Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,277
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    weatherman27
    Newest Member
    weatherman27
    Joined

Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change


donsutherland1
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 9/19/2022 at 7:29 PM, Fantom X said:

I just wanted to express how I hate that climate change is political game, rather than everyone taking it seriously. We had a problem with CFCs in the 1980s and it was REAGAN who was involved with the banning of CFCs. Now the GOPs stance is that climate change is a hoax. 

The climate change narrative is more than just a political game, much more. At the core is carbon credits, already a multi-billion dollar racket on Wall Street, it will grow into the trillions. You'll pay, you always do. The wealthy elites, politically-connected, and media moguls run this game, and you can take it to the bank they are not stupid. (Or perhaps you believe these people can't sleep at night because they're worried about YOU. LOL.) 

I see it everywhere, people barking at trees oblivious to the forest that will consume them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/cop27-world-track-increase-emissions-106-by-2030-un-report-2022-10-26/

 

This is only if the nations keep their current pledges

It could be far worse than this.

LONDON, Oct 26 (Reuters) - If countries fulfill their current climate commitments, global greenhouse gas emissions will rise by 10.6% by 2030 compared to 2010 levels, according to a United Nations report released on Wednesday.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says a 43% reduction in emissions by 2030 is needed to limit warming to 1.5 Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures.

With world leaders expected to gather in Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt for the COP27 climate summit from Nov. 6, experts said more action was urgently needed.ister now

Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Report an ad

"At the UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow last year, all countries agreed to revisit and strengthen their climate plans," said Simon Stiell, executive secretary of UN Climate Change in a statement. "The fact that only 24 new or updated climate plans were submitted since COP26 is disappointing."

These include Bolivia, Vanuatu and Uganda, as well as the large emitter nations of India and Indonesia. The latter, which sees most emissions come from deforestation and peatland clearance, now says it will cut emissions levels by at least 31.89% by 2030.

Globally, inadequate pledges put the world on a path to warm by 2.5C by 2100.

Still, a 10.6% increase in emissions represents slight progress. Last year's UN assessment found countries were on track to up emissions by 13.7% by 2030.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Not good news with all of the drought. Looks like these multi-year Ninas may be becoming more frequent due to climate change.

https://www.washington.edu/news/2022/10/03/study-suggests-la-nina-winters-could-keep-on-coming/

 Regarding your linked article:

 1. I don't think that the current triple dip La Nina is all that notable from a climate perspective. Per both the NOAA ONI table that goes back to 1950 and Eric Webb's ENSO SSTA table that goes back earlier, there were these triple dipping cold ENSO periods:

A) 1892-3, 93-4, 94-5

B)1908-9, 09-10, 10-1

C) 1915-6, 16-7, 17-8

D) ASO of 1954, OND of 55, JAS of 56

E) 1973-4, 74-5, 75-6

F) 1983-4, 84-5, 85-6

G) 1998-9, 1999-2000, 2000-1

H) 2020-1, 21-2, 22-3

 So, other than the longer period between the triple dips of the 1910s and 1950s, these have occurred 7-22 years apart since the late 1800s. The current one started 22 years after the start of the prior one. So, I don't see it being that notable that we're now in a triple dip as it was kind of due.

 

2. The same article refers to a cooling trend between 1979 and 2020 in much of the E Pacific off of S.A. Well, 2020 was the start of the current triple dip La Niña. And 1979 was going into a weak El Niño. So, if this is merely based on the difference between 1979 and 2020, then obviously it was notably cooler in 2020 than in 1979 off of S.A. That isn't due to a longer term trend but rather due to a short term cooling in 2020 due to La Niña as the image below shows. What if the ending point had been during the super El Niño of 2015 instead of 2020? The trend from 1979 off of S.A. would have been warmer rather than cooler.

FEADA190-EAE9-46F2-9B78-3A86ECC6138F.thumb.jpeg.43a54be8c1ecadc400d60cd2d746803a.jpeg

https://www.webberweather.com/ensemble-oceanic-nino-index.html


https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GaWx said:

 Regarding your linked article:

 1. I don't think that the current triple dip La Nina is all that notable from a climate perspective. Per both the NOAA ONI table that goes back to 1950 and Eric Webb's ENSO SSTA table that goes back earlier, there were these triple dipping cold ENSO periods:

A) 1892-3, 93-4, 94-5

B)1908-9, 09-10, 10-1

C) 1915-6, 16-7, 17-8

D) ASO of 1954, OND of 55, JAS of 56

E) 1973-4, 74-5, 75-6

F) 1983-4, 84-5, 85-6

G) 1998-9, 1999-2000, 2000-1

H) 2020-1, 21-2, 22-3

 So, other than the longer period between the triple dips of the 1910s and 1950s, these have occurred 7-22 years apart since the late 1800s. The current one started 22 years after the start of the prior one. So, I don't see it being that notable that we're now in a triple dip as it was kind of due.

 

2. The same article refers to a cooling trend between 1979 and 2020 in much of the E Pacific off of S.A. Well, 2020 was the start of the current triple dip La Niña. And 1979 was going into a weak El Niño. So, if this is merely based on the difference between 1979 and 2020, then obviously it was notably cooler in 2020 than in 1979 off of S.A. That isn't due to a longer term trend but rather due to a short term cooling in 2020 due to La Niña as the image below shows. What if the ending point had been during the super El Niño of 2015 instead of 2020? The trend from 1979 off of S.A. would have been warmer rather than cooler.

FEADA190-EAE9-46F2-9B78-3A86ECC6138F.thumb.jpeg.43a54be8c1ecadc400d60cd2d746803a.jpeg

https://www.webberweather.com/ensemble-oceanic-nino-index.html


https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

Well, 1972, 1982 and 1998 were all strong to extreme Ninos, so there was a lot of heat to dissipate. I don't think this triple dip La Nina was preceded by a strong El Nino which is curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Well, 1972, 1982 and 1998 were all strong to extreme Ninos, so there was a lot of heat to dissipate. I don't think this triple dip La Nina was preceded by a strong El Nino which is curious.

That's an interesting point. However, also keep in mind that none of 1954, 1915, 1908, and 1892 had a preceding strong El Nino.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gotta agree there does seem to be some cyclical pattern to triple dip Ninas. The overall trend though still does show that temps in ocean basins continue to warm so impacts of these triple dips may be different with time than say what we experienced in the turn of the millennium or back in the mid 70s. Each triple dip Im sure has its own flavor too as differing atmospheric patterns occur during these time periods than say what we are in currently for example AMO/PDO, etc.

If it is somewhat in that range of time 7-22 years we could see another decent cooldown of the tropical pacific waters come the end of the decade. ~22 years has been my go to for seeing triple dips. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/27/2022 at 7:17 AM, TheClimateChanger said:

Not good news with all of the drought. Looks like these multi-year Ninas may be becoming more frequent due to climate change.

https://www.washington.edu/news/2022/10/03/study-suggests-la-nina-winters-could-keep-on-coming/

I believe the causal-link is in the HC expansion ... The expanding equatorial cell doesn't mean the cell is a stronger circulation eddy - in fact, it is weaker...albeit spread out over a larger integral, the same mass transport... blah blah.  But the point being, that weakening is disconnecting the previous systemic triggers that got El Nina/warming ENSO's to ... Probably rooted in planetary sloshing by way of longer term low/secondary frequencies associated to MJO's but that's hypothesis.    The expanding HC and weakening momentum is screwing up all that circuitry though.  

The last warm ENSO failed to register many expected impacts along the climate routes that it typically does... part of this.  

Also, I suspect it is partly involved in why we have seen many hemispheric circulation modes,...since the aughts ... observably uncouple from the base-line ENSO state during winters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/27/2022 at 11:17 PM, so_whats_happening said:

I gotta agree there does seem to be some cyclical pattern to triple dip Ninas. The overall trend though still does show that temps in ocean basins continue to warm so impacts of these triple dips may be different with time than say what we experienced in the turn of the millennium or back in the mid 70s. Each triple dip Im sure has its own flavor too as differing atmospheric patterns occur during these time periods than say what we are in currently for example AMO/PDO, etc.

If it is somewhat in that range of time 7-22 years we could see another decent cooldown of the tropical pacific waters come the end of the decade. ~22 years has been my go to for seeing triple dips. 

What if it ends up being a quadruple dip this time? Would that be unprecendented?

Interesting why we don't see triple dip el ninos-- or maybe we have further back in the record?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2022 at 11:20 AM, LibertyBell said:

What if it ends up being a quadruple dip this time? Would that be unprecendented?

Interesting why we don't see triple dip el ninos-- or maybe we have further back in the record?

 

Im sure in the past those two instances had occurred unfortunately the amount of data we have only takes us so far. I wanna say it is probably harder to sustain a triple el nino phase though as it is considered such an anomaly versus triple dip ninas which are an exaggeration of the normal pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2022 at 11:20 AM, LibertyBell said:

What if it ends up being a quadruple dip this time? Would that be unprecendented?

Interesting why we don't see triple dip el ninos-- or maybe we have further back in the record?

 

 Webb's tables go back to 1850. Based on his tables for that period, there was actually one quad or even quint dip (depending on how one might count it) cold ENSO although it just missed being a quad dip La Niña. Instead, it was a triple dip weak La Niña with dips centered on March of 1873, March of 1874, and September of 1874. Then there were dips in August of 1875 and May of 1876 that were to -0.6 C, but these two dips were barely too short-lived to count as La Niña.

 Fwiw, I treat this period as a quad dip cold ENSO based on number of consecutive fall/winter periods: 1872-3 through 1875-6. It had trimonths that were -0.1 C or colder from JFM of 1872 all the way through JAS of 1876. That's  ~4.5 years of cold ENSO uninterrupted.

 Webb's tables have one triple peak El Niño: 1939-40 through 1941-2. Also, I see a couple of three consecutive fall/winter warm ENSO periods:

- 1883-4 (warm neutral) followed by 1884-5 & 1885-6 both being El Niño; this period had +0.1+ C JFM of 1883 through JFM of 1886 meaning three years uninterrupted.

- 1864-5 and 1865-6 were both El Niño followed by 1866-7 being warm neutral. This period had +0.1+ C from JJA of 1864 through JFM of 1867 (2 years, 7 months uninterrupted).

 So, I count a total of three triple peak warm ENSO periods since 1850. But I count nine triple dip cold ENSO periods (including the current one and also the one quad as noted). So, 9-3 in favor of the triple dips vs triple peaks. Reason: I don't know. Possibly random? If triple dips and triple peaks happened to have about the same true probability, getting 75% of them one way vs 25% the other way in a sample size of only 12 isn't that far fetched. So, we really don't know for sure that the underlying true chance for a triple dip is higher than that for a triple peak. Or maybe it really is higher but not by much. However, my wild guess is that it is somewhat higher fwiw.

 Looking at his tables, I count ~45 fall/winters that are La Niña and El Niño, respectively. Looking at the NOAA ONI table for 1950+, I count 27 La Niña and 26 El Niño. So, the underlying true probability of each in any one fall/winter would at least appear to be similar.


Webb's Nino 3.4 based ENSO tables:

https://www.webberweather.com/ensemble-oceanic-nino-index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between disinformation and misinformation is that one is intentional and the other is not. One of the most well known climate science contrarians is Christopher Monckton. He has been spreading his disinformation regarding what the IPCC predicted in 1990 for almost a decade. I have recently been calling him out on it which I suspect was the impetus for his latest rant on WUWT in which he devotes an entire article to the topic. I think most of the articles on WUWT fall under the more innocent misinformation category, but this is a prime example of disinformation. And since I've discussed the topic with some of the WUWT editors I have no choice but to call out the WUWT site itself as enabling (and arguably encouraging) the dissemination of this disinformation. For a site that prides itself on providing a skeptical science-based viewpoint the site is woefully lacking on skepticism and science.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/11/05/how-ipccs-1990-predictions-expensively-failed/

The fact is that the IPCC prediction from 1990 is nearly spot with the warming observed in the last 30 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“….The research spearheaded by Scott Evans, a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Geosciences, part of the Virginia Tech College of Science, shows this earliest mass extinctionof about 80 percent of animals across this interval. "This included the loss of many different types of animals, however those whose body plans and behaviors indicate that they relied on significant amounts of oxygen seem to have been hit particularly hard," Evans said. "This suggests that the extinction event was environmentally controlled, as are all other mass extinctions in the geologic record."

Evans' work was published Nov. 7 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a peer-reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences. The study was co-authored by Shuhai Xiao, also a professor in the Department of Geosciences, and several researchers led by Mary Droser from the University of California Riverside's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, where Evans earned his master's degree and Ph.D.

"Environmental changes, such as global warming and deoxygenation events, can lead to massive extinction of animals and profound disruption and reorganization of the ecosystem,…" 

thank God there’s no evidence of environmental changes specifically related to global warming and/or deoxygenating and it’s all a hoax then. Phew 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2021 at 1:38 PM, sadqave said:

Climate change is becoming a serious headache for all of us, and we are not paying attention to it. Sometimes when I think about it my mind blows. I am an Environmental Engineer and I have very close sight on it. It is sucking all of our resources and ecosystems. We should pay sudden attention to it. If you look at this plastic expanding drastically and making everything difficult. Don't get decomposed and making life difficult for marine life also the other thing is global warning, increase in hotness of sun and so on.....

The world ignored the warning, and intensive investment in energy, technology and medicine were made for many years without the impact on the environment being considered.

Public perception of climate change has received attention only in recent decades, practically since the 1992 Kyoto Protocol, the first global attempt to reduce human impact on the environment. Climate change awareness is influenced by country- and culture-specific issues, which implies that it is in fact difficult to generalize across a geographically, economically and culturally diverse planet

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is poetic justice....finally these chemicals (including fossil fuels) are doing something good. and lol at these people always being worried about not having enough younger people to sustain the olds.

Nature always finds a way to protect itself.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/10/cocktail-of-chemical-pollutants-linked-to-falling-sperm-quality-in-research

A cocktail of chemical pollutants measured in people’s bodies has been linked to falling semen quality by new research.

Chemicals such as bisphenols and dioxins are thought to interfere with hormones and damage sperm quality, and the study found combinations of these compounds are present at “astonishing” levels, up to 100 times those considered safe.

 

Bisphenol A (BPA) was responsible for the highest risks, the scientists said. The chemical is found in milk and tinned food as it leaches from the linings of the packaging. The key steps for healthy male sexual development occur during pregnancy, making the study results particularly relevant for expectant mothers, the researchers said.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/dec/15/fall-fertility-rates-may-be-linked-fossil-fuel-pollution-finds-study

 

Decreasing fertility rates may be linked to pollution caused by fossil fuel burning, a review of scientific studies has found.

Over the past 50 years childbirth has steadily decreased. The study focused on Denmark, but the trend is also seen in other industrialised nations. One in 10 Danish children are born with assisted reproduction and more than 20% of men never have children, according to the researchers. This decrease seems to have started at the beginning of industrialisation. Experts have warnedthe trend could lead to an unbalanced demographic with too few younger people to support the older generations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2022 at 5:13 AM, LibertyBell said:

This is poetic justice....finally these chemicals (including fossil fuels) are doing something good. and lol at these people always being worried about not having enough younger people to sustain the olds.

Nature always finds a way to protect itself.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/10/cocktail-of-chemical-pollutants-linked-to-falling-sperm-quality-in-research

A cocktail of chemical pollutants measured in people’s bodies has been linked to falling semen quality by new research.

Chemicals such as bisphenols and dioxins are thought to interfere with hormones and damage sperm quality, and the study found combinations of these compounds are present at “astonishing” levels, up to 100 times those considered safe.

 

Bisphenol A (BPA) was responsible for the highest risks, the scientists said. The chemical is found in milk and tinned food as it leaches from the linings of the packaging. The key steps for healthy male sexual development occur during pregnancy, making the study results particularly relevant for expectant mothers, the researchers said.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/dec/15/fall-fertility-rates-may-be-linked-fossil-fuel-pollution-finds-study

 

Decreasing fertility rates may be linked to pollution caused by fossil fuel burning, a review of scientific studies has found.

Over the past 50 years childbirth has steadily decreased. The study focused on Denmark, but the trend is also seen in other industrialised nations. One in 10 Danish children are born with assisted reproduction and more than 20% of men never have children, according to the researchers. This decrease seems to have started at the beginning of industrialisation. Experts have warnedthe trend could lead to an unbalanced demographic with too few younger people to support the older generations.

Good morning Liberty. With the youth supply dwindling, perhaps only a Sol Roth solution is left for us. Stay well, as always ….

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

from NYC subforum

Dimming the Sun to Cool the Planet Is a Desperate Idea, Yet We're Inching Toward It. The scientists who study solar geoengineering don’t want anyone to try it. But climate inaction is making it more likely.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/dimming-the-sun-to-cool-the-planet-is-a-desperate-idea-yet-were-inching-toward-it/amp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/30/2022 at 2:27 AM, LibertyBell said:

from NYC subforum

Dimming the Sun to Cool the Planet Is a Desperate Idea, Yet We're Inching Toward It. The scientists who study solar geoengineering don’t want anyone to try it. But climate inaction is making it more likely.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/dimming-the-sun-to-cool-the-planet-is-a-desperate-idea-yet-were-inching-toward-it/amp

Humans have done enough damage. This could seriously backfire. What if we get another pinatubo during this geoengineering process? What are the unforseen consequences?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Fantom X said:

Humans have done enough damage. This could seriously backfire. What if we get another pinatubo during this geoengineering process? What are the unforseen consequences?  

Lots and lots of snow?

Lol jking, with less sunlight we could create a mass die off of vegetation and completely change the wind patterns and ocean currents, as the planet seeks to rebalance heat between the poles and tropics.  The thing is when climate changes naturally, this happens very slowly and everything stabilizes and equlibriates and nature has millions of years to adjust.  When human beings tamper with the system via climate change, everything occurs MUCH faster and there is no guarantee there won't be a lot of destruction before everything stabilizes and equilibriates-- and the new equilibrium point may not be where we want it to be.  In the case of geoengineering, the changes occur even faster than anthropogenic climate change so you can guess there is even more of a chance things could go awry and create a chain reaction runaway effect.  This has actually happened before and resulted in mass extinction events (via volcanoes).....the planet took a long time to equilibriate and when stability was finally reached 90% of life was killed off in the largest of these mass extinction events (the Permian mass extinction-- which also resulted in our best fossil fuel deposits.)  We've already started the 6th mass extinction in the planet's history, this would accelerate that exponentially.

It's probably something that if it does ever get done, it has to be thoroughly tested first and needs to be approached with extreme caution.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
On 12/28/2022 at 3:16 PM, donsutherland1 said:

A great summary video on Arctic developments by Dr. Jason Box:

Good evening Don and thank you for this fine video. We rage and bemoan our loss of snow, our winter fails, our models poor prediction records. This learned man, however, with a halting, natural, non rehearsed presentation calmly outlines a real and imminent catastrophe. I may not live to see the 10, 20 or 30 meter sea level rise but when I look at my pre teen grandchildren, living on this fragile east coast island, I begin to feel afraid. As always …

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/30/2022 at 2:27 AM, LibertyBell said:

from NYC subforum

Dimming the Sun to Cool the Planet Is a Desperate Idea, Yet We're Inching Toward It. The scientists who study solar geoengineering don’t want anyone to try it. But climate inaction is making it more likely.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/dimming-the-sun-to-cool-the-planet-is-a-desperate-idea-yet-were-inching-toward-it/amp

Not for nothing.. Kinda proves the Matrix is Real.. 

 

 

irj1v.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2022 at 12:18 PM, LibertyBell said:

Some news

This is big news today-- how many decades are we now from controllable nuclear fusion and could this eventually be used not just for energy right here at home but also for space propulsion fuel?
 

 

Q-plasma only. Nowhere near break-even on Q-total. Entire fusion research community needs to come to grips with this and tell it like it is or we're gonna get another 30 years of articles like this.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, csnavywx said:

Q-plasma only. Nowhere near break-even on Q-total. Entire fusion research community needs to come to grips with this and tell it like it is or we're gonna get another 30 years of articles like this.

Why is research so slow? Humanity seems to be so slow in developing new technology both for space and for energy-- it seems like we have plateaued in these areas and all the new technological development is happening in computers and other consumer technology.  Is this just not well funded?

I've also read that particle physics and high energy physics isn't well funded either-- therefore-- nothing happening there after the Higgs Boson was discovered, nowhere close to a Theory of Everything.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...