Summer is Coming

#1
As opposed to "winter is coming" I thought I'd bring more of the evidence that Global Warming is here.
I went rowing at my parent's place yesterday and the lake was 77 degrees. When I first came to Nova Scotia... you'd NEVER be swimming in this lake before July. And this is the fourth year in a row you can swim like it's mid-summer.
I've had the benefit of befriending a lot of a variety of professionals in the area. Professors who do testing. Forest Rangers and the like.
Canada is certainly the canary in the coal mine. We're getting record heat levels every year now.
Ottawa which is usually very slow to summer was in a blistering heat warning on the weekend. Today it was our turn in Nova Scotia.
Reports of insects and animals never seen in these parts that belong in southern climes are becoming more and more common.
Frightening.
 
#2
It has been unseasonably warm the last 12,000 years, but don't worry, the gulf stream current is stalling so things will cool off soon and you'll get your ice back.



I'm much more interested in the sun getting choked up with the dust from the approaching galactic current sheet and sending off a micro-nova.
 
#5
I'm alarmed that the climate change skepticism goes this way.
1. It's not happening.
2. Maybe it's happening but it's always happened like this.
3. Well maybe this is new but it can't be us.
4. There's nothing we can do about it now. We couldn't ever do anything anyway.
Is there any reason why it worked so well for the Cigarette companies too? Only this time, the lungs are the Earth.
Why is it we can say, "Follow the money" and yet when it comes to the facts that all the "science" against climate change is funded by the Oil and Gas Companies, THEY must be right, as opposed to hundreds of independent universities.
Denialism has never made sense to me. It takes away the actual good work we do.
 
#8
As opposed to "winter is coming" I thought I'd bring more of the evidence that Global Warming is here.
I went rowing at my parent's place yesterday and the lake was 77 degrees. When I first came to Nova Scotia... you'd NEVER be swimming in this lake before July. And this is the fourth year in a row you can swim like it's mid-summer.
I've had the benefit of befriending a lot of a variety of professionals in the area. Professors who do testing. Forest Rangers and the like.
Canada is certainly the canary in the coal mine. We're getting record heat levels every year now.
Ottawa which is usually very slow to summer was in a blistering heat warning on the weekend. Today it was our turn in Nova Scotia.
Reports of insects and animals never seen in these parts that belong in southern climes are becoming more and more common.
Frightening.
OK now square that with this. This is a pro-global warming site:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures
It quotes the same information as I gave above:
According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by a little more than 1° Celsius (2° Fahrenheit) since 1880.
Now, do you think that accounts for the change in the temperature of that lake? Bear in mind that since I assume you aren't 140 years old, you have only experienced part of that immense 1° Celsius. Now I am not saying that this on its own shows that GW could not be a risk if it went on long enough, but the fact is that all sorts of things are 'explained' by the global warming so far, e.g. forest fires in Australia and California which can't possibly make sense given the tiny rise in temperature so far.

They simply have to be lying about all the suffering supposedly caused already by global warming. Think about that.

David
 
#9
You didn't read the whole page, I'm guessing?
"A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago."
One degree over all the entire global doesn't sound like much to the layman. But, it's devastating when you consider how much you have to try to counteract. Notes as well how QUICKLY this has happened. This has happened geologically faster than anything in Earth's history- with the exception of a massive chunk of rock acting with extinction capabilities.
I asked a Christian friend of mine once why he so vociferously argued against global warming. It came down to "I don't believe God would let it happen."
Well, seven billion people on the planet creating massive pollution certainly vexes god's plan somewhat, doesn't it?
 
#11
You didn't read the whole page, I'm guessing?
"A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago."
One degree over all the entire global doesn't sound like much to the layman. But, it's devastating when you consider how much you have to try to counteract. Notes as well how QUICKLY this has happened. This has happened geologically faster than anything in Earth's history- with the exception of a massive chunk of rock acting with extinction capabilities.
I asked a Christian friend of mine once why he so vociferously argued against global warming. It came down to "I don't believe God would let it happen."
Well, seven billion people on the planet creating massive pollution certainly vexes god's plan somewhat, doesn't it?
I know some climatologists have made claims like that, but they are absurd. A kettle of boiling water obviously contains far less heat than a warm swimming pool - but which would do you most harm? Or suppose we had two earth-like planets warming at the same rate, would that be twice as dangerous just because the amount of heat involved would be twice as great? If we had 100 earth-like planets, would they catch file because of all that heat?

Really claims like that are just silly - I mean if you measure anything over the whole earth the numbers are going to be large - but so what?

Hurmanetar has provided some context to all this. We are at the top of a temperature oscillation, and as we descend we will have to deal with the next ice age. That will probably not happen in our lifetime, but it is the ice ages that are really dangerous.

It is also disingenuous to call CO2 levels pollution, because CO2 is actually necessary for plant life (and hence all life) and its current concentration is close to the bottom of its range looking at Earth's history.

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere tends to rise AFTER a temperature rise, because the oceans are saturated in CO2, and any rise in temperature causes CO2 to outgas. This is why the two are linked.

It is frustrating to even argue this because the scientists involved in this scam are as unscientific as those who want to hold on to a totally materialistic explanation of reality.

There is plenty that we are doing wrong to the earth, but this thing is utterly bogus, and I find it disgusting that it is distracting from real ecological issues.

David
 
#12
I know some climatologists have made claims like that, but they are absurd. A kettle of boiling water obviously contains far less heat than a warm swimming pool - but which would do you most harm? Or suppose we had two earth-like planets warming at the same rate, would that be twice as dangerous just because the amount of heat involved would be twice as great? If we had 100 earth-like planets, would they catch file because of all that heat?

Really claims like that are just silly - I mean if you measure anything over the whole earth the numbers are going to be large - but so what?

Hurmanetar has provided some context to all this. We are at the top of a temperature oscillation, and as we descend we will have to deal with the next ice age. That will probably not happen in our lifetime, but it is the ice ages that are really dangerous.

It is also disingenuous to call CO2 levels pollution, because CO2 is actually necessary for plant life (and hence all life) and its current concentration is close to the bottom of its range looking at Earth's history.

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere tends to rise AFTER a temperature rise, because the oceans are saturated in CO2, and any rise in temperature causes CO2 to outgas. This is why the two are linked.

It is frustrating to even argue this because the scientists involved in this scam are as unscientific as those who want to hold on to a totally materialistic explanation of reality.

There is plenty that we are doing wrong to the earth, but this thing is utterly bogus, and I find it disgusting that it is distracting from real ecological issues.

David
This weekend as I was in the grocery store looking for "organic" food, I had an idea... since Organic chemistry is all about the Carbon molecule, why don't we call Greta Thunberg and her ilk: ANTI-ORGANIC?
 
#13
"A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago."
I have thought about this a bit, and I suspect that this is also what I would call scientific sleight of hand. The point is that over that time, the temperature was not falling much because a lot of water was turning to ice - a phase change that releases a lot of heat. The same effect is used in chemistry laboratories where an ice-water mix maintains a 0° temperature. Any incoming warmth simply melts a little of the ice and the temperature remains the same.

This is what really bugs me - if AGW is such a catastrophe, why is it necessary to over-egg the pudding with dodgy arguments of various sorts?

David
 
#14
I'm alarmed that the climate change skepticism goes this way.
1. It's not happening.
2. Maybe it's happening but it's always happened like this.
3. Well maybe this is new but it can't be us.
4. There's nothing we can do about it now. We couldn't ever do anything anyway.
Is there any reason why it worked so well for the Cigarette companies too? Only this time, the lungs are the Earth.
Why is it we can say, "Follow the money" and yet when it comes to the facts that all the "science" against climate change is funded by the Oil and Gas Companies, THEY must be right, as opposed to hundreds of independent universities.
Denialism has never made sense to me. It takes away the actual good work we do.
Except that Jack, it really isn't like that, is it?

Calling the problem 'Climate Change' was done by the CAGW crowd, not the sceptics, and they did it to muddy the water because the rise in temperature slackened off at about the turn of the century. I mean at least rising temperatures were a well defined prediction. So the question as to whether 'Climate Chaange' has always happened stems from this confusion.

What the tobacco companies did was inexcusable - they paid experts to lie, and since they clearly killed a lot of people as a result, they should have been charged with first-degree murder. I am not an expert on GW, but I am a reasonably scientifically aware guy, who can't help but see the holes in this narrative. Unfortunately big oil (or whatever) aren't paying me anything for my efforts.

I get the feeling you are not interested in science as such, because you don't seem to want to debate the points, so please try reading this book - written by a former climate activist in the Third World:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Apocalypse...&keywords=shellenberger&qid=1623700273&sr=8-1

I don't think Shellenberger even gets the full idiocy of the Climate Change story, but even so, he realises that this crusade is doing sway more harm than good.

We are wasting the Earth's resources on this concept - spending billions and billions on something that will deliver unreliable electricity - it is an utter tragedy.

David
 
Top