We need to take Climate Change seriously

[D.Draker]

4 hours ago, gordo999 said:

the corona virus 

I liked the covid times, it was much quieter in my town, I live in a town with lots of tourists, obviously covid was a man-made crap, but it works for de-pop, and that is good for us and the climate. Less people, more oxygen.

[gordo999]

18 hours ago, D.Draker said:

How then would you explain winters in my region are getting hotter and hotter after the Millennium, especially? How old are you? I'm old enough to remember what was happening in the past, when the climate was normal.

There are several explanations. I would like to ask first if you have kept a personal record of temperature or are you relying on memory and 'official' sources?

1)Weather can be variable over lengthy periods. In North America there is proof that the 1930s were exceedingly warm, setting heat wave records, then the 1950s and '60s were exceedingly cool. It began warming again in he 1970s. Climate is defined as the average weather over a 30 year period. Therefore, for a climate to have changed there has to be a significant change in weather over that 30 years. As far as I know, no climate anywhere in the world has met that criteria. Climate change is based on consensus, not scientific data.

2)We are still recovering from the Little Ice Age that was prevalent over a 400+ year period, ending circa 1850. It last peaked in the Dalton minimum circa 1790 and we have gradually warmed since. But that cannot really explain your experience of warming in your region.

3)Ocean oscillation like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the ENSO system of El Nino and La Nina. A study by Tsonis et al that followed those oscillations over a century noted that when the oscillations are in phase, the planet warms, and when out of phase, the planet cools. Of course, that could lead to localized warming/cooling.

The PDO was not discovered till about 1990 and it was discovered only because a sudden spike (0.2C) in global warming occurred in 1977 that no one could explain. Some scientists wanted to erase it from the record as a mistake and major outfits like NOAA and NASA GISS are currently doing that retroactively, erasing temperatures from the 1930s that were as hot or hotter than today. Part of the warming you are experiencing is related to the way thermometers are located these days. There are only 4 thermometers covering the state of California, all of them near the ocean. In other words, thermometers are showing a bias based on location. It's more complex and I don't have the time to get into that.Major outfit like NOAA and NASA GISS are playing games with unvalidated computer models.

BTW, I have been around a similar amount of time as you and I have not experienced such variability in my region. The IPCC tries to write off the Little Ice Age as a localize weather system but they fail to explain how average temperatures can decrease 1C to 2C in Europe and not elsewhere on the planet. In the French Alps, the Mer de Glace glacier expanded so much during the LIA that it wiped out long-established farms and villages in its path. I cannot bring myself to accept that truth as a local weather anomaly.

[D.Draker]

4 hours ago, gordo999 said:

There are several explanations. I would like to ask first if you have kept a personal record of temperature or are you relying on memory and 'official' sources?

1)Weather can be variable over lengthy periods. In North America there is proof that the 1930s were exceedingly warm, setting heat wave records, then the 1950s and '60s were exceedingly cool. It began warming again in he 1970s. Climate is defined as the average weather over a 30 year period. Therefore, for a climate to have changed there has to be a significant change in weather over that 30 years. As far as I know, no climate anywhere in the world has met that criteria. Climate change is based on consensus, not scientific data.

2)We are still recovering from the Little Ice Age that was prevalent over a 400+ year period, ending circa 1850. It last peaked in the Dalton minimum circa 1790 and we have gradually warmed since. But that cannot really explain your experience of warming in your region.

3)Ocean oscillation like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the ENSO system of El Nino and La Nina. A study by Tsonis et al that followed those oscillations over a century noted that when the oscillations are in phase, the planet warms, and when out of phase, the planet cools. Of course, that could lead to localized warming/cooling.

The PDO was not discovered till about 1990 and it was discovered only because a sudden spike (0.2C) in global warming occurred in 1977 that no one could explain. Some scientists wanted to erase it from the record as a mistake and major outfits like NOAA and NASA GISS are currently doing that retroactively, erasing temperatures from the 1930s that were as hot or hotter than today. Part of the warming you are experiencing is related to the way thermometers are located these days. There are only 4 thermometers covering the state of California, all of them near the ocean. In other words, thermometers are showing a bias based on location. It's more complex and I don't have the time to get into that.Major outfit like NOAA and NASA GISS are playing games with unvalidated computer models.

BTW, I have been around a similar amount of time as you and I have not experienced such variability in my region. The IPCC tries to write off the Little Ice Age as a localize weather system but they fail to explain how average temperatures can decrease 1C to 2C in Europe and not elsewhere on the planet. In the French Alps, the Mer de Glace glacier expanded so much during the LIA that it wiped out long-established farms and villages in its path. I cannot bring myself to accept that truth as a local weather anomaly.

I was born in the seventies (exactly the time you say it's started to get warmer), I remember those already heated up seventies very good. But even comparing to the already hot late seventies, what we have have here today is bloody hell, mind you - it exceeds the mentioned 30 years average weather period by almost 80%. So yeah, it's good enough to make clear observations, and not trust those 'official' sources.

 

[gordo999]

22 hours ago, D.Draker said:

... what we have have here today is bloody hell, mind you - it exceeds the mentioned 30 years average weather period by almost 80%. So yeah, it's good enough to make clear observations, and not trust those 'official' sources.

 

I live in the Vancouver, Canada area and the summers here have always been exceedingly hot. Grass on playing fields has always turned brown, unless it was irrigated and I recall entire summers without a drop of rain. When that happens today, it is labeled climate change. I was born in the UK and recall summers that were cloudy and cool. The very year we moved to Vancouver it was summer and I got ill from the heat till I adapted.

The warming stated since 1850 is about 1C. Do you really think a 1C average warming over 170 years could produce the heating you mention? On the other hand, we are currently setting records for cold in Canada. In Edmonton the other day they set an all-time record for cold, That cold air originates in the Arctic where alarmists claim the ice is melting. Do you think ice melts at -60C? Every winter there is 10 feet of ice all over the Arctic and it is caused by the Earth's orbit and the inclined N-S axis we have. No sunlight equates to -60C temperatures.

I respect your right to believe what you want. My background is in science, however, and I want fact, not belief or consensus. If you have proof that a 1C warming over 170 years translates to the extreme heat you mention, and that it is caused by a trace gas, I'd love to see your scientific proof.

[D.Draker]

3 hours ago, gordo999 said:

I was born in the UK

Finally! A new member with proper English, in addition to AstroSkipper and Dave, of course! You can't even imagine how sick I can get when reading dry English. I hope it evolves into a pleasant conversation.

[D.Draker]

3 hours ago, gordo999 said:

I respect your right to believe what you want. My background is in science, however, and I want fact, not belief or consensus. If you have proof that a 1C warming over 170 years translates to the extreme heat you mention, and that it is caused by a trace gas, I'd love to see your scientific proof.

I live in a house built in the 17th or 18th century, it still has a big and functioning wood oven from bricks, but I don't use it anymore, will you guess why yourself?

And now I have eight air-conditioners in my flat. Yes, I still don't own the full house, but I intend to. It's only six flats. When I do, I hope the temperature in it will go down due to the now absent dwellers. I'm now in the process of making money for the purchase, it's a very expensive place, so I don't know how long it will take, but I'll make sure to notify. Is it good enough for the scientific proof?

Edit: I live in Vichy, in case you're wondering,

 

Edited January 16 by D.Draker
Vichy

[Dixel]

Climate change deniers aren't common nowadays, and looks like someone can have real hard currency benefits from such opinions.

[jaclaz]

There is a third possible position, let's call it "climate change ignorant" or ,"climate change agnostic" someone that believes that noone actually knows what is happening[1] (and why it is happening).

 

[1] or not happening

[NotHereToPlayGames]

A fourth position - "Neither side is 100% correct."

[D.Draker]

Go to the closest car, touch the engine, is it warm? You betcha! Now calculate the approx. amount of cars in the world. 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Don't forget cow farts!

[NotHereToPlayGames]

11 hours ago, D.Draker said:

touch the engine

This is not a very smart comment and contributes to the "neither side is 100% correct".  I am not a "denier" but nor am I a "zero footprinter" (is that a word?).

Falsehoods and mistruths exist on BOTH sides of this argument.  Period.

https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/22647/have-there-been-any-studies-on-how-vehicles-directly-contribute-to-a-rising-glob

Not sure if that's the best link to springboard a SCIENTIFIC APPROACH or not, but look at gas burning stoves versus electric stoves and how some wish to abolish one versus the other, it is NOT about the HEAT that they produce.

Generating "heat" (such as touching the engine of that car) is NOT what causes Global Warming.

If it were that simple, we would have no such thing as a "catalytic converter" (touch one of those and feel how hot it is!).

We can't solve Global Warming by wearing extra layers of clothing and abolishing furnaces to warm our homes.

It's about CO2 emissions.

"Heat" is a byproduct of a car engine.  "Heat" is a byproduct of an electric stove, of a gas burning stove, of a lawnmower.

Not to over-simplify in equivalence (sp?) to the over-simplification of "touch the engine", but generally speaking, the "heat" is not the issue.

Exothermic reaction.  Endothermic reaction.  Thermodynamics.  etc.

It's the emissions, not the "heat".

</end rant>

[D.Draker]

4 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Don't forget cow farts!

I don't, but you forgot* about numerous thermobaric and white phosphorus blasts going on near European borders for two years every day.

*intentionally or not

Edited January 18 by D.Draker
intentionally or not

[D.Draker]

3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

a SCIENTIFIC APPROACH

Here you go.

The temperature in my city has risen by approx. 10 degrees Celsius only in 14 years alone (it's a very big rise!). An the charts don't go below 2009, otherwise you'd see a much, much bigger rise.

35 °C (4 Sep, 16:30) 2023 

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/@2969392/historic?month=9&year=2023

26 °C (9 Sep, 13:00)

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/@2969392/historic?month=9&year=2009

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Using a 14yr window presents a statistical bias.  Every statistician knows how to define their window to make their case instead of break their case.