Climate record

[Deleted member 21794]

Climate change has always been happening and always will. However, the current pattern of extremely rapid warming is something that doesn't show up at any other time in at least a hundred thousand years of paleoclimate reconstruction, and the only plausible mechanism proposed for that is the gigantic uptick in anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

I see why you limited your claim to the last 100,000 years, which of course is just 2% of Earth's timeline.

 

[MrMike]

Climate change has always been happening and always will. However, the current pattern of extremely rapid warming is something that doesn't show up at any other time in at least a hundred thousand years of paleoclimate reconstruction, and the only plausible mechanism proposed for that is the gigantic uptick in anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The speed at which that warming happens will almost certainly mean serious negative repercussions for people, since it will mean the change will often outpace the ability of human societies and ecosystems to adapt effectively.

Picture it in a microcosmic way. Picture a single farm coping with a warming, drying climate. If the warming and drying is very slow (e.g., half a degree Celsius per century with commensurately slow decreases in average rainfall -- something on the pace of natural climate change patterns we saw in pre-industrial eras), adaptation won't be that difficult. Maybe it starts as a rice farm and gradually they develop more drought-resistant strains of rice, and then they start planting other crops that do better in drier climates, and building out irrigation systems, and learning new skills and habits for getting good crop yields in a warming, drying landscape, and eventually maybe even migrating.

With those changes only having to occur over the course of many generations, there's time for trial and error, and new infrastructure investments at more or less the natural attrition/obsolescence rate, so there's not much hardship associated with the trend. But what if it's five degrees Celsius per century, with commensurately rapid decreases in natural rainfall? Now we're talking repeated famines associated with crop failures, refugee crises, etc. Now the infrastructure investments have to be made at far above the natural rate of attrition/obsolescence, meaning hugely increased costs.

To put it in really simplistic terms, picture you're spending a day at the beach, and you're set up near the water line. You can cope easily with even a fifteen foot change in the height of the water, if it occurs at the pace of a normal tide. Just move your beach chair a few feet up the beach every now and then. No big deal. But if that same 15-foot rise in the water happened in just a few seconds, some people are going to drown, and even the decent swimmers are going to have their picnic baskets soaked. The speed of change can overwhelm the ability to adapt. The same happens in a much bigger picture with climate change.

That's why it's no comfort to say that climate change is always happening. Slow climate change is always happening, and for all of human history we've coped with that reasonably well. Extremely rapid climate change is a new thing, and it's going to be much harder to deal with.

There has been extremely rapid climate change before but those that want to push the "it's mankind's fault - let's tax and control folks" crowd tend to gloss over that little factoid.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

It matters in a humanist sense.

Humanist? Why? Are we special? Immune to the forces of extinction? No. We are not.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

That of course means more power in the hands of the very people driving us to destruction. Why not nationalize the properties of the biggest carbon emitters thereby giving us the resources to establish a sane energy plan.

LOL. Simple answer...there are no viable alternatives to fossil fuels. None. None as portable. None as cheap. None as reliable. None as efficient.

Until that magically appears, oil will continue to be king.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

No, but climate change can be mitigated through a collective economic plan that cuts carbon emissions and (if feasible) sequester atmospheric carbon.

Not until we actually have a replacement for Fossil Fuels. Even if we spent the time and money to put solar panels on every building, we'd still be burning oil when it rains....snows....gets dark, etc.

And let's say that America does decide to cripple it's economy by eschewing oil. Who's the say the other nations will? A treaty that's not worth the paper it's written on? That's the problem with Socialists, they dream of a world filled with humans, with no human nature.

 

[Drumcollie]

Last year was a blisteringly hot one, globally -- the warmest in the instrument record (going back 137 years), and likely the warmest in 120,000 years, based on paleoclimate reconstructions. 2017 was expected to be much cooler, since global temperatures tend to be highest in El Niño years and lower in the subsequent La Niña cycle. We saw something similar in 1999, when the '98 El Niño ended and the global temperature anomaly dropped by a third, such that '98 was the eighth hottest year and '99 was the twentieth.

What's extraordinary, though, is how little relief we're getting from the global heat wave, this time around. March had the biggest temperature anomaly of any non- El Niño month on record. In fact, the first quarter of this year was warmer than the first quarter of 2015 (currently the second-warmest year on record), despite there having been El Niño conditions at the time. The only thing keeping us from setting records right now is just how intense the heat was last year, at the height of the El Niño event.

This suggests that we have almost arrived at a place where the underlying trend of anthropogenic warming is so strong that it overwhelms the impact of other cycles even over short timelines. In other words, we are getting closer to a future where every year is hotter than the last.

That is a lot of word salad to say it got hot and we call it summer.

 

[Drumcollie]

Wow, they kept records 1,100 years ago? I had no idea.

No lefty just assumes...and forgets mini ice ages or sunspot activity or anything that would affect there outcomes scientifically.

 

[Drumcollie]

The Trump team is working on this existential threat, amping up the burning of coal and other fossil fuels, disabling the EPA, forbidding climate change research, and terminating global warming pacts with the world community.

And there is your scientific data on GWB (Global Warming Baloney.) I challenge you to use a scientific model. You one based on science instead of ridicule. Until you can base a Global freezing err warming err you do not really know argument on something other than ridicule we will have to rate your post as false.

 

[Drumcollie]

No, we aren't. You're relying on data that ended in 2007, which leaves out seven of the ten hottest years on record.

You are relying on data that does not exist or otherwise tell us what was the daily paleo temperature starting from January 12 97,218 b.c. to November 12 97,218 bc

Here is the data required

Temperature gauge used

Morning temperature,

High of the day.

Evening temperature.

Wind speed

Wind direction

Air pressure

Humidity

Signature of climate scientist for day in question.


Do you have records for this? or is it made up?

 

[Drumcollie]

You've asked that repeatedly. I've answered repeatedly in great detail. Then you've lied willfully about what I said and I've linked to the actual exchanges to prove definitively that you were lying. But you know all that. You just enjoy trolling.

AAAHHHH the scientific data of ridicule.

 

[Drumcollie]

California went from drought to all time record rainfall and its not even over yet.

This is not normal.

Agreed...



is not normal.

 

[Drumcollie]

No, we aren't. You're relying on data that ended in 2007, which leaves out seven of the ten hottest years on record.

Yes but lefty was claiming global warming before 2007. See Al "I just make money off da sh#t" Gore

 

[Drumcollie]

The data from before 1880 is based on paleoclimate reconstructions, using a wide assortment of methods (tree rings, sediment layers ,glacier cores, corals, shells, microfossils, and so on). Even adding all those together the estimates are nowhere near as precise as what we have in the instrument record era. So, when you see those graphs, they'll often show wide uncertainty bands for earlier eras. But, even allowing for that uncertainty, we end up with a pretty clear view of the big picture -- that at no time in the last several thousand years have we seen a temperature increase as rapid as we're experiencing now, and already the globe is warmer than at any point since the dawn of human civilization.

You mean it is made up.

 

[Drumcollie]

I am saying rain every single week from Nov thru March is not normal.

I am saying you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[Drumcollie]

Yes, to you and everyone you know. Average quality of life will decline as a result of AGW.

No it was because of George Bush...lol

 

[Drumcollie]

a lazy shithead.

Very scientific buddy...Very!

 

[Drumcollie]

You've confused weather and climate. Try reading more.

You confused science and ridicule.

 

[Drumcollie]

especially with his FLEET OF JETS, 100' HOUSEBOAT and 2 MANSIONS.......

His electric BILL is more than arkady paid for his home, probably.

Ark claims to be a 1 percenter...also claims his wife makes the money.

 

[Drumcollie]

And you think we can't throw that out of balance ?

You cannot do sh$t.

 

[Drumcollie]

We can argue about who shot John all day. But the ice caps will keep melting the permafrost will keep thawing and adding it greenhouse gasses to the mix and the seas will keep warming. I in the it's too late to do anything to prevent it camp. Now it just about how long it will head in that direction. That's not on a human time scale. So it really doesn't concern us.

Its evolutionary huh?