be" warmer. If the think lower oceans are better, the average temperaturew "should be" lower.

Right so we have no idea if a warmer earth, over all, will be worse. As a matter of fact, as the earth gets greener there is more plant life to suck up Co2...

Yes, that is one possibility. With it comes the rest of the consequences of a warmer earth. So it's a question of what we consider to be "desirable consequence" and what we consider to be "undesirable consequences." There is also evidence to suggest the possibility of "runaway" warming. Should we someday cross that boundary (and it is not clear we will), then the earth could enter a feedback warming loop similar to that currently in progress on Venus. That is unlikely to happen in my lifetime or even my children's lifetime. There are some models that show it as an increasing likelihood - but sort of like eating too much fat increases your likelihood of cancer. If the probability of cancer is 0.1% and the consumption of fat increases it 50%, you now have a 0.15% chance of getting cancer. So the fear pundits tend to exaggerate those things - the the detriment of the overall message.

Personally, the outcomes I am already seeing happening are not ones I like, and I would love to see us reduce emissions and reduce the rate of warming. I love glaciers, I fear for those who live water-side, the escalation in extreme weather events/droughts/floods is destabilizing, and the rest of the negative effects are not ones I would like to see happen.

[seer]

In my experience, "climate change denier" can mean a range of things to different people, including:

1. denying that climate change is occurring at all
2. denying that the current trend is towards warming
3. denying the humans activity is having a measurable impact on it
4. denying that human action can make a difference

Based on your responses, I am assuming that #1 is not a fit, but one or #2-4 is?

I don't deny one or two. Three is possible, but to what degree. As far as four, no, as long as we don't reign in new industrial countries like China, India, and others, which we won't - it won't make a significant difference what we in the west do.

[carpedm9587]

Not so long since, #3 would have read "human activity is the sole cause," and anyone positing #3 would have been howled down and called some rather interesting names.

Not sure what you mean. For someone to claim that climate change is solely caused by humans would be folly indeed, since the earth's climate is in a perpetual state of change. The Antarctic was once a rainforest and North America was once buried in ice. The primary question appears to be, is human activity accelerating the process, and is that acceleration going to have consequences we are going to find hard to live with? The answer to the first is well established in science, IMO. The answer to the second is, inevitably, a matter of opinion. Construction industries are liklely to boom as recovery from devastating weather events is increasingly required - and as homes/cities are relocated to higher ground. On the other hand, flood insurance premiums are likely to skyrocket and taxes climb to cover infrastructure recovery costs.

It's all about what consequences we want to live with and which ones we do not. Denying any of this is occurring is just pointless, IMO. Nature won't care. It will keep doing what it is doing.

[seer]

As far as I know, there is no "should be." The average temperate of the earth is measurable and climbing. What impact that has is then the issue. The earth has no "should." We humans have a "should." So, if we like ocean levels where they are, and ecosystems as they are, the average temperature should be what it has been in the last two millenia. If we think higher oceans are better, the average temperature "should be" warmer. If the think lower oceans are better, the average temperaturew "should be" lower.

Right there is no average temp. At times the earth was much cooler, and much warmer - and when it was warmer we had robust plant and animal life.

Yes, that is one possibility. With it comes the rest of the consequences of a warmer earth. So it's a question of what we consider to be "desirable consequence" and what we consider to be "undesirable consequences." There is also evidence to suggest the possibility of "runaway" warming. Should we someday cross that boundary (and it is not clear we will), then the earth could enter a feedback warming loop similar to that currently in progress on Venus. That is unlikely to happen in my lifetime or even my children's lifetime. There are some models that show it as an increasing likelihood - but sort of like eating too much fat increases your likelihood of cancer. If the probability of cancer is 0.1% and the consumption of fat increases it 50%, you now have a 0.15% chance of getting cancer. So the fear pundits tend to exaggerate those things - the the detriment of the overall message.

Oh please, Venus! This is what I mean about you alarmists! The north pole was once tropical, did we turn into Venus then?

[carpedm9587]

I don't deny one or two. Three is possible, but to what degree. As far as four, no, as long as we don't reign in new industrial countries like China, India, and others, which we won't - it won't make a significant difference what we in the west do.

I was using "we" collectively - "the world." Not just the U.S.

I also think there is an ethical issue here. The U.S. has contributed close to 1/3 of the CO2 increase in the past 100 years. We benefited from those years of polution with an incredibly powerful economy. Now the entire world is seeing the shifts, and the entire world is saying, "let's get to work doing something." The shifts are small, at first, and developing countries are loath to give up the same technologies that saw the U.S. to such an economic edge. But for us to say, "if you won't do it, we won't" is, to me, a morally cowardly position. It's arrogant. And I think it is, in the long term, a serious mistake. There is a solid trend towards renewal energy. Right now, China has a significant lead, dominating both the wind and solar power industry. So what I see is thus: fissil fuels are increasingly seen as damaging, and are a limited resource (there is a finite amount of these things in the ground). That supply MAY be adequate for another 100-200 years, but it WILL eventually exhaust. So the fossil fuels industry is necessarily going to die - eventually. Renewables, however, cannot die as long as the sun keeps shining.

So if the U.S. digs in its heels, insists on promoting fossil fuels as the rest of the world continues to press forward with renewables, the inevitable outcome is clear: when the fossil fuels industry inevitably dies, other countries will be well established in renewables, and the U.S. will become the customer and the dependent - rather than the source and the leader. The day when fossil fuels dies may be years, decades or a century away - but that does not matter. The renewables industry is starting NOW. China is already in the lead. It is a race - and we have, IMO, hobbled ourselves with a "dig, baby, dig" mentality. Instead of investing U.S. resources in this new field, we are investing time/energy bolstering fossil fuels.

Long term - that is (IMO) a losing strategy.

[carpedm9587]

Right there is no average temp. At times the earth was much cooler, and much warmer - and when it was warmer we had robust plant and animal life.

Umm... yes, there is an average temperature. It can be measured every year, and it is rising. There is no "absolutely ought to be" average temperature. What the average temperature "ought to be" is a function of the outcomes we want.

YOu seem to be caught in that "binary thinking" thing again.

Oh please, Venus! This is what I mean about you alarmists! The north pole was once tropical, did we turn into Venus then?

Umm... did you actually read what I wrote?

As far as I know, when Antarctica was a topic zone, we were not dealing with warmig as a result of extensive CO2 in the atmosphere. Global warming (or cooling) can be impacted by multiple factors. Not all of them are prone to "runaway" warming (or cooling). If the atmosphere crosses a particular CO2 boundary, the math and climate science says we can (not will) enter a feedback loop. As I carefully noted, the probability of this is small - and the theme is exagerrated by climate-change pundits. It certainly does not have a short-term risk. The risk increases, however, the longer the CO2 issue remains unaddressed. On that the science is fairly clear. It does not become "probable" in our lifetime or even our children's lifetimes under ANY model. BUt if the trajectory of CO2 build-up does not change, it does eventually shift from "possible" to "probable."

[Mountain Man]

Not according to NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...-at-both-poles

More "averaging" nonsense and attempts to explain away data after the fact. This must be that "settled science" I keep hearing about. Nobody expected that global warming would cause record levels of Antarctic ice. Especially not those scientists who travelled down there to study the Antarctic thaw only to get stuck in ice that every model and prediction told them shouldn't be there!

[seer]

I was using "we" collectively - "the world." Not just the U.S.

I also think there is an ethical issue here. The U.S. has contributed close to 1/3 of the CO2 increase in the past 100 years. We benefited from those years of polution with an incredibly powerful economy. Now the entire world is seeing the shifts, and the entire world is saying, "let's get to work doing something." The shifts are small, at first, and developing countries are loath to give up the same technologies that saw the U.S. to such an economic edge. But for us to say, "if you won't do it, we won't" is, to me, a morally cowardly position. It's arrogant. And I think it is, in the long term, a serious mistake. There is a solid trend towards renewal energy. Right now, China has a significant lead, dominating both the wind and solar power industry. So what I see is thus: fissil fuels are increasingly seen as damaging, and are a limited resource (there is a finite amount of these things in the ground). That supply MAY be adequate for another 100-200 years, but it WILL eventually exhaust. So the fossil fuels industry is necessarily going to die - eventually. Renewables, however, cannot die as long as the sun keeps shining.

Grow up Carp, these third would countries won't give up their possible advantage no matter what we do. Renewables are fine, but China still needs coal, and lots of it. And will for a very long time. And the US Co2 levels are back to mid 90s levels. This is largely due to natural gas and fracking, with Renewables.

So if the U.S. digs in its heels, insists on promoting fossil fuels as the rest of the world continues to press forward with renewables, the inevitable outcome is clear: when the fossil fuels industry inevitably dies, other countries will be well established in renewables, and the U.S. will become the customer and the dependent - rather than the source and the leader. The day when fossil fuels dies may be years, decades or a century away - but that does not matter. The renewables industry is starting NOW. China is already in the lead. It is a race - and we have, IMO, hobbled ourselves with a "dig, baby, dig" mentality. Instead of investing U.S. resources in this new field, we are investing time/energy bolstering fossil fuels.

More alarmist talk, we are already moving forward, the US has about 18% of electrical generation coming from wind and solar. The evil conservative state of Texas has 37%. So I'm not worried.

[tabibito]

Record levels of Antarctic ice. First I've heard of it. It's gone from record high in 2014 to record low this year. Some rather wild fluctuations, but the overall trend is down.