CaWx

5 hours ago, WidreMann said:

To add to this, people are failing to grasp that AGW is about how humans are applying a small modulation to an existing system, and there are small changes, but they are very significant for life on earth. With CO2 at all, the planet would be some 50 degrees cooler, I believe. Raising it by 3 or 4 degrees, therefore, is not a big deal in terms of the numbers. But it is a big deal when it causes sea levels to rise and some land to be inundated. Again, it's not a lot of land. Most land will be fine. But we have a lot of cities on the coasts. That's a big deal for humans. When rising CO2 increases acidity levels in the ocean, it still may not be by much. But it's a lot for the life that lives there, that starts to die off when it can't handle the change in water chemistry.

What we are talking about is life's sensitivity to change, not about gigantic changes to the atmosphere (which we really aren't making). Life can handle change, but over larger time periods. When there are significant changes in a short time period, a lot of life dies off. Of course, in time, it will recover, as it did 65 million years ago, or during other extinction events. It's bad news for humans, though, because we depend on the ecosystem as it is. We can mitigate with technology or general inventiveness, but it will be a very big blow to our current civilization. That's why people should care. Not because the planet will explode (it won't). Not because one weird species of frog in outer Mongolia will go extinct (why should anyone care about that anyway?). Not because temperatures will go up  yby a billion degrees (they won't). It's because the small changes made to a climate that has been fairly stable for civilized human history have  b effects for life and human life, which is sensitive to small changes. What good is oil and profit if we can't eat, can't live where we used to? That's the trade-off.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. AGW will not be a doomsday scenario like alarmist portray, however very significant changes will happen if we fail to reduce CO2 emissions to levels in the low 300ppm range. I think humans would be able to adapt to major warming, but I'm afraid many other species will not, which could cause major ecological issues. We shouldn't gamble with our relatively stable environment, 2-4 degrees C, could put extraordinary pressure on global food and fresh water supplies. If Greenland were to melt out, it would cause trillions of dollars to relocated massive amounts of people around the world further inland. Also you said we haven't seen massive changes to our atmospheric patterns, we might not have seen large changes yet, but if the arctic sea ice fully melts out, you will begin to see more extremes. 

2 hours ago, Joe Vanni said:

Of course it's the tilt of the earth, but what are we tilting toward/away from? What amazes me is that people actually think we can have a bigger impact than the actual source of our life on earth. The blazing star that has been heating our planet since the beginning of time. Can you imagine what would happen if there were palm trees on Greenland like there were millions of years ago? The folks believing that AGW is our sole cause of warming would eat it up. If you actually think TSI and sunspots have been proven to not have been one of the major causes, then your sources are clearly cooking something up. I'm  not worried about changing any beliefs here as that will be taken care of as we approach and move through the 2020s and 2030s. The problem is people are being shoved all this "data" that we are the cause and what we have experienced is so unexpected and dangerous. I used to just listen to the news and be on the same understanding of human caused global warming. But when actually researching it and then using common sense, I realized there's a higher likelihood that what I thought before is wrong. Then when I found fo rcasters who actually had incredible regional predictions years in advance come true, that was enough for me. 

Co2 is at highest levels, won't dispute that. Since the Industrial Revolution, we have disrupted the nice relation between the two. But the temperatures have absolutely not followed that during the 20th century. And if you think we have warmed to the levels of the Co2 rise then that is wrong. There's been a nice general trend between the two, but it's Co2 that follows temperature on earth, not the other way around. What I do feel is that humans impact environmental conditions, like habitats and ecosystems. Pollution is a real problem, but to say we are impacting the global weather and causing the extremes is false. 

Some of the major reasons for our recent warming which will be ending shortly; especially in the mid-latitudes where everyone lives are: We are in an interglacial period coming out of the little ice age. And that literally ended right before records began. We are coming out of a general major spike in solar activity. 

I suggest looking into the state of our sea ice in the past. What we have been experiencing is natural, maybe it's crazy for us to witness but there's no way that 400 ppm of Co2 (0.0004%) is going to cause that, or massive floods and droughts. I'd also look at the behavior of the weather during the beginning of our last little ice ages and compare that to what we have been experiencing. It's no joke, a colder climate is way worse than a warmer one where we can enjoy farming at higher latitudes and cheaper food prices. I think it's hard to believe a lot of what I'm saying when coming off of a very warm 2015 and 2016. But for example, there's an astrometeorologist I've been reading since 2007, and his predictions have been incredible. Everything from the Texas drought that became the multi-year California drought, to the surprise winter of 2013-2014 (made 5 years in advance), then the double summer of 2015 that extended into Christmas. Really I just say to watch the next few years. The jet stream will continue to amplify and the air produced in the troughs will get colder. The grand minimum states of our sun historically produce major floods and cold storms, and then droughts for people stuck under the ridges. But I'm telling you that our crop failures are just beginning on a global level.

Lastly it really sucks this has become such a political issue. You have folks who don't understand a thing about weather (not talking about you CaWx) but they will preach their party's general stance on the issue but have no reasons for why. I'm talking both conservatives and liberals. I feel like when one side just tries to shut down the other, there's a major problem. To be labeled as a "climate denier" is nuts. Maybe they should change it to human-caused climate denier. 

Scientific reality? You mean of scientists with your belief? Because there aremany scientists who will state it's the sun, not humans that are driving our climate. 

Today I don't have time to respond in full so I will keep it short. The TSI difference between the Maunder Minimum and today's TSI is Mathematically NOT enough to explain most of the warming our climate has experienced since the industrial revolution, that is fact. Of course the sun matters in our climates temperatures, in not denying that, however the suns TSI output alone isn't enough to explain the warming. I recommend reading more about the physics of climate, radiative physics and black body constant. It doesn't matter how insignificant people think CO2 is by percentage wise, you have to look through the spectrum with OLR. Also please understand rate of change, say it with me rate of change. Do you understand how small 100 years on a geologic timescale is, and the current rate of warming relationship to past geologic warm periods?? I stick with math and physics, I don't care if people politicize it. 

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~david/Donohoe_etal_pnas_2014.pdf

2 hours ago, Joe Vanni said:

Really? I think the state of the sun has a much bigger effect on our jet stream compared to any other factor. It's not a coincidence that our jet stream had generally been becoming more meridional as we are declining with our solar cycles and other activities with the sun. As we approach the grand solar minimum, our winters will be longer and we will have much shorter growing seasons. Just think of the power of the sun. It's the reason for our seasons. And when it quiets down, trust me, earth will react and do fairly quickly as we head towards cycle 25. Plus if you look back at some of our prior colder periods on earth, there's more ice further south than right at the pole. The earth needs a mechanism to force the colder air away from the poles. But that's not to say they won't still be cold. But the earth has just had its last hurrah for the global warming cycle we are now leaving. Watch the weather over the next few years. 

Technically the Earth's tilt is the reason for the seasons. Yes our sun has a large effect on our jet stream, afterall it provides the uneven heating on our planet which causes the jet stream, however I suggest you read some papers from Jennifer Francis about climate change influencing the temperature gradients that cause the jet stream to weaken (because global temperature gradients are lessening), and like a weakened stream, slows down and meanders causing wavier and stagnant weather patterns. I can't understand why people put such a huge belief in the sun causing the climate change we are experience now. It has been proven the TSI hasn't increased enough to explain most of the warming we have seen since the industrial revolution. The sun's energy has been monitored for years now and it can't explain the warming trend. What has increased is the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere, which helps in keeping our atmosphere warmer than it otherwise would be. Another thing people can't comprehend is AGW is all about rate of change, the current rate of change in warming in geologic time is incredibly rapid. Yes the Earth's climate has been warmer in the past in it's history, yes these were caused by natural processes i.e. Milankovitch cycles and other forcings, but all of these different forcings work on much much slower time scales. What we are experiencing today is NOT normal, and not natural. I can't understand why people just can't accept scientific reality. 

3 hours ago, DaculaWeather said:

Weirder things huh? 

Yes, it will really begin to mess with the jetstream. You think long extended patterns are extreme now, imagine what a rainy pattern for weeks will do. More cutoff lows and stationary fronts, along with more prolonged drought situations. A prolonged meandering jetstream will really start causing problems. 

10 minutes ago, tacoman25 said:

Mother Nature can be such a buzz kill.

As in boring? I'm super glad its been boring, extreme melting is very bad news for the future of our climate. Once the ice fully melts out during the summer, weirder things will start happening. The longer the ice can hold on until humans wake up and start massively reducing CO2, the better. 

8 hours ago, Eskimo Joe said:

When, if ever, do you think we will have an ice free summer in the arctic?

Sometime between 2022-2028. I think around 2050, we will see ice free conditions from late July to end of September. The added heat from the open waters absorbing all that energy will really start causing weird weather. 

On 3/11/2017 at 8:12 AM, skierinvermont said:

Yeah except the ice is barely half as thick. Be quiet until you learn something. Some of us have been following this thread for a decade. We've seen arrogant newbies like you come and go. A few stay and learn something. But nobody that's been around the block would say something as foolish as what you've just said.

I wouldn't waste your energy on people who are unable to see the reality of the sea ice. There is no denying the ice thickness is considerably less now than then (which ultimately matters more than extent anyways). I don't understand how anyone can look at all this empirical data and willfully and woefully make statements to the contrary.