Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[donsutherland1]

On 10/13/2025 at 1:00 PM, Typhoon Tip said:

Not sure I agree here...  We ARE in a catastrophe, a slow moving one.  Too slow to be seen in what we call "real time", or human perception, but that slowness only beguiles us into a false sense of lessening urgency.

Don and I ( and any others et al) have been discussing about the limitations in the biology of all Terran life ( for that matter -): for all species, urgency is aroused by what their senses are telling them.  Human beings, as far as can be empirically tested, are the only life forms on this planet capable of prognosticating doom or boon based upon projection.  But we still procrastinate, if not outright disregard those forecasts when the evidences are not directly appealing as such. You know ... what can be seen, heard, smell, tasted., or touched.   The tree does fall in the woods whether anyone is around to see it happen or not, and in this case... it's particularly bad because the proverbial tree is falling right in front of us, yet is unseen.

But it's still falling 

 

I think you sum things up quite well when you observe, "We ARE in a catastrophe, a slow moving one.  Too slow to be seen in what we call 'real time', or human perception, but that slowness only beguiles us into a false sense of lessening urgency." The dismissive reply, “Sky is falling, sky is falling... no one believes our cyclical climate change is an issue anymore,” underscores the profound limits of human perception.

Bound by the narrow window of our senses, humanity struggles to grasp processes that unfold across geological time. The fact that atmospheric CO₂ is rising at a rate an order of magnitude faster than during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum defies societal comprehension. Likewise, the speed and scale of modern warming — occurring over mere decades — eclipses even the most abrupt natural transitions of the past. Science, meanwhile, becomes abstracted: detached from daily life and stripped of moral urgency, reduced to statistics that fail to move those in power.

One can imagine a future, perhaps later this century or the next , unfolding not unlike this:

Along the crumbling coast of a small seaside town, the waves crept higher each year. First they lapped at the boardwalk, then at the porches of modest homes, and finally, with one furious storm, they tore entire houses into the sea. Families watched helplessly as their memories — photographs, heirlooms, childhood bedrooms — vanished beneath the rising tide’s insatiable pull. Erosion devoured the land faster than insurance adjusters could arrive. Those who stayed were left standing on smaller and smaller fragments of earth, surviving on borrowed time. Eventually, the ocean reclaimed even those last fragile remnants.

When the survivors turned to their government and neighbors for help, the answer was chillingly simple: “You should have protected your property. It’s your problem, not ours.” The same indifference that once ignored melting glaciers now ignored the people who had lost everything. The moral is stark: indifference to climate change protects no one. It merely ensures that the destruction will spread.

Some of this future has already arrived. Insurers are withdrawing from entire regions. Empathy is receding just as the waters advance. Even on today’s smaller scales, societal compassion erodes as swiftly as the land itself. One sees the draining empathy in rising Nativism in various parts of the world, including but not limited to the United States, which is a symptom a broader and deepening societal sickness. In the U.S., that societal infection is being compounded by a growing rejection of science.

Sustainability breaks down when the rate of change exceeds the rate at which society, ecosystems, and organisms can adapt to that change. When the gulf between nonlinear environmental upheaval and our linear, incremental responses becomes too vast, a system reaches its inflection point. It breaks or finds a new stable regime, that is not necessarily compatible with human welfare.

The tragedy of climate change is not merely the loss of stability. It is the squandering of agency. Humanity still possesses the ability to act, though less effectively than if it had done so earlier. Humanity can still limit the damage e.g., perhaps to 3°C by 2100 rather than 1.5°C, assuming no big positive feedbacks. But bound by the limits of human nature, weak leadership, and an economic model that treats a finite planet as an infinite resource to be exploited, humanity continues to squander its narrowing window. Catastrophe is not sudden. It is cumulative.  Arguably, humanity is already in the midst of the early days of rising catastrophe.

[ChescoWx]

36 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I think you sum things up quite well when you observe, "We ARE in a catastrophe, a slow moving one.  Too slow to be seen in what we call 'real time', or human perception, but that slowness only beguiles us into a false sense of lessening urgency." The dismissive reply, “Sky is falling, sky is falling... no one believes our cyclical climate change is an issue anymore,” underscores the profound limits of human perception.

Bound by the narrow window of our senses, humanity struggles to grasp processes that unfold across geological time. The fact that atmospheric CO₂ is rising at a rate an order of magnitude faster than during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum defies societal comprehension. Likewise, the speed and scale of modern warming — occurring over mere decades — eclipses even the most abrupt natural transitions of the past. Science, meanwhile, becomes abstracted: detached from daily life and stripped of moral urgency, reduced to statistics that fail to move those in power.

One can imagine a future, perhaps later this century or the next , unfolding not unlike this:

Along the crumbling coast of a small seaside town, the waves crept higher each year. First they lapped at the boardwalk, then at the porches of modest homes, and finally, with one furious storm, they tore entire houses into the sea. Families watched helplessly as their memories — photographs, heirlooms, childhood bedrooms — vanished beneath the rising tide’s insatiable pull. Erosion devoured the land faster than insurance adjusters could arrive. Those who stayed were left standing on smaller and smaller fragments of earth, surviving on borrowed time. Eventually, the ocean reclaimed even those last fragile remnants.

When the survivors turned to their government and neighbors for help, the answer was chillingly simple: “You should have protected your property. It’s your problem, not ours.” The same indifference that once ignored melting glaciers now ignored the people who had lost everything. The moral is stark: indifference to climate change protects no one. It merely ensures that the destruction will spread.

Some of this future has already arrived. Insurers are withdrawing from entire regions. Empathy is receding just as the waters advance. Even on today’s smaller scales, societal compassion erodes as swiftly as the land itself. One sees the draining empathy in rising Nativism in various parts of the world, including but not limited to the United States, which is a symptom a broader and deepening societal sickness. In the U.S., that societal infection is being compounded by a growing rejection of science.

Sustainability breaks down when the rate of change exceeds the rate at which society, ecosystems, and organisms can adapt to that change. When the gulf between nonlinear environmental upheaval and our linear, incremental responses becomes too vast, a system reaches its inflection point. It breaks or finds a new stable regime, that is not necessarily compatible with human welfare.

The tragedy of climate change is not merely the loss of stability. It is the squandering of agency. Humanity still possesses the ability to act, though less effectively than if it had done so earlier. Humanity can still limit the damage e.g., perhaps to 3°C by 2100 rather than 1.5°C, assuming no big positive feedbacks. But bound by the limits of human nature, weak leadership, and an economic model that treats a finite planet as an infinite resource to be exploited, humanity continues to squander its narrowing window. Catastrophe is not sudden. It is cumulative.  Arguably, humanity is already in the midst of the early days of rising catastrophe.

The above is a dystopian view not rooted in actual science, reality or facts....you point to faulty future state models to support your fears. Do you ever read what you post? The following words are why those that believe in some scary climate religion are now quickly losing followers.  The fear mongering is pervasive in the above words and thoughts chosen by Don.  He chooses words such as "crumbling coast" , "families watched helplessly", "erosion devoured", "tides insatiable pull", "ocean reclaimed", "destruction will spread", "societal sickness", "infection", "rejection of science", "sustainability breaks down", "deepening societal sickness", "narrowing window". Don where is this "tragedy of climate change"? All of those words and fear mongering you threw at us above only hurts the science you attempt to defend.  This kind of narrative and post is exactly why folks are moving away from any belief that climate change is anything other than a typical cyclical occurrence. If we keep crying wolf like Al Gore about melting ice caps, increasing number of hurricanes, intensity and coastline obliteration followed by the verifiable facts failing to support these predictions this doubt about our future climate state will only deepen and spread....you can count on that!

[ChescoWx]

6 hours ago, chubbs said:

We don't have any Chesco stations that haven't had major changes. But one station, Phoenixville, provides consistent data for 1890-1926 vs present. Phoenixville has had moves and station changes, but has remained on the local water property site since 1893. This site, with a small reservoir, has not seen any significant development during the period of station operation. There have been major station changes at Phoenixville however, which we have documented previously on this site. The station ran spuriously warm between 1927 and 1949, particularly on summer afternoons; and, ran cool in the 1990s. There is also a fair bit of missing data

Charts below: 1) Phoenixville and NOAA Chesco showing good agreement on the roughly 4F Chesco temperature rise between the 1890s and present. 2) Adjusted and unadjusted temperatures for Phoenixville showing the roughly 4F warming in both the adjusted and unadjusted data, but with large adjustments for 1927-49 and the 1990s as discussed above, and 3) Annual 90F days for Phoenixville and other stations showing a large spurious spike at Phoenixville in the 1927-48 period, illustrating the station warmth during this period. 

We've been going over the Chester County data in detail for over a year. Well documented in the Chester County thread. I would be glad to answer any questions if you are interested. The raw data in Chester County paints a very consistent picture of warming that is captured accurately by NOAA. The fact that Paul (Chescowx) can't find warming tells us more about himself than Chester County's weather.

Notice the facts below how even that station that Charlie terms "consistent data" at Phoenixville was in reality missing around 20 years of data. from 1895 through 1914. Also take a look how those big 3 stations were all deeply discounted and adjusted downward. This includes both those stations that Charlie thinks are somehow  "heat islands" and those that are not....what again is the control arm used for these changes? How can the revised temperature not have any actual control station in the county that supports or aligns with the coolest station in the county? Instead NOAA adjusts to a figure so much lower with these post hoc altered adjustments to arrive at a revised temperature that is in fact not rooted at all to any factual temperatures of any stations at all in the entire county of Chester? Keep in mind in 29 of these 30 years they inserted a temperature lower than ANY ACTUAL STATION in the entire county.....where is the control data for the County??? It cannot be in some other county it just cannot!!

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

The above is a dystopian view not rooted in actual science, reality or facts....you point to faulty future state models to support your fears. Do you ever read what you post? The following words are why those that believe in some scary climate religion are now quickly losing followers.  The fear mongering is pervasive in the above words and thoughts chosen by Don.  He chooses words such as "crumbling coast" , "families watched helplessly", "erosion devoured", "tides insatiable pull", "ocean reclaimed", "destruction will spread", "societal sickness", "infection", "rejection of science", "sustainability breaks down", "deepening societal sickness", "narrowing window". Don where is this "tragedy of climate change"? All of those words and fear mongering you threw at us above only hurts the science you attempt to defend.  This kind of narrative and post is exactly why folks are moving away from any belief that climate change is anything other than a typical cyclical occurrence. If we keep crying wolf like Al Gore about melting ice caps, increasing number of hurricanes, intensity and coastline obliteration followed by the verifiable facts failing to support these predictions this doubt about our future climate state will only deepen and spread....you can count on that!

This caricature is the kind of narrative the climate change denial movement is pushing, with some success, due to the very limitations of human nature a number of us have discussed. This rhetorical move of labeling climate science as a “scary religion” and its communication as “fear mongering,” diverts attention away from measurable changes in temperature, sea level, atmospheric composition, and the role of human-induced greenhouse gas pollution in driving those changes. It reframes the issue as a matter of emotion or ideology, not science.

By characterizing concern about climate change as exaggerated and predictions as “crying wolf,” it normalizes passivity and delays collective response. The premise of its strategy is to convince the public that the threat of climate change is overblown, if it exists at all. After all, if a threat is overblown or non-existent, then no change is necessary. Put another way, humanity can continue, even expand, its ongoing greenhouse gas-driven geoengineering project.

Yet, sea level rise is not imaginary. Sea level rise is real. The notion that a reduction in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will result in no sea level rise whatsoever is fiction. The description of what sea level rise might look like can call attention to what will become a big problem in the future. Further, sea level rise and human futility in holding it back is not without historical precedent.

Along the ancient seafront of Delos, generations of builders struggled to hold back the advancing sea. Beginning in the Classical era, they constructed an immense granite breakwater to protect the harbor from waves and erosion. Over the centuries, as the shoreline crept inland, new defenses were added: rockfills, seawalls, and massive boulders aligned along the coast. Each layer of construction, which now lies at depths of 3 to 4 meters below the modern sea, marks an episode of retreat and rebuilding, a record of determination in the face of encroaching waters. Roads and docks that once thrived with merchants and pilgrims were gradually overtaken by the rising tide.

Today, the remains of these ancient defenses lie submerged beneath the Aegean Sea, preserved in successive bands of beachrock. Divers can trace their contours like pages in a drowned chronicle that bears the testimony to centuries of futile struggle against a force that could not be contained. The harborworks of Delos, once symbols of resilience and prosperity, now rest silent beneath the waves, their stones bearing witness to the city’s slow surrender to the rise of the sea.

Doggerland, which now lies beneath the waters of the North Sea, provides another example of land that was reclaimed by a rising sea. 

Climate science has done its part. No one can even plausibly argue that "they didn't know," much less claim that the events projected by the science (more frequent heatwaves, more intense precipitation events, melting glaciers/ice sheets, rising sea levels) were matters beyond human control. Those outcomes will be a matter of choice, namely the choice to set aside the laws of physics, to continue to inject vast sums of CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

[Typhoon Tip]

6 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

This caricature is the kind of narrative the climate change denial movement is pushing, with some success, due to the very limitations of human nature a number of us have discussed. This rhetorical move of labeling climate science as a “scary religion” and its communication as “fear mongering,” diverts attention away from measurable changes in temperature, sea level, atmospheric composition, and the role of human-induced greenhouse gas pollution in driving those changes. It reframes the issue as a matter of emotion or ideology, not science.

By characterizing concern about climate change as exaggerated and predictions as “crying wolf,” it normalizes passivity and delays collective response. The premise of its strategy is to convince the public that the threat of climate change is overblown, if it exists at all. After all, if a threat is overblown or non-existent, then no change is necessary. Put another way, humanity can continue, even expand, its ongoing greenhouse gas-driven geoengineering project.

Yet, sea level rise is not imaginary. Sea level rise is real. The notion that a reduction in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will result in no sea level rise whatsoever is fiction. The description of what sea level rise might look like can call attention to what will become a big problem in the future. Further, sea level rise and human futility in holding it back is not without historical precedent.

Along the ancient seafront of Delos, generations of builders struggled to hold back the advancing sea. Beginning in the Classical era, they constructed an immense granite breakwater to protect the harbor from waves and erosion. Over the centuries, as the shoreline crept inland, new defenses were added: rockfills, seawalls, and massive boulders aligned along the coast. Each layer of construction, which now lies at depths of 3 to 4 meters below the modern sea, marks an episode of retreat and rebuilding, a record of determination in the face of encroaching waters. Roads and docks that once thrived with merchants and pilgrims were gradually overtaken by the rising tide.

Today, the remains of these ancient defenses lie submerged beneath the Aegean Sea, preserved in successive bands of beachrock. Divers can trace their contours like pages in a drowned chronicle that bears the testimony to centuries of futile struggle against a force that could not be contained. The harborworks of Delos, once symbols of resilience and prosperity, now rest silent beneath the waves, their stones bearing witness to the city’s slow surrender to the rise of the sea.

Doggerland, which now lies beneath the waters of the North Sea, provides another example of land that was reclaimed by a rising sea. 

Climate science has done its part. No one can even plausibly argue that "they didn't know," much less claim that the events projected by the science (more frequent heatwaves, more intense precipitation events, melting glaciers/ice sheets, rising sea levels) were matters beyond human control. Those outcomes will be a matter of choice, namely the choice to set aside the laws of physics, to continue to inject vast sums of CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

https://phys.org/news/2025-10-seas-cities-coastal-crisis-china.html

[ChescoWx]

15 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

This caricature is the kind of narrative the climate change denial movement is pushing, with some success, due to the very limitations of human nature a number of us have discussed. This rhetorical move of labeling climate science as a “scary religion” and its communication as “fear mongering,” diverts attention away from measurable changes in temperature, sea level, atmospheric composition, and the role of human-induced greenhouse gas pollution in driving those changes. It reframes the issue as a matter of emotion or ideology, not science.

By characterizing concern about climate change as exaggerated and predictions as “crying wolf,” it normalizes passivity and delays collective response. The premise of its strategy is to convince the public that the threat of climate change is overblown, if it exists at all. After all, if a threat is overblown or non-existent, then no change is necessary. Put another way, humanity can continue, even expand, its ongoing greenhouse gas-driven geoengineering project.

Yet, sea level rise is not imaginary. Sea level rise is real. The notion that a reduction in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will result in no sea level rise whatsoever is fiction. The description of what sea level rise might look like can call attention to what will become a big problem in the future. Further, sea level rise and human futility in holding it back is not without historical precedent.

Along the ancient seafront of Delos, generations of builders struggled to hold back the advancing sea. Beginning in the Classical era, they constructed an immense granite breakwater to protect the harbor from waves and erosion. Over the centuries, as the shoreline crept inland, new defenses were added: rockfills, seawalls, and massive boulders aligned along the coast. Each layer of construction, which now lies at depths of 3 to 4 meters below the modern sea, marks an episode of retreat and rebuilding, a record of determination in the face of encroaching waters. Roads and docks that once thrived with merchants and pilgrims were gradually overtaken by the rising tide.

Today, the remains of these ancient defenses lie submerged beneath the Aegean Sea, preserved in successive bands of beachrock. Divers can trace their contours like pages in a drowned chronicle that bears the testimony to centuries of futile struggle against a force that could not be contained. The harborworks of Delos, once symbols of resilience and prosperity, now rest silent beneath the waves, their stones bearing witness to the city’s slow surrender to the rise of the sea.

Doggerland, which now lies beneath the waters of the North Sea, provides another example of land that was reclaimed by a rising sea. 

Climate science has done its part. No one can even plausibly argue that "they didn't know," much less claim that the events projected by the science (more frequent heatwaves, more intense precipitation events, melting glaciers/ice sheets, rising sea levels) were matters beyond human control. Those outcomes will be a matter of choice, namely the choice to set aside the laws of physics, to continue to inject vast sums of CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

Again Don there is of course no such thing as a climate change denial movement - climate of course always changes correct?? That term is an example of what fake news is!  Now the magnitude of any impact that man may have had on the many varied climate cycles the earth has gone through is certainly on the table... and some day it's true scientific impact may be quantified. But please keep in mind that I am not the one that chooses to use such dark language....by using the words you choose above you are indeed fear mongering. I know you really believe what you post but I really believe it does more harm than good to paint such a dark future without adequate science and proven models to support such miserable predictions.

[donsutherland1]

9 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Again Don there is of course no such thing as a climate change denial movement - climate of course always changes correct?? That term is an example of what fake news is!  Now the magnitude of any impact that man may have had on the many varied climate cycles the earth has gone through is certainly on the table... and some day it's true scientific impact may be quantified. But please keep in mind that I am not the one that chooses to use such dark language....by using the words you choose above you are indeed fear mongering. I know you really believe what you post but I really believe it does more harm than good to paint such a dark future without adequate science and proven models to support such miserable predictions.

Recognizing cyclical/natural causes for climate change, alone, is insufficient. Climate change can be driven by cyclical/natural and human causes. "Climate change denial" or "climate denial" is a term that was developed to describe a position that rejects human-induced climate change. The Oxford English Dictionary defines climate denial as follows: "Rejection of the idea (or the evidence) that climate change caused by human activity is occurring, or that it represents a significant threat to human and environmental welfare."

 

[ChescoWx]

13 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Recognizing cyclical/natural causes for climate change, alone, is insufficient. Climate change can be driven by cyclical/natural and human causes. "Climate change denial" or "climate denial" is a term that was developed to describe a position that rejects human-induced climate change. The Oxford English Dictionary defines climate denial as follows: "Rejection of the idea (or the evidence) that climate change caused by human activity is occurring, or that it represents a significant threat to human and environmental welfare."

 

Ah so because one does not believe it is a significant threat (which most do not) if you fail on the 2nd part of that little test you are a Climate Denier. If that is true than are you as the dictionary says meeting the definition of a "climate alarmist" which is " a person who exaggerates the dangers of climate change and its potential impacts, often by using sensationalized language or promoting policies based on these exaggerated fears. ??? 

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

Ah so because one does not believe it is a significant threat (which most do not) if you fail on the 2nd part of that little test you are a Climate Denier. If that is true than are you as the dictionary says meeting the definition of a "climate alarmist" which is " a person who exaggerates the dangers of climate change and its potential impacts, often by using sensationalized language or promoting policies based on these exaggerated fears. ??? 

The body of science is what it is. Citing it doesn't make one an "alarmist."

By the way, from the Oxford English Dictionary:

And for those who are interested in sea level rise, NASA provides a great site for seeing the projections. Images for one location from one scenario:

[ChescoWx]

3 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The body of science is what it is. Citing it doesn't make one an "alarmist."

By the way, from the Oxford English Dictionary:

And for those who are interested in sea level rise, NASA provides a great site for seeing the projections. Images for one location from one scenario:

Scary for sure....but like all these longer term forecasts to date...highly unlikely to come close to reality!!

[donsutherland1]

47 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Scary for sure....but like all these longer term forecasts to date...highly unlikely to come close to reality!!

"Scary" is your description. "Sobering" is mine. But that's where the science is.

On your point about verification, sea level forecasts have fared very well, so far. A paper that was published this past summer revealed:

With an acceleration of global sea-level rise during the satellite altimetry era (since 1993) firmly established, it is now appropriate to examine sea-level projections made around the onset of this time period. Here we show that the mid-range projection from the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC (1995/1996) was strikingly close to what transpired over the next 30 years, with the magnitude of sea-level rise underestimated by only ∼1 cm.