Global Climate Change = Epic Fail

[manifold]

The fact that global "warming" has now morphed into global "climate change" in and of itself signifies the epic fail of the overall argument. The term global warming carries with it a very serious connotation, something to be truly feared. But climate change? Not so much.

Good luck getting people to fear climate change.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really?

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/stati...ports-in-brief/Science_Report_Brief_Final.pdf

Projections of future climate change anticipate
an additional warming of 2.0 to 11.5 ºF (1.1 to 6.4 ºC)
over the 21st century, on top of the 1.4 ºF already
observed over the past 100 years. Warming is and
will be greatest over land areas and higher latitudes.
Projected impacts of future climate change include:
• Water availability will decrease in
many areas that are already
drought-prone and in areas where
rivers are fed by glaciers or
snowpack;
• A higher fraction of rainfall will
fall in the form of heavy precipitation,
increasing the risk of flooding
and, in some regions, the
spread of water-borne illness;
• People and ecosystems in coastal
zones will be exposed to higher
storm surges, intrusion of salt
water into freshwater aquifers, and
other risks as sea levels rise;
• Coral reefs will experience
widespread bleaching as a result of
increasing temperatures, rising sea
levels, and ocean acidification.

 

[Valerie]

The fact that global "warming" has now morphed into global "climate change" in and of itself signifies the epic fail of the overall argument. The term global warming carries with it a very serious connotation, something to be truly feared. But climate change? Not so much.

Good luck getting people to fear climate change.

I get what you're saying but ultimately public policies will come down to the realities involved when the climate actually does change over time and regionally we need to adjust our way of living due to real circumstances.

 

[westwall]

Really?

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/stati...ports-in-brief/Science_Report_Brief_Final.pdf

Projections of future climate change anticipate
an additional warming of 2.0 to 11.5 ºF (1.1 to 6.4 ºC)
over the 21st century, on top of the 1.4 ºF already
observed over the past 100 years. Warming is and
will be greatest over land areas and higher latitudes.
Projected impacts of future climate change include:
• Water availability will decrease in
many areas that are already
drought-prone and in areas where
rivers are fed by glaciers or
snowpack;
• A higher fraction of rainfall will
fall in the form of heavy precipitation,
increasing the risk of flooding
and, in some regions, the
spread of water-borne illness;
• People and ecosystems in coastal
zones will be exposed to higher
storm surges, intrusion of salt
water into freshwater aquifers, and
other risks as sea levels rise;
• Coral reefs will experience
widespread bleaching as a result of
increasing temperatures, rising sea
levels, and ocean acidification.

Bull puckey! Colder climate generates more rain and flooding and causes far more deaths than warm weather.

C3: Floods 10X More Likely During Global Cooling Periods Vs. Global Warming Periods, EU Scientists Discover

 

[Old Rocks]

Note the differance in the periods of flooding for the two differant locations on the same continent. The paragraph in that link did not specify where these floods took place. Was this for a local area in Europe, or were these floods in various parts of the world. Hardly enough information here for any judgement on this.

AOL Search

Of course, paleoflood hydrology generally cannot identify the
hydroclimatic cause for a given paleoflow event. Nevertheless, the
time base of centuries or millennia is ideal for evaluating long-term
trends. Knox (1985) documented a pronounced nonstationarity for
upper Mississippi Valley floods over the past 9500 years. Early
Holocene alluvial fills indicate very low probabilities for large
floods between 6000 and 9500 yr B.P. Increased probabilities for
large floods are evidenced by boulder gravel in overbank sediments
deposited in the following age intervals: (1) 6000 to 4500 yr B.P.,
(2) 3000 to 1800 yr B.P., and (3) 1000 to 500 yr B.P. (Knox, 1985).
Similarly, Patton & Dibble (1982) presented evidence from the Pecos
River of western Texas that floods were relatively infrequent during
an arid interval between approximately 9000 and 3000 yr B.P., but the
extraordinary floods occurring in this interval were unusually large.
Between approximately 3000 and 2000 yr B.P. a humid interval resulted
in more frequent flooding, but flood magnitudes were'moderated. The
last 2000 years has been most similar to the early Holocene arid
interval.

 

[westwall]

Note the differance in the periods of flooding for the two differant locations on the same continent. The paragraph in that link did not specify where these floods took place. Was this for a local area in Europe, or were these floods in various parts of the world. Hardly enough information here for any judgement on this.

AOL Search

Of course, paleoflood hydrology generally cannot identify the
hydroclimatic cause for a given paleoflow event. Nevertheless, the
time base of centuries or millennia is ideal for evaluating long-term
trends. Knox (1985) documented a pronounced nonstationarity for
upper Mississippi Valley floods over the past 9500 years. Early
Holocene alluvial fills indicate very low probabilities for large
floods between 6000 and 9500 yr B.P. Increased probabilities for
large floods are evidenced by boulder gravel in overbank sediments
deposited in the following age intervals: (1) 6000 to 4500 yr B.P.,
(2) 3000 to 1800 yr B.P., and (3) 1000 to 500 yr B.P. (Knox, 1985).
Similarly, Patton & Dibble (1982) presented evidence from the Pecos
River of western Texas that floods were relatively infrequent during
an arid interval between approximately 9000 and 3000 yr B.P., but the
extraordinary floods occurring in this interval were unusually large.
Between approximately 3000 and 2000 yr B.P. a humid interval resulted
in more frequent flooding, but flood magnitudes were'moderated. The
last 2000 years has been most similar to the early Holocene arid
interval.

The Mississippi river flood plain is 200 miles across. Until man came along and channeled it the Mississippi would quite simply remove all evidence of past floods so how these guys can make these statements are beyond me.

 

[westwall]

Really?

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/stati...ports-in-brief/Science_Report_Brief_Final.pdf

Projections of future climate change anticipate
an additional warming of 2.0 to 11.5 ºF (1.1 to 6.4 ºC)
over the 21st century, on top of the 1.4 ºF already
observed over the past 100 years. Warming is and
will be greatest over land areas and higher latitudes.
Projected impacts of future climate change include:
• Water availability will decrease in
many areas that are already
drought-prone and in areas where
rivers are fed by glaciers or
snowpack;
• A higher fraction of rainfall will
fall in the form of heavy precipitation,
increasing the risk of flooding
and, in some regions, the
spread of water-borne illness;
• People and ecosystems in coastal
zones will be exposed to higher
storm surges, intrusion of salt
water into freshwater aquifers, and
other risks as sea levels rise;
• Coral reefs will experience
widespread bleaching as a result of
increasing temperatures, rising sea
levels, and ocean acidification.

The known historical record refutes these claims on all counts. The MWP and the RWP were periods of great prosperity for almost everyone and the temperatures were much higher than currently. You'll have to come up with a better fib than that old fraud.

 

[manifold]

I knew this would quickly deteriorate into a cut & paste duel like these always do.

I'm talking simply about the terms themselves. One sounds like it could be serious, the other far to nebulous to worry about.

That's just how it is.

 

[xsited1]

The fact that global "warming" has now morphed into global "climate change" in and of itself signifies the epic fail of the overall argument. The term global warming carries with it a very serious connotation, something to be truly feared. But climate change? Not so much.

Good luck getting people to fear climate change.

But I've been sending my money to the Church of Al Gore for years... You're just a heretic. I'm gonna tell him not to sell you any carbon credits and that'll show you.

 

[Old Rocks]

Note the differance in the periods of flooding for the two differant locations on the same continent. The paragraph in that link did not specify where these floods took place. Was this for a local area in Europe, or were these floods in various parts of the world. Hardly enough information here for any judgement on this.

AOL Search

Of course, paleoflood hydrology generally cannot identify the
hydroclimatic cause for a given paleoflow event. Nevertheless, the
time base of centuries or millennia is ideal for evaluating long-term
trends. Knox (1985) documented a pronounced nonstationarity for
upper Mississippi Valley floods over the past 9500 years. Early
Holocene alluvial fills indicate very low probabilities for large
floods between 6000 and 9500 yr B.P. Increased probabilities for
large floods are evidenced by boulder gravel in overbank sediments
deposited in the following age intervals: (1) 6000 to 4500 yr B.P.,
(2) 3000 to 1800 yr B.P., and (3) 1000 to 500 yr B.P. (Knox, 1985).
Similarly, Patton & Dibble (1982) presented evidence from the Pecos
River of western Texas that floods were relatively infrequent during
an arid interval between approximately 9000 and 3000 yr B.P., but the
extraordinary floods occurring in this interval were unusually large.
Between approximately 3000 and 2000 yr B.P. a humid interval resulted
in more frequent flooding, but flood magnitudes were'moderated. The
last 2000 years has been most similar to the early Holocene arid
interval.

The Mississippi river flood plain is 200 miles across. Until man came along and channeled it the Mississippi would quite simply remove all evidence of past floods so how these guys can make these statements are beyond me.

The path of the Bretz Floods is many times that size, and we can tell from the erratics, rhythmites, and sediments the differant sizes of the many floods from Lake Missoula. Why should it be any differant for the Mississippi river?

 

[editec]

The fact that global "warming" has now morphed into global "climate change" in and of itself signifies the epic fail of the overall argument. The term global warming carries with it a very serious connotation, something to be truly feared. But climate change? Not so much.

That is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read on this subject.

IF the climate changes rapidly the disruption of human economy will be catastropic no matter what we call it.

Note I say IF, eh?

Good luck getting people to fear climate change.

If climate change happens nobody is going to need to "get people" to fear it.

My concern, (and yours too, if you have any real understanding of what's going on, politically) is that we'll overreact and do something foolish thinking that will help, when it won't help one bit.

The question isn't "will the climate change?" because we know the climate is always changing.

The real questions are how fast will the climate change and what will it change into?

Like you, I doubt anybody really knows the answer to either of those questions.

People are making scientic wild assed guesses.

Climate is far too complex for us to get past the chaos effect such that we can arrive at good predictions.

 

[westwall]

Note the differance in the periods of flooding for the two differant locations on the same continent. The paragraph in that link did not specify where these floods took place. Was this for a local area in Europe, or were these floods in various parts of the world. Hardly enough information here for any judgement on this.

AOL Search

Of course, paleoflood hydrology generally cannot identify the
hydroclimatic cause for a given paleoflow event. Nevertheless, the
time base of centuries or millennia is ideal for evaluating long-term
trends. Knox (1985) documented a pronounced nonstationarity for
upper Mississippi Valley floods over the past 9500 years. Early
Holocene alluvial fills indicate very low probabilities for large
floods between 6000 and 9500 yr B.P. Increased probabilities for
large floods are evidenced by boulder gravel in overbank sediments
deposited in the following age intervals: (1) 6000 to 4500 yr B.P.,
(2) 3000 to 1800 yr B.P., and (3) 1000 to 500 yr B.P. (Knox, 1985).
Similarly, Patton & Dibble (1982) presented evidence from the Pecos
River of western Texas that floods were relatively infrequent during
an arid interval between approximately 9000 and 3000 yr B.P., but the
extraordinary floods occurring in this interval were unusually large.
Between approximately 3000 and 2000 yr B.P. a humid interval resulted
in more frequent flooding, but flood magnitudes were'moderated. The
last 2000 years has been most similar to the early Holocene arid
interval.

The Mississippi river flood plain is 200 miles across. Until man came along and channeled it the Mississippi would quite simply remove all evidence of past floods so how these guys can make these statements are beyond me.

The path of the Bretz Floods is many times that size, and we can tell from the erratics, rhythmites, and sediments the differant sizes of the many floods from Lake Missoula. Why should it be any differant for the Mississippi river?

Actually no they aren't. The Bretz floods (named after the geologist, (who's first name escapes me) who first recognised their existence and wrote about them and how they formed the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washinton State) were episodic over a period of several hundred years and involved the damning of the upper Columbia River area and the basins eastward (I don't remember the specifics as I havn't been there for 20 years or so) by advancing glaciers. This happened 3 or more times if memory serves and affected an area of around 2,000-3,000 sq miles. The rest of the time however (and for the last 10,000 years or so) the area has remained arid. Thus the evidence remains. The Mississippi on the other hand has affected an area of around 200,000 square miles (remember it may be only two hundred miles wide but that section is over 1,000 miles long so I rounded down)
And it has been continuously flushing itself till the effects of man damning it up.

That my good man is why the effects are different, you are dealing with two different geomorphic provinces, you are dealing with two entirely different climates, and you are dealing with two entirely different weathering processes.

 

[Old Rocks]

J. Harlan Bretz. Several thousand years. Maybe as many as a hundred times, certainly 50 or more. The area affected in the Bretz Floods stretch from Montana, through Idaho, most of eastern Washington, the rim of northern Eastern Oregon, the Columbia Gorge, The Willamette Valley, and on to the Pacific Ocean. Over 20,000 square miles directly affected.

http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/corley2/missoula.htm

 

[Old Rocks]

The fact that global "warming" has now morphed into global "climate change" in and of itself signifies the epic fail of the overall argument. The term global warming carries with it a very serious connotation, something to be truly feared. But climate change? Not so much.

That is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read on this subject.

IF the climate changes rapidly the disruption of human economy will be catastropic no matter what we call it.

Note I say IF, eh?

Good luck getting people to fear climate change.

If climate change happens nobody is going to need to "get people" to fear it.

My concern, (and yours too, if you have any real understanding of what's going on, politically) is that we'll overreact and do something foolish thinking that will help, when it won't help one bit.

The question isn't "will the climate change?" because we know the climate is always changing.

The real questions are how fast will the climate change and what will it change into?

Like you, I doubt anybody really knows the answer to either of those questions.

People are making scientic wild assed guesses.

Climate is far too complex for us to get past the chaos effect such that we can arrive at good predictions.

Editec, I think you are wrong on this. We have prior periods of very rapid warming due to fast addition of GHGs into the atmosphere. We know what happened then. From proxy data, we have a fairly good idea of how much was added and at what rate. Almost all of the past data indicates that we are adding GHGs faster than was the case in the past when the extinctions occured. At least, faster until those times reached to points where the ocean clathrates let go.

And, no, we do not have precise enough records to predict what will happen on a decadal scale. And, for me, that is what is dangerous. We are doing a huge planet wide experiment, with no idea of the consequences, or the speed at which they will come about, and no way to turn back. We do not even understand enough to make a reasonable guess as to the point at which the feedbacks wil create a situation from which we cannot turn back.

Kind of like driving down a road in the fog, not knowing where we are at, knowing that there is a bridge ahead that is out, but not knowing where the bridge is, either. And some suggest the best action at this point is pedal to the metal.

 

[westwall]

J. Harlan Bretz. Several thousand years. Maybe as many as a hundred times, certainly 50 or more. The area affected in the Bretz Floods stretch from Montana, through Idaho, most of eastern Washington, the rim of northern Eastern Oregon, the Columbia Gorge, The Willamette Valley, and on to the Pacific Ocean. Over 20,000 square miles directly affected.

http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/corley2/missoula.htm

Thanks for the link, and as I said I havn't done anything up there for a couple of decades so most of it has slipped my mind....but it still isn't 200,000 square miles is it? It is still a different climate, a different geomorphic province etc. Also if my memory serves there were those who felt the bursting of the damn and the draining of lake Missoula couldn't account for the amount of water needed to do the cutting etc. and they were pointing to subglacial outbursts from teh cordilleran ice sheet....has that ever been resolved?

Isn't it nice talking geology instead of hurling insults?

 

[westwall]

The fact that global "warming" has now morphed into global "climate change" in and of itself signifies the epic fail of the overall argument. The term global warming carries with it a very serious connotation, something to be truly feared. But climate change? Not so much.

That is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read on this subject.

IF the climate changes rapidly the disruption of human economy will be catastropic no matter what we call it.

Note I say IF, eh?



If climate change happens nobody is going to need to "get people" to fear it.

My concern, (and yours too, if you have any real understanding of what's going on, politically) is that we'll overreact and do something foolish thinking that will help, when it won't help one bit.

The question isn't "will the climate change?" because we know the climate is always changing.

The real questions are how fast will the climate change and what will it change into?

Like you, I doubt anybody really knows the answer to either of those questions.

People are making scientic wild assed guesses.

Climate is far too complex for us to get past the chaos effect such that we can arrive at good predictions.

Editec, I think you are wrong on this. We have prior periods of very rapid warming due to fast addition of GHGs into the atmosphere. We know what happened then. From proxy data, we have a fairly good idea of how much was added and at what rate. Almost all of the past data indicates that we are adding GHGs faster than was the case in the past when the extinctions occured. At least, faster until those times reached to points where the ocean clathrates let go.

And, no, we do not have precise enough records to predict what will happen on a decadal scale. And, for me, that is what is dangerous. We are doing a huge planet wide experiment, with no idea of the consequences, or the speed at which they will come about, and no way to turn back. We do not even understand enough to make a reasonable guess as to the point at which the feedbacks wil create a situation from which we cannot turn back.

Kind of like driving down a road in the fog, not knowing where we are at, knowing that there is a bridge ahead that is out, but not knowing where the bridge is, either. And some suggest the best action at this point is pedal to the metal.

I have to disagree with you on this A UCSB geology professor who's name escapes me found that warming occured then 800 to 900 years later the CO2 levels increased dramatically. Also there is this peer reviewed report that was recently published by Rice University back in 2009.

Rice University | News & Media

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I will believe in it more when I see the hucksters act as if they believe it themselves, rather than a tool for scamming the enlightened.

 

[manifold]

The fact that global "warming" has now morphed into global "climate change" in and of itself signifies the epic fail of the overall argument. The term global warming carries with it a very serious connotation, something to be truly feared. But climate change? Not so much.

That is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read on this subject.

IF the climate changes rapidly the disruption of human economy will be catastropic no matter what we call it.

Way to miss the point shit-for-brains.

I guess I wasn't clear enough that I'm talking about the terms and how one is much softer than the other. Heres a hint Einstein, it has nothing to do with the actual threat itself.

 

[konradv]

The fact that global "warming" has now morphed into global "climate change" in and of itself signifies the epic fail of the overall argument. The term global warming carries with it a very serious connotation, something to be truly feared. But climate change? Not so much.

Good luck getting people to fear climate change.

The only "epic failure" I see is the failure of the deniers to make any headway on the scientific front. That's why they have to talk about Gore and people trying to "control" you. They've lost the scientific argument and have had to either go totally political or steal emails and lie about what they meant. Either way, they're losers and you can see it in their growing desperation upon losing the control THEY really desire and try to blame on others.

 

[konradv]

I guess I wasn't clear enough that I'm talking about the terms and how one is much softer than the other. Heres a hint Einstein, it has nothing to do with the actual threat itself.
--------------------

The reason it was changed is to emphasize that warming can lead to all sorts of changes, even when the warming isn't readily apparent. To simply say GW, implies that's all that's going on, when it can actually lead to things like more snow in some areas, for example.