Unsurprisingly, the same blowhards that constantly spout rubbish about the "anti-science left", "leftist pseudoscience", "leftist cults", (etc.) do not themselves understand the difference between Weather and Climate.
This is the beginning of a long "magazine length" article that was part of the March 2021 issue of The Atlantic.
quote
We live on a wild planet, a wobbly, erupting, ocean-sloshed orb that careens around a giant thermonuclear explosion in the void. Big rocks whiz by overhead, and here on the Earth’s surface, whole continents crash together, rip apart, and occasionally turn inside out, killing nearly everything. Our planet is fickle. When the unseen tug of celestial bodies points Earth toward a new North Star, for instance, the shift in sunlight can dry up the Sahara, or fill it with hippopotamuses. Of more immediate interest today, a variation in the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere of as little as 0.1 percent has meant the difference between sweltering Arctic rainforests and a half mile of ice atop Boston. That negligible wisp of the air is carbon dioxide.
Since about the time of the American Civil War, CO2’s crucial role in warming the planet has been well understood. And not just based on mathematical models: The planet has run many experiments with different levels of atmospheric CO2. At some points in the Earth’s history, lots of CO2 has vented from the crust and leaped from the seas, and the planet has gotten warm. At others, lots of CO2 has been hidden away in the rocks and in the ocean’s depths, and the planet has gotten cold. The sea level, meanwhile, has tried to keep up—rising and falling over the ages, with coastlines racing out across the continental shelf, only to be drawn back in again. During the entire half-billion-year Phanerozoic eon of animal life, CO2 has been the primary driver of the Earth’s climate. And sometimes, when the planet has issued a truly titanic slug of CO2 into the atmosphere, things have gone horribly wrong.
Today, atmospheric CO2 sits at 410 parts per million, a higher level than at any point in more than 3 million years. And humans are injecting more CO2 into the atmosphere at one of the fastest rates ever. When hucksters tell you that the climate is always changing, they’re right, but that’s not the good news they think it is. “The climate system is an angry beast,” the late Columbia climate scientist Wally Broecker was fond of saying, “and we are poking it with sticks.”
The beast has only just begun to snarl. All of recorded human history—at only a few thousand years, a mere eyeblink in geologic time—has played out in perhaps the most stable climate window of the past 650,000 years. We have been shielded from the climate’s violence by our short civilizational memory, and our remarkably good fortune. But humanity’s ongoing chemistry experiment on our planet could push the climate well beyond those slim historical parameters, into a state it hasn’t seen in tens of millions of years, a world for which Homo sapiens did not evolve.
When there’s been as much carbon dioxide in the air as there already is today—not to mention how much there’s likely to be in 50 or 100 years—the world has been much, much warmer, with seas 70 feet higher than they are today. Why? The planet today is not yet in equilibrium with the warped atmosphere that industrial civilization has so recently created. If CO2 stays at its current levels, much less steadily increases, it will take centuries—even millennia—for the planet to fully find its new footing. The transition will be punishing in the near term and the long term, and when it’s over, Earth will look far different from the one that nursed humanity. This is the grim lesson of paleoclimatology: The planet seems to respond far more aggressively to small provocations than it’s been projected to by many of our models.
To truly appreciate the coming changes to our planet, we need to plumb the history of climate change. So let us take a trip back into deep time, a journey that will begin with the familiar climate of recorded history and end in the feverish, high-CO2 greenhouse of the early age of mammals, 50 million years ago. It is a sobering journey, one that warns of catastrophic surprises that may be in store.
I stopped my Copy and Paste at the first inflection point. That was the setup or the framework for everything that follows. And where is "everything that follows"..? It's residing online at this web page: https://www.theatlantic.com...ange-history/617793/
Anyone should be able to access this article.
The title for the article is presented in all capital letters:
quote
THE TERRIFYING WARNING LURKING IN THE EARTH’S ANCIENT ROCK RECORD
That's followed by a subtitle:
quote
Our climate models could be missing something big.
The author is Peter Brannen. Photographs are credited to Brendan Pattengale, and Maps, to "La Tigre."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-04-2023).]
July 3 is being called the hottest day ever recorded. It's based on averaging temperatures from all around the planet.
I've also seen reports that single out July 4, instead of July 3.
Some scientists have speculated that July 3 (or July 4) was the hottest day in the last 125,000 years, based on this global average temperature criterion.
I'm just putting this up for "zest." In terms of Climate, it's insignificant—in and of itself.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-06-2023).]
July 3 is being called the hottest day ever recorded. It's based on averaging temperatures from all around the planet.
I've also seen reports that single out July 4, instead of July 3.
Some scientists have speculated that July 3 (or July 4) was the hottest day in the last 125,000 years, based on this global average temperature criterion.
I'm just putting this up for "zest." In terms of Climate, it's insignificant—in and of itself
It was definitely hot as balls the other day. But remember that this concept of "hottest day" or "coldest day" record does not correlate appropriately with the idea that the Earth is warming. Even if we believe it to be warming, and regardless of what we perceive to be the cause of it... you cannot make the assumption here that records being broken are indicative of something.
There's a whole lot more math that needs to be accounted for. We have records that date back to... what, 1880 if I'm not mistaken? Anything beyond that (more or less) we have to get from evaluation of core samples and carbon dating to get an approximation of a time frame. So that's really like... 143 years then if I did my basic math right. In the... what... how old is the Earth? 4 billion years old? So... do the math... 143/4,000,000,000 ... not a great percentage.
Look at this as you might a sigmoid curve ... because we have so little recorded data across the whole spectrum, you're going to constantly have records broken at an exponential rate. As the means and limits start to get reached between what would be acceptable baselines from coldest to hottest (under our current orbit around and distance from the sun, etc.)... the amount of records being broken will slow down as we reach an effective mean top and bottom for all records. All it represents at this point are a collection of dates that more accurately represent freak weather patterns.
Again, not saying the Earth isn't warming, but I am saying that you can't really use records from only 143 years to give basis for man-made climate change on a planet that's 4 billion years old.
Spielberg plans to use his yacht to test a new kind of Net Zero diesel fuel produced by culturing, harvesting and processing a genetically modified strain of algae.
He wants to prove that he can own and operate this superyacht in the grand superyacht tradition without increasing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
(Speculation.)
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-08-2023).]
Climate Activists are all armchair polluters and hypocrites.
Every last person who has experienced the severe heat wave that's afflicted Florida and the Florida Keys since the first days of July would call this cartoon (and the remark that accompanies it) "stupid beyond belief."
quote
Baby, it’s hot out there!
While the Keys is no stranger to warm weather during the summer months, what’s occurred during the first week of July is setting records across the county.
South Florida and a vast stretch of the country are also contending with an above-average, stubborn, and potentially deadly heat wave, with few indications an end to these brutal temperatures is imminent.
The latest heat dome has been cooking the Sunshine State for the past couple of weeks and has made coastal waters extremely warm, including “downright shocking” temperatures of 92 to 96 degrees in the Florida Keys, meteorologist, and journalist Ben Henson said Sunday in a tweet.
“That’s boiling for them! More typically it would be in the upper 80s,” tweeted Jeff Berardelli, chief meteorologist and climate specialist at WFLA-TV in Tampa.
The hot waters around Florida are connected to record-breaking ocean heat worldwide. About 40 percent of the world’s oceans are facing a marine heat wave, NOAA reported. That is the highest percentage on record, and it could reach 50 percent by September.
The warmer coastal ocean water is threatening to bleach or kill Florida's coral reefs, and it will likely make tropical storms and hurricanes stronger. And it isn't just Florida. "Global sea surface temperatures have been record high since April and the North Atlantic has been off-the-charts hot since mid-March," AP reports.
This past month has also seen catastrophic flooding in New York, Vermont and Chicago, savage heatwaves in Arizona and Texas, a rare tornado in Delaware, smoky haze from Canadian wildfires blanketing the upper U.S., and the hottest recorded day in modern history.
"A decade ago, any one of these events would have been seen as an aberration," The New York Times notes. Now they are happening simultaneously, thanks largely to human-fueled climate change. "It's not just a figment of your imagination, and it's not because everybody now has a smartphone," Berardelli told the Times. "We are going to see stuff happen this year around Earth that we have not seen in modern history."
Much of Florida is seeing its warmest year on record, with temperatures running 3 to 5 degrees above normal. While some locations have been setting records since the beginning of the year, the hottest weather has come with an intense heat dome cooking the Sunshine State in recent weeks. That heat dome has made coastal waters extremely warm, including “downright shocking” temperatures of 92 to 96 degrees in the Florida Keys, meteorologist and journalist Bob Henson said Sunday in a tweet.
“That’s boiling for them! More typically it would be in the upper 80s,” tweeted Jeff Berardelli, chief meteorologist and climate specialist at WFLA-TV in Tampa.
“It’s an astounding, prolonged heat wave even for a place that’s no stranger to sultry weather,” said McNoldy, who also cautioned that the warm waters could make tropical storms or hurricanes stronger. “It’s not something we like to see near land simply because it would allow a storm to maintain a high intensity right up to landfall or rapidly intensify as it approaches landfall.”
Hurricane forecasters have recently upped their predictions for the season in response to the rising ocean temperatures.
Every last person who has experienced the severe heat wave that's afflicted Florida and the Florida Keys since the first days of July would call this cartoon (and the remark that accompanies it) "stupid beyond belief."
Hurricane forecasters have recently upped their predictions for the season in response to the rising ocean temperatures.[/SIZE]Ocean surface waters in the Florida Keys are just below a Jacuzzi Hot Tub
Rinse, I've lived in Florida for the greater part of the past 27 years... this "heat wave" that you're calling it, is NOT what you're making it out to be. This is normal Florida weather during the summer months. I can recall many days in the late 90s that it would be well over 100+ degrees. I don't even know why we're having this conversation? This is like the first time in the whole summer that it's been in the mid-90s for more than a day ... and I'm trying to understand why anyone thinks this is abnormal?
Also, I've been to the Florida keys plenty of times. If you've never lived in Florida, then you wouldn't understand. The "gulf" is like a giant soup bowl that throughout most of it, is not very deep. The shoreline (and shallowness of the shore) of Florida on the Gulf side is immense... it acts like a big boiling pot of water.
As you can see in the image below... the gulf stream comes up through the Caribbean, churns in the Gulf of Florida (as I like to call it), and then it exits LITERALLY along the Keys, which gets the hottest part of the gulf stream and carries up up through the eastern shoreline. This is completely different than the ocean water in the Pacific where the water is generally colder.
I used to go snorkling in the Keys all the time when I was younger... and it's always hot as balls.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 07-11-2023).]
SOME ON THE RIGHT ARE RISKING A SPRAIN FROM HANDWAVING SO HARD
BOTH ON LAND AND AT SEA NEW NORMAL IS RECORD SETTING HOT
how long can they say what IS HAPPENING ain't
Ray, I addressed this earlier. Our records for daily temperatures only go back to the 1880s.
For a planet that is 4.5 billion years old, a mere ~145 years is not enough time to collect information that would be considered a baseline... or even remotely close to that. Essentially, you can expect records (both highs and lows) to be set almost every year for many days throughout the year. Statistically, we don't have enough to even remotely represent a baseline, even for the phase or shift of the Earth in its alignment over the past 4.5 billion years.
Consider the Sigmoid curve... this curve represents how an entity might react to new inferences in the beginning. As the available inferences are reached, the amount of change begins to level out. Essentially, this means that as we reach peak highs and peak lows for what's considered acceptable for the Earth... we will see fewer and fewer records being broken. But before this would be even remotely possible... we'd need at least 1 billion years of collected information.
The only thing we could possibly do, is collect core samples from around the world, geo-locate where they might have been on the continents at the time (based on continental shift), and then determine mean highs and mean lows from the information. It would be super inaccurate, but it would at least provide some viable thresholds to determine whether or not any of this meant anything.
Realistically, these records mean nothing... and they're being taken wildly out of context to get people worked up. The Earth is warming, and from what we can tell looking at carbon dating, it warms and cools in different cycles, and nothing we're seeing is relatively abnormal. To that point, if all humans died tomorrow... 1,000 years from now you'd barely be able to tell humanity even existed. Most buildings would have collapsed, all the shores would have been eroded from various hurricanes and storm surges, and all the roads would have been overgrown.
Like I've argued many times before... Democrats spend 99% of their efforts on 1% of the problem, and to a larger point, I think both yours, Patricks, Rinse's, and other's good nature is being taken advantage of in the form of crisis manipulation. That is... you're being convinced that the world is ending, so the populace will support essentially anything. People are profiting off of this farcical "green" movement... China, specifically. They own 80%+ of both solar and wind manufacturing. They are making enormous profits from the United States and Europe, all while most of this stuff cannot be recycled and is being buried in the desert.
What we SHOULD be doing to help the environment, is make more effort eliminating chemical run-off in rivers, reduce the harmful effects of manufacturing on the local eco-system, and implement a nation-wide recycling program. Instead, everyone falls prey to this narrative that when we break a 140 year record for 1 day of a 4.5 billion year old planet, that somehow this means the Earth is dying.
The 4.5 billion years is not relevant, because the earth has been radically different in various eras within that timeline. At times there was only one continent, surrounded by ocean. Go far enough back in time and there wasn't any oxygen in the atmosphere.
There's no comparison to be made between the earth as it has been for the last million years and the earth as it was 100 million or a billion years ago.
In terms of climate, the climate scientists only consider something like the last 100,000 years as a valid timeline for comparisons.
We're not concerned about what the climate could be like 100,000 years from now. Maybe 10,000 years from now. More likely, 1000 years from now. Certainly by the end of the current century and even by the midpoint of the current century.
but handwaving never fixed nothing but sometimes does allow creeps to escape their just rewards
we know the records of temperature back millions of years mostly by what grows where when and makes pollen animals also no snakes in very cold places ect
Originally posted by Fats: If the Climate Activists really believed any of the crap they post, they would be out planting trees all day.
It's clear from that remark that you don't know enough about it to justify having an opinion of your own. You really ought to limit yourself to "I don't know. I'm not convinced."
Just for the record, I'm not a climate activist. Just an observer. A "reader". No more than that.
It might look weird, but it's correct American English. We fought a bunch of battles for the right to do our own thing. You're an American... don't fall for the nonsense that MEM and Patrick spew on here! Hahah...
Yes... again, I know it feels weird, but in American English, the punctuation always goes before the end quote without exception. In British English, there's a series of If / Then / Else or case statements that determine placement of the punctuation based on various conditions.
Just like how grey is for British people, and gray is for Americans.
If you watch TV, odds are you've seen ads that promote natural gas as a "clean" energy source... still a planet-warming fossil fuel, but less harmful in that regard than coal.
New research is casting even more doubt (it was already disputed) on the idea that favoring natural gas over coal as a transitional energy source on the Yellow Brick Road to Net Zero Nirvana is actually a good idea, if the most important criterion for "goodness" is a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
The reason? Leaks. Natural gas leaks are methane going into the atmosphere, and molecule for molecule, methane has a planet-warming greenhouse effect that is 25 times greater than carbon dioxide, according to the EPA.
EXCERPT
quote
The peer-reviewed study, which also involved researchers from Harvard and Duke Universities and NASA and is set to be published next week in the journal Environmental Research Letters, adds to a substantial body of research that has poked holes in the idea that natural gas is a suitable transitional fuel to a future powered entirely by renewables, like solar and wind.
The findings throw up difficult questions about how much more money the nations of the world should invest in gas infrastructure to ward off the worst of global warming. The $370 billion Inflation Reduction Act passed by the United States Congress last year, designed to move the country away from fossil fuels and toward renewables, includes credits that would apply to some forms of natural gas.
When power companies generate electricity by burning natural gas instead of coal, they emit only about half the amount of planet-warming carbon dioxide. In the United States, the shift from coal to gas, driven by a boom in oil and gas fracking, has helped reduce carbon emissions from power plants by nearly 40 percent since 2005.
But natural gas is made up mostly of methane, which is a far more potent planet-warming gas, in the short term, than carbon dioxide when it escapes unburned into the atmosphere. And there’s mounting evidence that methane is doing just that: leaking from gas systems in far larger quantities than previously thought. Sensors and infrared cameras are helping to visualize substantial leaks of methane from oil and gas infrastructure, and increasingly powerful satellites are detecting “super-emitting” episodes from space.
"Leaks Can Make Natural Gas as Bad for the Climate as Coal, a Study Says"
quote
The findings cast doubt on the idea that natural gas can serve as a transitional fuel to a future powered entirely by renewables like solar and wind.
Originally posted by rinselberg:Hot enough for you?
I hear tell that the Global Warming alarmists say California will be uninhabitable soon due to GLOBAL WARMING. The GLOBAL WARMING sheeple are buying it hook, line, and sinker.
The GLOBAL WARMING sheeple have not even given pause to think how has Mexico, Central America, and northern South America been habitable for centuries.
Originally posted by rinselberg: If you watch TV, odds are you've seen ads that promote naturals gas a "clean" energy source... still a planet-warming fossil fuel, but less harmful in that regard than coal.
I will take the odds that you do not understand what you see. That is not what the ads portray.
Some see the glass as half full. More think the glass is half empty. I believe you think "the end is very near".
You still do not want to hear the instant solution to cutting "green house" gasses in half. Quickly.
I posted this on that "Underground Climate Change" thread, but now that cliffw has shown up here, I don't see why it can't be on this thread at the same time.
A question about sea level:
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Every single prediction the Global Warming fear mongers has been proven to be wrong. We are into 20 years since we were first warned about Global Warming. What has the sea level done?
This is what sea level has been up to:
quote
Global sea level rose about 8 inches (20 centimeters) in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and accelerating slightly every year.
"Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era." R. S. Nerem, B. D. Beckley, J. T. Fasullo, B. D. Hamlington, D. Masters and G. T. Mitchum. PNAS [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences], 2018 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1717312115.
I want to go back to that same remark from cliffw for a second bite at the apple:
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Every single prediction the Global Warming fear mongers has been proven to be wrong. We are into 20 years since we were first warned about Global Warming.
If cliffw were to go to this NASA webpage (I'll be getting to it soon) and scroll down until he sees "The Evidence for Rapid Climate Change Is Compelling:" over on the left, in large white text against a black background, cliffw would be at a place, online, where cliffw could quickly apprehend the various predictions of climate researchers over the years since "Climate Change" became a thing—the "Gore-ocene" Geologic Era, as it were—and how these predictions from climate researchers are in fact tracking very closely with the data that is coming in continuously from all over the planet.
Some (at least one) has said that we are now living in the "Gore-ocene" Geologic Era that began with the release in 2006 of the Oscar-winning film event "An Inconvenient Truth."
"How Do We Know Climate Change Is Real?"
quote
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.
"Science" and "leftist" are as out of place in this failed attempt to say something, as would be the carcass of a beached whale that was discovered in an alley behind a convenience store on the outskirts of Wichita, Kansas. (If such a thing were to happen.)
Edit to add: I don't see why Wichita has any particular opinions or ideas about the "climate change" thing. It's Greek to him.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-16-2023).]
The land areas in this projection are delineated with flat or evenly-shaded gray.
"Excessive heat: Why this summer has been so hot"
quote
Nearly a third of Americans - over 113 million people - are under some form of heat advisory, the US National Weather Service said.
Across the US, temperatures are shattering decades-long record highs. In El Paso, Texas, temperatures have soared to above 37C - triple-digits Fahrenheit - for 27 consecutive days, overtaking a record last set in 1994.
In the UK, the June heat didn't just break all-time records, it smashed them. It was 0.9C hotter than the previous record, set back in 1940. That is a huge margin.
There is a similar story of unprecedented hot weather in North Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
No surprise, then, that the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather forecasts said that globally, June was the hottest on record.
And the heat has not eased. The three hottest days ever recorded were in the past week, according to the EU climate and weather service, Copernicus.
The average world temperature hit 16.89C on Monday 3 July and topped 17C for the first time on 4 July, with an average global temperature of 17.04C.
Provisional figures suggest that was exceeded on 5 July when temperatures reached 17.05C.
These highs are in line with what climate models predicted, says Prof Richard Betts, climate scientist at the Met Office and University of Exeter.
"We should not be at all surprised with the high global temperatures," he says. "This is all a stark reminder of what we've known for a long time, and we will see ever more extremes until we stop building up more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
Wichita provides no source for this data plot. It can only be something he copied from a Twitter thread, and likely, there is no source for it in the "tweet" where he got it.
If you limit the data to "All U.S. Historical Climatology Network Stations," which is how this data plot is labeled, then you are ignoring all kinds of data from all over the world, from other continents and from the oceans. The U.S., even including Alaska and Hawaii, is just a small percent of the surface area of the entire planet.
"All U.S. Historical Climatology Network Stations" doesn't stand up in any probative way against systematic and comprehensive research like this:
"How Do We Know Climate Change Is Real?"
quote
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.
If you limit the data to "All U.S. Historical Climatology Network Stations," which is how this data plot is labeled, then you are ignoring all kinds of data from all over the world, from other continents and from the oceans. The U.S., even including Alaska and Hawaii, is just a small percent of the surface area of the entire planet.
Wichita's fantasy world only includes the contiguous US. It's simpler for him that way.
I posted this on that "Underground Climate Change" thread, but now that cliffw has shown up here, I don't see why it can't be on this thread at the same time.
A question about sea level: Here's a similar webpage from NASA that focuses on rising sea levels
NASA ? They are as dependable as the CDC [many failurse). The FBI. The CIA whose own leaders said it was not Hunters laptop. Russia Russia Russia.
I heard tell that eight inches would submerge some islands.
WEATHER NO BUT LONG TERM CLIMATE TRENDS YES WE CAN
TAX THE RICH
too bad we can't have a RWNJ TAX as that is where we have BIG problems
The left constantly changes the meaning of words, but seems hung up on terminology here. You really got us here. 🙄
If you really cared, you would be out planting trees.
I vote we implement a 95% income tax on anyone who voted for Biden. That should be at least $50 into the pot from the social money suckers. That'll fix the weather.
Originally posted by Fats: If you really cared, you would be out planting trees.
That's a bulls--t line that people throw around. There's no way that could ever be enough. People only say that because they don't know about any of the research projects involving trees and carbon capture.
I like what I've read about restoring coastal wetlands and even purposely fine-tuning the biology of coastal wetlands to improve their effectiveness as carbon sinks. That's carbon capture using Mother Nature. And restoring wetlands helps protect port cities and smaller coastal communities from the damaging effects of storm surge and tidal flooding during hurricanes and tropical storms.
"Changes to Coastal Wetlands Could Be Altering Carbon Capture Capacity"
quote
This research will help scientists better manage this critical natural resource on a molecular level
"Cities of the future may be built with algae-grown limestone"
quote
Global cement production accounts for 7% of annual greenhouse gas emissions in large part through the burning of quarried limestone. Now, a CU Boulder-led research team has figured out a way to make cement production carbon neutral—and even carbon negative—by pulling carbon dioxide out of the air with the help of microalgae.
The CU Boulder engineers and their colleagues at the Algal Resources Collection at the University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have been rewarded for their innovative work with a $3.2 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E). The research team was recently selected by the HESTIA program (Harnessing Emissions into Structures Taking Inputs from the Atmosphere) to develop and scale up the manufacture of biogenic limestone-based portland cement and help build a zero-carbon future. . . .
