Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

[Sunsettommy]

Total nonsense.
These Alaskan glaciers likely are only responding to a very tiny change in temperature, because they likely were always very near to the melting point.
The distance a glacier recedes is NOT at all indicative of the temperature change.
And being a trapped bay, changes in these glaciers have ZERO effect on the rest of the world, because they do NOT effect any global currents.

We have NEVER recorded living through even a tiny fraction of an ice age and warming period because the length of time for that cycle is about 110,000 years.
And clearly humans did very badly in the last cold period, with very few survivors.
Right now we are at the end of the warmest part of the cycle, and the cold part was over 50,000 years ago.
So there is no recorded history of how bad it got.
But humans were reduced to tiny isolated bands of cromagnon and neanderthal, so likely it was very bad.

You didn't bother to read the background to Glacier Bay, gee I wonder why?

Glacier Bay's Glacial History​

It was a product of the LIA which vanished over 150 years ago that is a major climate change you are ignoring; you sure forget that LIA was itself a major climate change.

You are still batting ZERO on this topic and still avoiding the evidence in post one, which is sad that Bob Euker has a better batting average than you do.

No one here has yet to make case of Climate Emergency, how come you ignore this over and over?

You whine that human suffered in past changes yet ignore this reality today.....

 

[fncceo]

You didn't bother to read the background to Glacier Bay, gee I wonder why?

Glacier Bay's Glacial History​

It was a product of the LIA which vanished over 150 years ago that is a major climate change you are ignoring; you sure forget that LIA was itself a major climate change.

You are still batting ZERO on this topic and still avoiding the evidence in post one, which is sad that Bob Euker has a better batting average than you do.

No one here has yet to make case of Climate Emergency, how come you ignore this over and over?

You whine that human suffered in past changes yet ignore this reality today.....

View attachment 593098

There is a problem with that graph ... there are those in the Climate Panic Club that believe volcanoes, earthquakes, and tsunamis are caused by Climate Change ... some of them even post on this board.

 

[jc456]

I have been to Iceland and stood on a glacier that, 50 years before, was over a kilometer longer.

But you weren’t there when it wasn’t! Doh

 

[Sunsettommy]

The Ancient Arabs had far more time because they did not drive SUVs that accelerate carbon climate changes.
But the Sahara turning from swamp to desert was from a change in local weather, and NOT from global climate change.

{...
As little as 6,000 years ago, the vast Sahara Desert was covered in grassland that received plenty of rainfall, but shifts in the world's weather patterns abruptly transformed the vegetated region into some of the driest land on Earth.
...}

6,000 years ago, the Sahara desert was tropical—what happened?

As little as 6,000 years ago, the vast Sahara Desert was covered in grassland that received plenty of rainfall, but shifts in the world's weather patterns abruptly transformed the vegetated region into some of the driest land on Earth. A Texas A&M university researcher is trying to uncover the...

phys.org

From YOUR link is this that contradicts you:

You claim: "But the Sahara turning from swamp to desert was from a change in local weather, and NOT from global climate change."

But the article says the very opposite

"As little as 6,000 years ago, the vast Sahara Desert was covered in grassland that received plenty of rainfall, but shifts in the world's weather patterns abruptly transformed the vegetated region into some of the driest land on Earth."

That is a fine statement of climate change.

Here is a report from University of Arizona

"Green Sahara's Ancient Rainfall Regime Revealed by Scientists
A UA-led team has identified the climate pattern that generated a "Green Sahara" from 5,000 to 11,000 years ago. The region had 10 times the rainfall it does today."​

You are stumbling badly now.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Does the following look like Climate Emergency?

or,

or,

or,

or,

or,

or,

or,

or,

Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.5 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

LINK

Democrats are easily scared.......

 

[Rigby5]

You haven't addressed a single claim in post one, which are supported by NASA, NOAA, Satellite data and more which you OBVIOUSLY never looked as you called me a liar over it.



I showed that a massive loss of a 65-mile-long thousands of feet thick glacial ice vanish in just 120 years yet nothing terrible happened to the planet and life despite that is an excellent example of a huge change in the climate in a short time.

CO2 for thousands of years stayed nearly flat around the 260-280 ppm line while the Holocene had large swings in temperature.

View attachment 593091

LINK

That is 10,000 years pal!

How do you explain that?

Sorry, but that is just dumb.
A 65 mile long glacier melting means nothing.
It could have been 1 degree below freezing and warmed to 1 degree above freezing, and that would cause the entire glacier to disappear.
But that does not require climate change at all.
Just a shift in weather air currents is all it takes.

And your graph of the last 10k years is totally pointless.
The fluctuations are totally INSIGNIFICANT.
If you look at a much longer time period, you easily see your graph is a tiny blip compared to the MUCH LARGER swings of the 110,000 long actual ice age and warming cycles, which your graph failed to capture at all.

Your graphs is just a bit of the noise at the very far, top, right.
The temperature swings your graph showed are less than 5% what the real ice age and waming period swings were.
And the whole point is that we are accelerating that 110,000 natural process down to only a few hundred years.
Worse yet, we are artificially compounding a new warming on top of being nearly at the peak of the natural warming.
That is a double warming that has never happened before, and we have no idea what it will do?

But there is a slight chance that the warming will increase atmospheric water vapor enough so that clouds will increase in the upper atmosphere, causing a more reflective albedo. If that happens, then the expect global warming catastrophe may be limited. But I don't particularly like that either, since it would mean no more stars or astronomy from the surface of the earth any more. It would mean perpetual cloud cover.

 

[Rigby5]

A 3.5 degree temperature swing is more than the prognosticators claim will melt all the ice on the planet and kill us all.

Perhaps you should pay more attention at the Climate Panic Parades.

Wrong.
We already have a 3.5 degree F temperature increase.
The prognostications are that after 3.5, then positive feedback from increased water vapor and melting methane hydrate will accelerate the warming as much as 11 degrees, killing most life on the planet.

 

[Rigby5]

From YOUR link is this that contradicts you:

You claim: "But the Sahara turning from swamp to desert was from a change in local weather, and NOT from global climate change."

But the article says the very opposite

"As little as 6,000 years ago, the vast Sahara Desert was covered in grassland that received plenty of rainfall, but shifts in the world's weather patterns abruptly transformed the vegetated region into some of the driest land on Earth."

That is a fine statement of climate change.

Here is a report from University of Arizona

"Green Sahara's Ancient Rainfall Regime Revealed by Scientists​

A UA-led team has identified the climate pattern that generated a "Green Sahara" from 5,000 to 11,000 years ago. The region had 10 times the rainfall it does today."​

You are stumbling badly now.

WRONG!
Please learn how to read.
When it says, "shifts in the world's weather patterns abruptly transformed the vegetated region into some of the driest land on Earth", that is NOT at all about global climate change.
That is local weather.
Weather is about the nonuniform distribution of temperature, moisture, and wind through out the globe.
Global climate is about the sum total of all the temperature, moisture, and wind through out the globe.

Global warming has NOTHING to do with the Sahara, which was only local weather patterns.

For example, the fresh water melt off from Greenland is not salty, so is lighter, and is predicted to force the warm Gulf Stream to submerge.
And if that happens, the global warming will cause Europe to drop about 10 degrees in temperature, as the Gulf Stream warmth is delivered elsewhere.
So global WARMING will make the European local weather much COLDER.
Does that make the difference between local weather and global climate more clear?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Sorry, but that is just dumb.
A 65 mile long glacier melting means nothing.
It could have been 1 degree below freezing and warmed to 1 degree above freezing, and that would cause the entire glacier to disappear.
But that does not require climate change at all.
Just a shift in weather air currents is all it takes.

And your graph of the last 10k years is totally pointless.
The fluctuations are totally INSIGNIFICANT.
If you look at a much longer time period, you easily see your graph is a tiny blip compared to the MUCH LARGER swings of the 110,000 long actual ice age and warming cycles, which your graph failed to capture at all.

Your graphs is just a bit of the noise at the very far, top, right.
The temperature swings your graph showed are less than 5% what the real ice age and waming period swings were.
And the whole point is that we are accelerating that 110,000 natural process down to only a few hundred years.
Worse yet, we are artificially compounding a new warming on top of being nearly at the peak of the natural warming.
That is a double warming that has never happened before, and we have no idea what it will do?

But there is a slight chance that the warming will increase atmospheric water vapor enough so that clouds will increase in the upper atmosphere, causing a more reflective albedo. If that happens, then the expect global warming catastrophe may be limited. But I don't particularly like that either, since it would mean no more stars or astronomy from the surface of the earth any more. It would mean perpetual cloud cover.

You still post ZERO evidence, and you fail to notice that CO2 was at 280ppm in 1760 when it retreated 65 miles to the late 1800's where CO2 was STILL at the 280ppm level.

65 miles of several thousand feet thick ice is a LOT of ice to melt away in just 120 years you need to stop drinking and look at the chart better.

How many FEET a year was it melting back in 120 years?

Hint: 343,000 Feet = 65 miles

 

[AZrailwhale]

Silly thread.
Climate change can cost trillions and kill millions through starvation.
Look at how quickly the dry Sahara desert resulted from the swamps that were here before it only about 10,000 years ago.
And we are accelerating the process down to only a couple hundred years or so.
Sure there would still be places with a useful climate, but almost every one would have to move, and most animals would be unlikely to adapt.

You do realize how long a "couple hundred years" is? The USA is just a couple of hundred years old. That's plenty of time for agriculture to adjust to changing conditions.

 

[Sunsettommy]

WRONG!
Please learn how to read.
When it says, "shifts in the world's weather patterns abruptly transformed the vegetated region into some of the driest land on Earth", that is NOT at all about global climate change.
That is local weather.
Weather is about the nonuniform distribution of temperature, moisture, and wind through out the globe.
Global climate is about the sum total of all the temperature, moisture, and wind through out the globe.

Global warming has NOTHING to do with the Sahara, which was only local weather patterns.

For example, the fresh water melt off from Greenland is not salty, so is lighter, and is predicted to force the warm Gulf Stream to submerge.
And if that happens, the global warming will cause Europe to drop about 10 degrees in temperature, as the Gulf Stream warmth is delivered elsewhere.
So global WARMING will make the European local weather much COLDER.
Does that make the difference between local weather and global climate more clear?

Bwahahahahahahahahahah!!!

"shifts in the world's weather patterns abruptly transformed the vegetated region into some of the driest land on Earth"

and,

"We know that 6,000 years ago, what is now the Sahara Desert was a rainy place," Korty adds.

Change from rainy place to one of the driest places on earth sound like a large change in climate which has since persisted for THOUSANDS of years.

The NOAA thinks you are mistaken:

What's the Difference between Climate and Weather?​

Compare Weather and Climate​

"The short-term state of the atmosphere—in the past, present, or future—is weather. People describe weather in terms of temperature, precipitation, humidity, cloudiness, wind, and other variables. Weather can vary from minute to minute and location to location. For instance, it's not unusual for a place to have a cloudy, wet morning that gives way to a sunny afternoon, or for rain to fall on one side of a town, but not the other. In order to make sense, descriptions of weather always include both time and location.


Climate is a description of the long-term pattern of weather conditions at a location. The expression “long-term” usually means 30 years or more: climate scientists have agreed that 30 years is a good length of time to establish what the usual range of conditions are at a given location throughout the year. "

LINK

=====

The Sahara was wet for over 5 thousands of years unchanged.

The Sahara changed to the world's largest Desert after being wet for 5,000 years CLIMATE shifted from wet to dry a massive change in weather patterns.

You are making a fool of yourself in full color.

 

[Rigby5]

Does the following look like Climate Emergency?

View attachment 593110
or,

View attachment 593111
or,

View attachment 593112

or,

View attachment 593113

or,

View attachment 593114
or,

View attachment 593115

View attachment 593116

or,

View attachment 593117

or,

View attachment 593118

or,

Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.5 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.
View attachment 593119

LINK

Democrats are easily scared.......

Totally ridiculous.
First of all, most of your graphs were about weather, which has nothing at all to do with global climate.

Second is that you do not understand anything at all about how greenhouse gases work or effect global climate.
It has nothing at all to do with surface radiation.
That remains a factor entirely of solar output and orbit.
What matters with carbon is ONLY the very upper atmosphere, the edge of space.
At that point, radiation normally leaves the planet, and there is only about a 40 degree differential of retained heat.
Meaning that if all the heat hitting the planet could just radiate back out into space, the planet would be about 40 degrees colder than it is now.
But at the edge of space, carbon does not just re-radiate photonic energy.
Instead it converts it into vibratory energy.
Thus preventing it from escaping into the vacuum of space, which can not conduct vibratory heat energy.
So it is retained.

That is the point of greenhouse gases, in that they alter the frequency or format of energy, and changes the ability of incoming energy, to be able to leave as easily as it came in.

That is why Venus surface is the temperature of molten lead.
It is not from being closer to the sun.
It is because of the accelerated global warming that evaporated all the surface water on Venus, and cause massive heat retention.
Incoming photonic solar energy can not leave once it is converted into vibratory energy by greenhouse gases.
And just like with Earth, this only matter at the edge of space.
The temperature or gases at the surface do not matter at all.

 

[Rigby5]

You do realize how long a "couple hundred years" is? The USA is just a couple of hundred years old. That's plenty of time for agriculture to adjust to changing conditions.

Wrong.
First of all, we are already 50 years into the global warming cycle, if not more, since the industrial revolution was mostly coal based.
Second is that after a point, it is going to accelerate from positive feedback from water vapor and melting methane hydrate.
Once that happens, it is too late to stop it.
We may only have a decade, depending on when and how quickly the acceleration starts.
I said we have condensed the 110.000 year long cycle into only a couple hundreds of years, but half that is the cooling cycle.
The warming part is half as long, and it may reach high temperatures fairly quickly.
It is hard to predict because it is massive plant growth that ends excess carbon and cools things down, but we have deforested so much, so we don't know what will happen?

And are you really prepared for the whole US population to move up to Canada, close to the Arctic Circle?
I'm not.

 

[Rigby5]

Bwahahahahahahahahahah!!!

"shifts in the world's weather patterns abruptly transformed the vegetated region into some of the driest land on Earth"

and,

"We know that 6,000 years ago, what is now the Sahara Desert was a rainy place," Korty adds.

Change from rainy place to one of the driest places on earth sound like a large change in climate which has since persisted for THOUSANDS of years.

The NOAA thinks you are mistaken:

What's the Difference between Climate and Weather?​

Compare Weather and Climate​

"The short-term state of the atmosphere—in the past, present, or future—is weather. People describe weather in terms of temperature, precipitation, humidity, cloudiness, wind, and other variables. Weather can vary from minute to minute and location to location. For instance, it's not unusual for a place to have a cloudy, wet morning that gives way to a sunny afternoon, or for rain to fall on one side of a town, but not the other. In order to make sense, descriptions of weather always include both time and location.


Climate is a description of the long-term pattern of weather conditions at a location. The expression “long-term” usually means 30 years or more: climate scientists have agreed that 30 years is a good length of time to establish what the usual range of conditions are at a given location throughout the year. "

LINK

=====

The Sahara was wet for over 5 thousands of years unchanged.

The Sahara changed to the world's largest Desert after being wet for 5,000 years CLIMATE shifted from wet to dry a massive change in weather patterns.

You are making a fool of yourself in full color.

Wrong.
The shifting of the Sahar a LOCAL, not GLOBAL.
The moisture that used to fall in the Sahara did not disappear.
It simply went elsewhere.
It was diverted.
That is NOT what global climate change is at all about.
With global climate change, the sum total of the entire planet changes.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Wrong.
We already have a 3.5 degree F temperature increase.
The prognostications are that after 3.5, then positive feedback from increased water vapor and melting methane hydrate will accelerate the warming as much as 11 degrees, killing most life on the planet.

Positive Feedback Loop lives only in climate models and failing badly as the predicted "Hot Spot" has not showed up after 25 years of official data.

From Climare4you

The initial versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the tropical surface had warmed more than the troposphere, while climate models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases, as shown by the diagrams above. This observation gave rise to deep concern, and resulted in a number of studies (e.g. NRC 2000) where strong attempts were made to find warming in the troposphere. As new data sets have been made available and new corrections introduced, the scientific literature have witnessed a number of attempts of reconciling the modelled and the observed atmospheric warming pattern. Conflicting conclusions have, however, been reached. Some scientists conclude that a discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates still exists, while other argue that there is no longer a serious discrepancy. A few key references on this debate are represented by Lindzen 1999 and 2007, NRC 2000, Douglass et al 2007, and Santer et al 2008. Ongoing web-based discussions can be followed here and here. This debate reflects the importance of the point raised by Lindzen (1999) on monitoring temperature changes at the height in the troposphere corresponding to an infrared optical depth near 1

Diagram showing observed linear decadal temperature change at surface, 300 hPa and 200 hPa, between 20oN and 20oS, since January 1979. Data source: HadAT and HadCRUT4. Click here to compare with modelled altitudinal temperature change pattern for doubling atmospheric CO2. Last month included in analysis: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013.

===

CH4 is a minimal player in the Heat budget which is obvious in the chart alone:

LINK

 

[Sunsettommy]

Wrong.
The shifting of the Sahar a LOCAL, not GLOBAL.
The moisture that used to fall in the Sahara did not disappear.
It simply went elsewhere.
It was diverted.
That is NOT what global climate change is at all about.
With global climate change, the sum total of the entire planet changes.

Never said it was global at all, it is an excellent example of REGIONAL Climate Change, from thousands of years of wet weather to thousands of years of dry weather that is Climate Change YOU are overlooking over and over.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes, weather patterns change and shift ... that's what they do ... that is what they've always done ... it has nothing to do with our cars.

View attachment 593099

Wrong.
Global climate has NOTHING to do with local weather.

When you add carbon to the upper atmosphere, solar energy that hit the earth is prevented from leaving, so builds up.
Since space is a vacuum, the only way energy can leave is through photonic radiation.
But carbon at the edge of space, converts photonic energy into vibratory heat that can NOT escape.

 

[Rigby5]

Positive Feedback Loop lives only in climate models and failing badly as the predicted "Hot Spot" has not showed up after 25 years of official data.

From Climare4you

The initial versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the tropical surface had warmed more than the troposphere, while climate models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases, as shown by the diagrams above. This observation gave rise to deep concern, and resulted in a number of studies (e.g. NRC 2000) where strong attempts were made to find warming in the troposphere. As new data sets have been made available and new corrections introduced, the scientific literature have witnessed a number of attempts of reconciling the modelled and the observed atmospheric warming pattern. Conflicting conclusions have, however, been reached. Some scientists conclude that a discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates still exists, while other argue that there is no longer a serious discrepancy. A few key references on this debate are represented by Lindzen 1999 and 2007, NRC 2000, Douglass et al 2007, and Santer et al 2008. Ongoing web-based discussions can be followed here and here. This debate reflects the importance of the point raised by Lindzen (1999) on monitoring temperature changes at the height in the troposphere corresponding to an infrared optical depth near 1

View attachment 593137
Diagram showing observed linear decadal temperature change at surface, 300 hPa and 200 hPa, between 20oN and 20oS, since January 1979. Data source: HadAT and HadCRUT4. Click here to compare with modelled altitudinal temperature change pattern for doubling atmospheric CO2. Last month included in analysis: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013.

===

CH4 is a minimal player in the Heat budget which is obvious in the chart alone:

View attachment 593138

LINK

Good post.
Since we have never lived through a normal 110,000 long ice age and warming cycle, we do not know all the details.
And this gets quickly out of my expertise once we start talking about photonic radiation.

All I can go on is the fact we know we have had a dozen of so of these massive temperature swings 110.000 years long, and that right now it is warming when it should be cooling instead.
We know arctic tundra is melting and releasing massive amounts of methane.
The exact results are hard to predict, but why take the risk?

 

[jc456]

WRONG!
Please learn how to read.
When it says, "shifts in the world's weather patterns abruptly transformed the vegetated region into some of the driest land on Earth", that is NOT at all about global climate change.
That is local weather.
Weather is about the nonuniform distribution of temperature, moisture, and wind through out the globe.
Global climate is about the sum total of all the temperature, moisture, and wind through out the globe.

Global warming has NOTHING to do with the Sahara, which was only local weather patterns.

For example, the fresh water melt off from Greenland is not salty, so is lighter, and is predicted to force the warm Gulf Stream to submerge.
And if that happens, the global warming will cause Europe to drop about 10 degrees in temperature, as the Gulf Stream warmth is delivered elsewhere.
So global WARMING will make the European local weather much COLDER.
Does that make the difference between local weather and global climate more clear?

Well technically, there’s individual climate around the world, there can be local climate shifts and other parts of the globe don’t change. It could have been the shift in land masses over time,

 

[Rigby5]

There is a problem with that graph ... there are those in the Climate Panic Club that believe volcanoes, earthquakes, and tsunamis are caused by Climate Change ... some of them even post on this board.

An interesting point about volcanoes is that they are always an unknown.
They can release huge amounts of CO2, or they can instead produce enough fresh basalt that absorbs huge amounts of carbon.
It is never clear which a volcano is going to be, or if it will come out carbon neutral.