Why is the climate changing. (Page 203)
ghostgeek: So you think the climate can be kept in permanent stasis, even though you yourself mentioned the Roman Warm Period and the changes thereafter? Somehow I doubt this. The human race has always been subject to the whims of a fickle climate and has survived by adapting rather than stopping change.
ghostgeek: Here is something about that Roman Warm Period:
The Empire coincided with a 500-year period, from AD 1 to AD 500, that was the warmest period of the last 2,000 years in the almost completely land-locked sea.
The climate later progressed towards colder and arid conditions that coincided with the historical fall of the Empire, scientists claim.
Spanish and Italian researchers recorded ratios of magnesium to calcite taken from skeletonized amoebas in marine sediments, an indicator of sea water temperatures, in the Sicily Channel.
[ https://le.utah.gov/publicweb/BRISCJK/PublicWeb/43170/43170.html ]
ghostgeek: It doesn't seem to me that cooling conditions are to be greatly welcomed if the aim is to preserve civilisation.
wJust_woW: US airplane near misses keep coming
planet X affection keep going on
wJust_woW: Sea Surface Temperature And sun flares
GeraldtheGnome: There is no Human caused global warming going on and global warming is not happening right now, nor is global cooling for the record.
ghostgeek: Do we have to worry about Planet X as well as all the other things that normally bother us?
kittybobo34: Gerald,, hopefully you don't live on the coast, but keep your goggles and snorkel handy just in case.
GeraldtheGnome: The sea level is not rising paranoid one with a religious like way of thinking when it comes to the environment.
kittybobo34: Gerald,, I know you don't believe it, I'm just going with the science, and the record of past global warming scenarios.
GeraldtheGnome: With the dodgy science, there really is no need for a comma before the word and at all. Past actual global warming, not the guessed to be true global warming, is actually shown to be true. The current claim is by some people of doomsday science with religious like thinking and confirmation bias. Usually you do think clearly about everything but this and about politics. Most of what you are for is excellent might I add.
GeraldtheGnome: What I don’t want is to see those videos of yours for a third or fourth time, so you are quite right. What you typed was full of errors. By the way I am here about what this forum is about, not about an imaginary god named God.
ghostgeek: Storms and earthquakes have been around for quite some time, so let's not lose the plot. With all the nukes in existence, the human race is more likely to be wiped out by Kim or Putin that by some force of nature.
ghostgeek: The origins of doomism stretch back far — McPherson, for example, has been predicting the demise of human civilization for decades — but the mind-set seems to have become markedly more mainstream in the past five years. Jacquelyn Gill, a climate scientist at the University of Maine, says that in 2018 she started hearing different sorts of questions when she spoke at panels or did events online. “I started getting emails from people saying: ‘I’m a young person. Is there even a point in going to college? Will I ever be able to grow up and have kids?’” she said.
Well before the coronavirus pandemic, a few factors combined to make 2018 feel like the year of doom. 2015, 2016 and 2017 had just been the three hottest years on record. Climate protests had begun to spread across the globe, including Greta Thunberg’s School Strike and the U.K.-based protest group known as Extinction Rebellion. In the academic world, British professor of sustainability Jem Bendell wrote a paper called “Deep Adaptation,” which urged readers to prepare for “inevitable near-term societal collapse due to climate change.” (The paper has been widely critiqued by many climate scientists.)
And then the United Nations issued a special report on 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming, released in October 2018, which kicked many people’s climate anxiety into overdrive.
The report, which focused on how an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels might compare to 2 degrees Celsius, included grim predictions like the death of the world’s coral reefs and ice-free summers in the Arctic. But a central message many took from the report — that there were only 12 years left to save the planet — wasn’t even in the report. It came from a Guardian headline.
In three of the four pathways the report charted for limiting warming to 1.5C, the world would have to cut carbon dioxide emissions 40 to 60 percent by 2030. “We have 12 years to limit climate catastrophe,” the Guardian reported, and other outlets soon followed. The phrase soon became an activist rallying cry.
“‘Twelve years to save the planet’ was actually: We have 12 years to cut global emissions in half to stay consistent with a 1.5C scenario,” Hausfather explained. “Then ‘12 years to save the planet’ becomes interpreted by the public as: If we don’t stop climate change in 12 years, something catastrophic happens.”
“It was really a game of telephone,” he added.
Hausfather said part of the problem is that climate targets — say, the goal to limit warming to 1.5C — have become interpreted by the public as climate thresholds, which would drive the planet into a “hothouse” state. In fact, scientists don’t believe there is anything unique about that temperature that will cause runaway tipping points; the landmark IPCC report merely aimed to show the risks of bad impacts are much higher at 2C than at 1.5.
[ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/03/24/climate-doomers-ipcc-un-report/ ]
ghostgeek: The climate is changing — the thing is, it isn’t just due to humans.
Natural forces beyond human control are also gradually affecting our climate. These geophysical forces are vital to understanding global warming. Man is indeed responsible for a large portion — possibly even a majority — of global warming. But also in play are complex gravitational interactions, including changes in the Earth’s orbit, axial tilt and torque.
This fact needs to be included in the public debate. Because these gravitational shifts, occurring over millennia, can influence climate patterns and ultimately lead to noticeable variations in seasons. Interestingly, research suggests climate change can alter the tilt of the Earth, but an unrelated change in tilt can also further change the climate. It is a balance-counterbalance relationship.
Changes in the Earth’s path around the Sun, or eccentricity, involve shifts in the orbit around the Sun from a roughly circular journey to more of an elliptical one. When the Earth gradually adopts a more elliptical orbit, there are more pronounced temperatures during the summer and winter months. This alteration is exacerbated when the Earth’s axial tilt is inclined to a sharper degree than usual. As this happens, it causes the North and South Poles to be positioned more directly toward the Sun.
Haven’t you noticed the recent rise in irregular weather patterns? This is not just a man-made problem. Gradual slight variations in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun can strongly influence temperature extremes. This is important because the conversation around climate change has become so politicized, we've totally lost sight of the science — and with it, any room for bipartisanship.
[ https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/climate-changing-not-just-because-humans-here-s-why-matters-ncna824271 ]
ghostgeek: In political discourse and in the media, major storms and floods typically get presented as signs of impending doom, accompanied by invocations to the environment and calls to respect Mother Nature. Only catastrophes seem to grab our attention, though, and it’s rarely mentioned that warming would also bring some benefits, such as expanded production of grains in previously frozen regions of Canada and Russia. Nor do we hear that people die more often of cold weather than of hot weather. Isolated voices criticize the alarm over global warming, considering it a pseudoscientific thesis, the true aim of which is to thwart economic modernization and free-market growth and to extend the power of states over individual choices.
Not being a climatologist myself, I’ve always had trouble deciding between these arguments. And then I met Judith Curry at her home in Reno, Nevada. Curry is a true climatologist. She once headed the department of earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, until she gave up on the academy so that she could express herself independently. “Independence of mind and climatology have become incompatible,” she says. Do you mean that global warming isn’t real? I ask. “There is warming, but we don’t really understand its causes,” she says. “The human factor and carbon dioxide, in particular, contribute to warming, but how much is the subject of intense scientific debate.”
Curry is a scholar, not a pundit. Unlike many political and journalistic oracles, she never opines without proof. And she has data at her command. She tells me, for example, that between 1910 and 1940, the planet warmed during a climatic episode that resembles our own, down to the degree. The warming can’t be blamed on industry, she argues, because back then, most of the carbon-dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels were small. In fact, Curry says, “almost half of the warming observed in the twentieth century came about in the first half of the century, before carbon-dioxide emissions became large.” Natural factors thus had to be the cause. None of the climate models used by scientists now working for the United Nations can explain this older trend. Nor can these models explain why the climate suddenly cooled between 1950 and 1970, giving rise to widespread warnings about the onset of a new ice age. I recall magazine covers of the late 1960s or early 1970s depicting the planet in the grip of an annihilating deep freeze. According to a group of scientists, we faced an apocalyptic environmental scenario—but the opposite of the current one.
But aren’t oceans rising today, I counter, eroding shorelines and threatening to flood lower-lying population centers and entire inhabited islands? “Yes,” Curry replies. “Sea level is rising, but this has been gradually happening since the 1860s; we don’t yet observe any significant acceleration of this process in our time.” Here again, one must consider the possibility that the causes for rising sea levels are partly or mostly natural, which isn’t surprising, says Curry, for “climate change is a complex and poorly understood phenomenon, with so many processes involved.” To blame human-emitted carbon dioxide entirely may not be scientific, she continues, but “some find it reassuring to believe that we have mastered the subject.” She says that “nothing upsets many scientists like uncertainty.”
This brings us to why Curry left the world of the academy and government-funded research. “Climatology has become a political party with totalitarian tendencies,” she charges. “If you don’t support the UN consensus on human-caused global warming, if you express the slightest skepticism, you are a ‘climate-change denier,’ a stooge of Donald Trump, a quasi-fascist who must be banned from the scientific community.” These days, the climatology mainstream accepts only data that reinforce its hypothesis that humanity is behind global warming. Those daring to take an interest in possible natural causes of climactic variation—such as solar shifts or the earth’s oscillations—aren’t well regarded in the scientific community, to put it mildly. The rhetoric of the alarmists, it’s worth noting, has increasingly moved from “global warming” to “climate change,” which can mean anything. That shift got its start back in 1992, when the UN widened its range of environmental concern to include every change that human activities might be causing in nature, casting a net so wide that few human actions could escape it.
[ https://www.city-journal.org/global-warming ]
ghostgeek: Scientific research should be based on skepticism, on the constant reconsideration of accepted ideas: at least, this is what I learned from my mentor, the ultimate scientific philosopher of our time, Karl Popper. What could lead climate scientists to betray the very essence of their calling? The answer, Curry contends: “politics, money, and fame.” Scientists are human beings, with human motives; nowadays, public funding, scientific awards, and academic promotions go to the environmentally correct. Among climatologists, Curry explains, “a person must not like capitalism or industrial development too much and should favor world government, rather than nations”; think differently, and you’ll find yourself ostracized. “Climatology is becoming an increasingly dubious science, serving a political project,” she complains. In other words, “the policy cart is leading the scientific horse.”
This has long been true in environmental science, she points out. The global warming controversy began back in 1973, during the Gulf oil embargo, which unleashed fear, especially in the United States, that the supply of petroleum would run out. The nuclear industry, Curry says, took advantage of the situation to make its case for nuclear energy as the best alternative, and it began to subsidize ecological movements hostile to coal and oil, which it has been doing ever since. The warming narrative was born.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration played a role in the propagation of that narrative. Having ended its lunar expeditions, NASA was looking for a new mission, so it built some provisional climate models that focused primarily on carbon dioxide, because this is an easy factor to single out and “because it is subject to human control,” observes Curry. Even though it is just one among many factors that cause climate variations, carbon dioxide increasingly became the villain. Bureaucratic forces at the UN that promote global governance—by the UN, needless to say—got behind this line of research. Then the scientists were called upon and given incentives to prove that such a political project was scientifically necessary, recalls Curry. The UN founded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to push this agenda, and ever since, climatologists—an increasingly visible and thriving group—have embraced the faith.
[ https://www.city-journal.org/global-warming ]
ghostgeek: In 2005, I had a conversation with Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian railway engineer, who remade himself into a climatologist and became director of the IPCC, which received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize under his tenure. Pachauri told me, without embarrassment, that, at the UN, he recruited only climatologists convinced of the carbon-dioxide warming explanation, excluding all others. This extraordinary collusion today allows politicians and commentators to declare that “science says that” carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming, or that a “scientific consensus” exists on warming, implying that no further study is needed—something that makes zero sense on its face, as scientific research is not based on consensus but on contradictory views.
[ https://www.city-journal.org/global-warming ]
GeraldtheGnome: Usually if I want to see a ‘flood’ of fantasy stories, several messages in a row, then I look at Bob’s forum, thanks for showing me the scientific equivalent of Bob’s religious nonsense. You really have to stop being paranoid, fearful, unrealistic, illogical, irrational, arrogant and ignorant about this subject. It’s religious like in regards to the bias you have shown on here and you also have shown confirmation bias. It should not be a case of you following the dodgy evidence wherever it misleads you to and fools you with.
roxxxaaayyy: The climate been changing for billions of years. Theres palm trees under th polar ice. Climate change isn new an ya neverrrr gonna stop it.
kittybobo34: This sort of climate change usually happens over 10's of 1000's of years,, we are doing it in less than a century. The plant and animal life will likely not survive it.
ghostgeek: Life in general will survive whatever the climate throws at it, but whether humanity does is rather more questionable.
wJust_woW: In these events and climatic changes that the earth is witnessing during these recent years, and the chaotic reality that the world is experiencing now, makes us ask ourselves several questions, including are we ready to face the challenges and upcoming events, or are we content with what we are now? The current conditions, as confirmed by many experts, do not bode well. We ask God to be kind to all of us like this. If, as you see now in front of you, a sudden ice storm hit eastern Canada. This storm is considered the most dangerous in twenty years, and it is expected that a large number of Canadians will spend days without electricity because of the snow storm that caused severe material damage and claimed the lives of three people. Hundreds of thousands of homes were left without electricity. The ice storm struck Canada's most populous provinces, causing power outages for a million people in Quebec and about 110,000 in Ontario. It also led to the fall of a large number of trees and car crashes in the streets of downtown Montreal. This divine power that humans can do nothing but save what can be saved after the disaster is over. There were two separate warnings of high risks at the same time. It was in April 2012. After the Turkey earthquake, Turkey earthquake 2023, , floods .. What we are witnessing happening during these recent times across the various parts of the world is clear evidence that we are living in the events of the end times.
Science Chat Room 1 Person Chatting