Joe Vanni

7 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

I've been listening to people like you say the cooling is coming for over 10 years. In fact, I had a radio show in college 10 years ago where I actually said we could see some cooling and AGW might be greatly exaggerated. Mostly I was overreacting to learning that some news articles, Al Gore, and even some science was skewed towards AGW and I went off too far in the other direction. I learned from my mistakes. Some never do.

 

We've already been through one very weak solar cycle for 10 years now. The earth didn't cool down. It didn't even stop warming.. it warmed a lot the last 10 years. This is where you introduce some magical lag period you read about on some internet blog that doesn't make any logical or physical sense. Let me tell you a secret.. these magical "lag" people were the same ones saying cooling was imminent 10-15 years ago. Then they invented the lag, because instead of the warming reversing or stopping, if anything it actually accelerated.

Well it seems they rushed it. The research and forecasters I've found to be most accurate at long ranges have stayed with the same story. But that's like me saying how some on the AGW side was claiming ice free Arctic in 2012, 2013, 2014 and so on. It's not going to happen anytime soon; and yes I know how's it's trended since 1979, the beginning of the global warming period. Or how the Atlantic hurricanes were only going to get worse after 2005's record season. They misjudged, but they have misjudged more than just the reason for melting ice and hurricanes.

I think the peak will happen during solar cycle 26/27 but it'll become much more obvious as we approach 25 that something has switched.  I can see why you would point out how we have warmed despite s super weak cycle. But there is actually a legit lag and a point needed to cross to see the real effects on a longer-term. But as I said before, debating this will get us nowhere. People are going to have to start seeing effects at their own house before they realize something is up. 

24 minutes 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 by 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 big 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.

See I'm not trying to say that we should continue pumping out Co2. My main worry is that our focus for the warming is on the wrong thing, and that because we're looking the wrong way, we'll miss when the other regime comes on (global cooling). I do agree that if we continued to warm and sea levels rose at a fast pace, it would be bad for many and change civilization. But I think that civilization will be affected negatively and many of that same outcomes you stated could happen, but not because of warmth; but cold. So that's why I can only say so much to people who disagree with me because we need to see the weather in the next few years and into cycle 25 first.

12 minutes ago, WidreMann said:

It's funny you say that right as we've had an extreme acceleration of warming unlike anything in our period of direct record. There's really no data that says otherwise. Maybe there were rapid warmings in the pre-weather record days that have been washed out of our tree ring and ice core analyses (though unlikely). In any event, it's not happened during the period of our modern industrial civilization. We've seen how smaller-scale climate changes have had a big impact on historical civilizations. What will this do to ours?

It probably seems funny because the only side that gets play is AGW, and it's hard for anyone to fathom anything else but a never-ending warming world. We only have so many years with satellite data and official records. I think it's foolish for us to only look at Co2, and think that becuase that's going up, well our temperatures will continue to rise. Because not preparing for a colder world, will hurt our infrastructure and food supply. To me, a lot of it is common sense. I will say this, if we continue to warm with no turning back over the next decade, well I'll definitely have to shake up my view on things and go back to my older thoughts. But what I envision is this. We'll continue to become cloudier and wetter over the coming years. The jet stream will continue to amplify more and more as we approach solar cycle 25, with greater intrusions of colder air from tropospheric PVs. Our springs will continue to be delayed and winters will generally be 4 - 6 months long for many of us in the states.

16 minutes ago, CaWx said:

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

I don't think we are going to get anywhere debating this when we are at the end of the global warming period, so you get the see the warm results of the past 36 years. I'm not debating that we have had great warmth, but I question the validity of saying the warmth is fastest on record. We are going to have to wait a few years when people actually see the cooling begin and that it has lasting power. We've been spoiled with this warmth but that's coming to an end. 

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. 

9 hours ago, CaWx said:

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. 

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.