The debate on climate change is now over. The verdict: Too late to do anything about it!

[Paracetamol63]

You've forgotten the importance of insects. They have been dying off at an alarming rate. Bees too in many places. Without the right kind of insects there will be no agriculture.

Yup. Our actions are a direct threat to our own economy but our ability to decimate ecosystems is WELL DOCUMENTED. I'm curious what we'll be able to do if we keep heating the climate.

 

[Paracetamol63]

How so? A warmer world means a wetter world.

Not necessarily EVERYWHERE. That's the idea of global climate change. It will get wetter in some areas but it will also get drier in others. There's absolutely no reason to assume that the earth is without any other climate drivers than air temperature.

Same goes with warm and cool areas. Even as the globe warms on average some locales can actually be expected to get cooler! There are estimates which show that warming of the globe may result in higher humidity in the Mediterrannean as you suggest but that additional humidity is expected to actually increase snowfall in the Himalayas since the predominating weather patterns move that way. So you might actually see some areas in the Himalayas where SNOWFALL INCREASES as the globe warms.

 

[ding]

Not necessarily.

Our present interglacial is 2C cooler than the previous interglacial with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2.

 

[ding]

Not necessarily EVERYWHERE. That's the idea of global climate change. It will get wetter in some areas but it will also get drier in others. There's absolutely no reason to assume that the earth is without any other climate drivers than air temperature.

Same goes with warm and cool areas. Even as the globe warms on average some locales can actually be expected to get cooler! There are estimates which show that warming of the globe may result in higher humidity in the Mediterrannean as you suggest but that additional humidity is expected to actually increase snowfall in the Himalayas since the predominating weather patterns move that way. So you might actually see some areas in the Himalayas where SNOWFALL INCREASES as the globe warms.

That's exactly what Cardinal Carminative argued.

ReinyDays seems you might be correct afterall.

Sure, it's a complex system, but overall warmer does mean wetter.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yup. It may even be a harbinger of climate change. It's hard to say on single year events or just a small sample of the entire dataset, but right now the weather is pretty messed up in many, many places with records being broken everywhere.

According to the paleo record we have had a prolonged calm in our weather patterns. We are simply returning to earth 'normal' more active state. This is what taking too short of a snippet in time does in science, it creates a false sense of normalcy.

 

[Paracetamol63]

According to the paleo record we have had a prolonged calm in our weather patterns.

What are you referring to?

We are simply returning to earth 'normal' more active state.

That isn't correct.

This is what taking too short of a snippet in time does in science, it creates a false sense of normalcy.

What you are referring to is "windowing" of data. Or "cherry picking" in this data set. But in this case it is reasonable since the key factor is how is the climate changing now and what are the drivers?

We know a LOT about why our climate is as it is. The "paleo record" you referred to earlier is how the scientists know what the climate was like in the distant past. And, yeah, it changed. A lot. But those changes were driven by natural factors: the sun, the position of the continents, the ocean currents, etc. So the scientists have been able to get a good handle on "natural factors". They key NOW is that a NEW factor has arisen in the last 150 years. A factor that has shown itself capable of immense ecological damage even without thinking about AGW.

The studies keep showing that NONE OF THE NATURAL FACTORS are in a state to line up to explain the warming. They can explain a LITTLE BIT of it, but there's more than about 50% of the warming we CAN'T explain by relying on the "sun" or "ocean currents" to explain right now. Why is it getting warmer? If anything it should be getting COOLER because as another poster mentioned: we are still in an ice age. We are just in an interglacial. We should be heading back into the next glacial event! But we aren't. We are warming and when we investigate that warming we find that humans appear to bear a significant burden of responsibility for it.

 

[Woodznutz]

Does this include Jerusalem? ...

It includes any city whose physical design denies people the elbow room they for good mental and physical health.

 

[ReinyDays]

That's exactly what Cardinal Carminative argued.

ReinyDays seems you might be correct afterall.

Sure, it's a complex system, but overall warmer does mean wetter.

The error in Doctor Liar's argument is he/she/it doesn't take into consideration Arctic Amplification ... the short term tread of the polar regions warming twice as fast as the tropics ... this reduces the convective force, which in turn reduces power ... thus powerful weather events become less likely under our current warming treads ...

We will not be violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics anytime in our future ...

 

[Billy_Bob]

What are you referring to?



That isn't correct.



What you are referring to is "windowing" of data. Or "cherry picking" in this data set. But in this case it is reasonable since the key factor is how is the climate changing now and what are the drivers?

We know a LOT about why our climate is as it is. The "paleo record" you referred to earlier is how the scientists know what the climate was like in the distant past. And, yeah, it changed. A lot. But those changes were driven by natural factors: the sun, the position of the continents, the ocean currents, etc. So the scientists have been able to get a good handle on "natural factors". They key NOW is that a NEW factor has arisen in the last 150 years. A factor that has shown itself capable of immense ecological damage even without thinking about AGW.

The studies keep showing that NONE OF THE NATURAL FACTORS are in a state to line up to explain the warming. They can explain a LITTLE BIT of it, but there's more than about 50% of the warming we CAN'T explain by relying on the "sun" or "ocean currents" to explain right now. Why is it getting warmer? If anything it should be getting COOLER because as another poster mentioned: we are still in an ice age. We are just in an interglacial. We should be heading back into the next glacial event! But we aren't. We are warming and when we investigate that warming we find that humans appear to bear a significant burden of responsibility for it.

SO, your cherry picking is OK but others looking at long term trends is not...

Man's contribution to global warming is undetectable and cannot be discerned from noise in our climatic system. This is easily evidenced by over 173 models that fail inside 10 years when empirically verified and overestimate warming by no less than a factor of ten.

Nope. You are wrong on both points.

 

[Paracetamol63]

The error in Doctor Liar's argument is he/she/it doesn't take into consideration Arctic Amplification ... the short term tread of the polar regions warming twice as fast as the tropics ... this reduces the convective force, which in turn reduces power ... thus powerful weather events become less likely under our current warming treads ...

Would you please provide an actual resource that verifies this claim? (Also: why are you so insulting?)

We will not be violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics anytime in our future ...

Nothing I said violates the Second Law that I am aware of. Please show me where I erred.

 

[Paracetamol63]

SO, your cherry picking is OK but others looking at long term trends is not...

Not really. But that's where the Hockey Stick comes in. Unfortunately so many people have demonized this solid science that it is hard to mention because you will likely automatically reject it.

Man's contribution to global warming is undetectable

Incorrect.

Nope. You are wrong on both points.

I am not.

 

[Woodznutz]

You mean besides creating an asphalt jungle which absorbs more heat and creates an urban heat island effect?

So apparently you are not addressing everything that's destructive. You are only addressing what you have been told to address.

I have my favorites although I could come up with a comprehensive plan. I act more locally than globally, badgering my local officials to get their heads out of their asses regarding our polluted lakes. They are firmly in the grip of powerful special interests, however.

People also don't seem terribly concerned.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The error in Doctor Liar's argument is he/she/it doesn't take into consideration Arctic Amplification ... the short term tread of the polar regions warming twice as fast as the tropics ... this reduces the convective force, which in turn reduces power ... thus powerful weather events become less likely under our current warming treads ...

Another person who doesn't realize that the earth is a paradoxically presenting system. The Arctic is not amplifying anything. It is responding to cooling as evidenced by the satellite measurements of outgoing energy. When the energy escapes in this region of the atmosphere it allows the polar jets to increase in size and collect more heat from the mid latitudes. It is this loss of heat in the mid latitudes that reduces the convective cycle. This is driven by energy loss at the poles.

We're not denying the laws of energy conservation, were expanding the area in which it occurs.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Not really. But that's where the Hockey Stick comes in. Unfortunately so many people have demonized this solid science that it is hard to mention because you will likely automatically reject it.



Incorrect.



I am not.

The hockey stick has been shown fraud. I can't believe you all are touting it today. No one in meteorology or in atmospheric physics gives it credibility. NO ONE!

 

[Paracetamol63]

The hockey stick has been shown fraud.

No it hasn't. It has been shown to show up in a variety of different proxies (speleothems, etc.) and the science behind it is actually pretty solid. You have been lied to.

I can't believe you all are touting it today.

I can't believe you go with what denialists and amateurs say.

No one in meteorology or in atmospheric physics gives it credibility. NO ONE!

Wrong. You are 100% perfectly wrong.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Our present interglacial is 2C cooler than the previous interglacial with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2.

If you look at past warm periods, we are about 2 deg C cooler than they were. We are nearing the point of rapid cooling if not already on it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

No it hasn't. It has been shown to show up in a variety of different proxies (speleothems, etc.) and the science behind it is actually pretty solid. You have been lied to.



I can't believe you go with what denialists and amateurs say.



Wrong. You are 100% perfectly wrong.

NO...

You have been lied too. The data set manipulations of East Anglia and others like NOAA make their data sets useless for science. Sorry, even my colleagues at the Colorado Atmospherics Lab won't use them. The hokey schtick has been debunked and the Michael Mann school of graphing shown fraudulent. Attaching a one-year data point to a 50 to 250 yearlong point is the epitome of scientific fraud. The hockey stick is the unwarranted use of dissimilar graphs, spliced together, to create the illusions of a nonexistent problem.

I am an atmospheric physicist. You are using old, tired arguments that have been long laid waste by real science.

What would happen to your beloved hockey stick if it were properly plotted in a 250 year data point? I'll wait..

 

[Oddball]

According to the IPCC ....

The central clearing house for Goebbels warmercoolering hoaxery.

 

[Paracetamol63]

NO...

You have been lied too.

I am afraid not, my friend.

The data set manipulations of East Anglia

THe "Climategate E-mail" kerfluffle was not what you were led to believe it was.

Do you have any science background yourself? I ask only because it helps to understand what scientists are talking about before jumping to some conclusion that they are doing something evil. No such thing occurred.

and others like NOAA make their data sets useless for science.

Again, this is "conspiracy theory" talk. It has no place in the science.

Sorry, even my colleagues at the Colorado Atmospherics Lab won't use them.

You are a climate scientist? Why don't you cite more actual science then?

The hokey schtick has been debunked and the Michael Mann school of graphing shown fraudulent.

The opposite has occurred. Repeated investigations have failed to find that Mann fraudulently manipulated data.

I am an atmospheric physicist. You are using old, tired arguments that have been long laid waste by real science.

I am curious, then, why your posts never seem to contain any actual science?

 

[Oddball]

SO, your cherry picking is OK but others looking at long term trends is not...

Man's contribution to global warming is undetectable and cannot be discerned from noise in our climatic system. This is easily evidenced by over 173 models that fail inside 10 years when empirically verified and overestimate warming by no less than a factor of ten.

Nope. You are wrong on both points.