Weird weather?

[bayview]

Funny thing about science is that history shows that it is often wrong.
All, or most, scientists will subscribe to the current orthodoxy and vehemently resist new ideas. Then someone comes up with a new explanation and the science community resists it with all their might because of their investment in beliefs. Eventually, if the new idea is supported by experiment, the new idea becomes widely accepted.

Thus, contrary to media proclamations, the popularity of an idea is not proof of the idea.

Plate tectonics exist, the earth is not the center of the solar system and water not air was the cause of many 18th century diseases. All despite the insistence of scientists of the time.

Climate does indeed change it is only the cause that is uncertain; except to those who don't understand the difference between cause and correlation or who stand to profit from the orthodoxy.

 

[tozz]

All, or most, scientists will subscribe to the current orthodoxy and vehemently resist new ideas. Then someone comes up with a new explanation and the science community resists it with all their might because of their investment in beliefs. Eventually, if the new idea is supported by experiment, the new idea becomes widely accepted.

The scientists I know do not hold onto any orthodoxy or resist new ideas based on previous investment. They encourage anyone to posit new hypothesis' and support repeatable testing with sound methods. The scientific method demands objectivity until repeatable results that withstand peer review are achieved. What you are defining as resistance can be attributed to that skepticism inherent in the method which continuously questions theories.

-tozz

 

[bayview]

That is the theory but history demonstrates otherwise.

 

[Zoar]

It seems some of what is being professed here were beliefs during the DARK AGES. And as the term suggests it was an epoch (and place) not lead by science but rather by a certain close-minded theology of the era in a specific location, with ardent dogma; decidedly not scientific base.

 

[O C Diver]

From the Atlantic article quoted in post #14:



Underlined bit mine.

I find it interesting that the climate change deniers here on TF also include Covid-19 denialists.

People live in echo chambers these days. I use Google as a search engine and have to put "fox news" into my searches because Google's algorithm will never, ever show me a fox news story in its search results based on my usual searches.

Point being, I like to have a balanced view of opinions. Reading articles from other countries is an even better idea.

I would like to ask those who are denialists...did you arrive at that understanding based on your own balanced research, or are you being led around by the nose and don't even know it?

Murray,
One can look at the earth as it goes through cycles or changes and conclude that they (you) could save the planet if you only could accomplish some feel good gesture that gets offset by the ever increasing population. The reality is that earth has a bigger problem and the weather cycles aren't going to be positively altered until you solve that problem.

The world is overpopulated and the depletion of natural resources (on which we are dependent) won't be reversed until the population is substantially reduced.

While you might look at me as denialist, I look at people like you that weren't willing to follow the science to the obvious problem. You are complaining about cracks in the foundation, I see the sinkhole under the house.

Ted

 

[OldDan1943]

I dont think we will change anyones' mind. We can only expose them to other opinions and theories.

 

[OldDan1943]

Way way back in time, folks declared the world was flat and if not careful, sail off the edge.
It was difficult to explain why a sailing vessel sailed over the horizon, watching from shore and the masts got shorter, and then, the boat sailed back in, their masts getting taller.

 

[Zoar]

Mayans knew the earth was round and they knew a lot about the universe. European society of 900 to 1500 (a region and a time) dominated by THE CHURCH / Ultra "Cinservative" professed all kinds of faleshoods, oddly similar to some today.

 

[MurrayM]

Murray,
One can look at the earth as it goes through cycles or changes and conclude that they (you) could save the planet if you only could accomplish some feel good gesture...

While you might look at me as denialist, I look at people like you...

Sigh...

How do you know I don't agree with you on that point? I didn't think I had to post such a fulsome reply detailing all aspects of my world view when we were discussing just one topic.

We had one child, late in life. I'm 60 and she's 19, so no photo's of a huge extended family with scads of grandkids and great-grandkids for us

 

[bayview]

One need not look to the dark ages or religion to find examples of scientists resisting new and different ideas. Simply research 19th century waterborne diseases, early 20th century physics, mid 20the century tectonics. The list is long.

Scientists are liek all people. If they have invested their lives and built their reputation based on a particular view they will be very resistant to changing that view. The scientific method must be viewed with time as an element of incorporating new ideas and challenging old.

So it is with evidence that the same glaciers viewed as harbingers of disaster as they melt today , melted or were not formed well within human history. How does that cycle fit within the current human cause orthodoxy? Do we ask if this happened 9000 years ago why is it so certain that people are causing it today.

 

[O C Diver]

Sigh...

How do you know I don't agree with you on that point? I didn't think I had to post such a fulsome reply detailing all aspects of my world view when we were discussing just one topic.

We had one child, late in life. I'm 60 and she's 19, so no photo's of a huge extended family with scads of grandkids and great-grandkids for us

I guess I look at it as why beat the drum on MMCC if you realize it's only a symptom of the real problem?

Ted

 

[HiDHo]

I just wish I could help control the terrible climate change by buying a new Hummer EV.

 

[RBack]

Scientists are liek all people. If they have invested their lives and built their reputation based on a particular view they will be very resistant to changing that view. The scientific method must be viewed with time as an element of incorporating new ideas and challenging old.

So it is with evidence that the same glaciers viewed as harbingers of disaster as they melt today , melted or were not formed well within human history. How does that cycle fit within the current human cause orthodoxy? Do we ask if this happened 9000 years ago why is it so certain that people are causing it today.

Science is certainly not about a particular view, other than the view that the latest proven scientific results (peer reviewed) are the best possible descriptions of how the world works. The scientific method is all about reviewing existing observations and adding new studies that brings more data, more knowledge, more insight, more explanations and more questions for further scientific work.

Within that scientific process, there is indeed hypotheses and carried out studies that test and challenge the "old".

You desperately need to look into the glacier question.
Have you checked the time scale of the melting between last glacial maximum warm interglacial?
Did you check the global temperature anomaly between those time periods?
Have you checked the reasons for and the mechanisms behind the glacial - interglacial cycle. Can you see similarities with the climate change today?
Did you check the difference in sea level?
Did you check when human civilisations began growing?

So asking why it is so certain that people are causing the global mean temperature change will be partially answered in those glacial cycles.

There are perfectly well verified answers to all of those questions. Science simply knows and understands these things.

 

[RBack]

Funny thing about science is that history shows that it is often wrong.

Plate tectonics exist, the earth is not the center of the solar system and water not air was the cause of many 18th century diseases. All despite the insistence of scientists of the time.

Climate does indeed change it is only the cause that is uncertain; except to those who don't understand the difference between cause and correlation or who stand to profit from the orthodoxy.

History also shows that science is very often right

And you can't claim that science actually once said that earth is the center of the solar system since such belief wasn't based on scientific observations nor conclusions. The idea that disease was caused by bad air was also just a nonscientific belief. I both cases, science proved the beliefs wrong by scientific observations.

 

[RBack]

and it was reported, during the 90s we had a mini-ice age.
I was in Michigan attending MSU during the 70s. I can honestly tell you, winters were really cold. LOL

Well, if that was reported, it surely wasn't reported by science.
If it was, than you'd need to dig up the peer reviewed articles that claim there was a mini ice age back then.

However there might very well have been a number of cold winters in a specific region. It will still be cold winters in a number of regions. Climate change and warmer global mean temperature won't end the possibility of cold winters happening locally. But regions are geographically - as we all know - not global.

 

[MurrayM]

I guess I look at it as why beat the drum on MMCC if you realize it's only a symptom of the real problem?

Ted

Because about five billion people (and growing) aspire to have the same lifestyle as you do. If humans are contributing to the problem, then it will only get worse.

The word for the day is, ‘concurrently’...we can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.

 

[O C Diver]

Because about five billion people (and growing) aspire to have the same lifestyle as you do. If humans are contributing to the problem, then it will only get worse.

The word for the day is, ‘concurrently’...we can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.

Apparently the word of the day isn't "concurrently " as there is only crickets from the environmentalists on overpopulation. BTW, do they have a plan to force China and India into compliance.

Ted

 

[MurrayM]

Apparently the word of the day isn't "concurrently " as there is only crickets from the environmentalists on overpopulation...

Seriously? You have to exit your echo chamber. Saying 'environmentalists' aren't concerned about overpopulation is asinine.

 

[MurrayM]

...BTW, do they have a plan to force China and India into compliance.

Ted

Thank you for making my point for me.

 

[MurrayM]

...I find it interesting that the climate change deniers here on TF also include Covid-19 denialists.

People live in echo chambers these days. I use Google as a search engine and have to put "fox news" into my searches because Google's algorithm will never, ever show me a fox news story in its search results based on my usual searches.

Point being, I like to have a balanced view of opinions. Reading articles from other countries is an even better idea.

I would like to ask those who are denialists...did you arrive at that understanding based on your own balanced research, or are you being led around by the nose and don't even know it?

Speaking of crickets...

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. H. Re: Your post #18. I stand by my statement that: "...the MAJOR modifier is the sun...which accounts for the weather but NOT the climate".



https://eos.org/science-updates/better-data-for-modeling-the-suns-influence-on-climate


https://www.iceagenow.info/solar-science-shortchanged-in-climate-models/


http://euanmearns.com/periodicities-in-solar-variability-and-climate-change-a-simple-model/

 

[Lou_tribal]

Warning: My comment below is based on facts and no believe, no offense to anybody so don't mind me.

1. Climate change is not a question, it is there want it or not, believe it or not. (And yes climate change is not on the same time scale as meteo observation)
2. What we don't know is whether it was triggered by human activity or a natural cyclic variation and this is the real question.
3. What we know is that human activity is adding to the observed variation without any doubt.
4. Observation is not based only on meteorological measurement and data but on many different observations like meteo, glaciology, sediments studies etc.
5. More than sun activity what could have an impact is variation in its distance due to earth orbit. Maximum sun activity does not necessarily mean increase in energy generated toward earth by the sun, it can even means the opposite.
6. Science makes error and it is in its definition. We are discovering things so more we progress more we precise things and of course realize we made error along the way. If we knew everything there would be no science nor error. There are so many variables to this that we are discovering new impacting things every year.
7. Trying to ignore the problem will not solve it, if you drive a car blinded you won't see the accident coming, but it will come. Better to be conscious so to be prepared and act. Jumping over a cliff does not mean you will die right away, the important moment is when you land.

Problem is that energy is wasted in debates between ones who believe and ones who won't, which is not the issue. Media, politicals and economics just adding to the confusion based on each own interest.

Back 30 years ago when I was student at university that subject was already discussed and changes observed, only difference is that impacts worsened since then. Personally my life will be over before this will be a real treat and I have no kid so I would say I should be the least concerned, but just think about what we will leave to the next generations, those will be the ones who will need to live with our mistakes.

L

 

[markpierce]

Good thing Manhattan isn't still buried under a two-mile thick glacier.

 

[Northern Spy]

Good thing Manhattan isn't still buried under a two-mile thick glacier.

Give it time.

 

[Northern Spy]

I have no problem with the idea of climate change, anthropomorphic or natural. It seems absolutely normal that complex chaotic systems are going to change. And that we may exacerbate the change.

What I don't get, is:
-the certainly of the predictions
-that all predictions are dire
-that climate change was propelled to a top priority

History proves that we eventually solve more problems than we create. Honestly, any "progressive" that is an environmental pessimist, should reconsider one of their positions.

There are people that will tell you what the stock market is going to do in the future as well with certainty as well.

 

[RBack]

I have no problem with the idea of climate change, anthropomorphic or natural. It seems absolutely normal that complex chaotic systems are going to change. And that we may exacerbate the change.

What I don't get, is:
-the certainly of the predictions
-that all predictions are dire
-that climate change was propelled to a top priority

Well. First of all planetary climate is basically not really a chaotic system. It's a matter of solar radiation combined with the atmospheric composition. The mechanisms are actually well understood and therefore also predictable. There are indeed uncertainties regarding the exact climatic effect from added cloud formation and how to properly compare/calculate albedo contra stronger greenhouse effect since clouds have opposite climatic functions during day and night.

But through observation and constantly added data, science is narrowing the error margins regarding these cloud equations and predictions. Science simply understands the mechanisms better and better. It's important though, to mention that possible added cloud formation is not a game changer - it's merely a factor that might adjust the ongoing global mean warming by a fairly small degree. It won't turn it around.

Weather on the other hand is of course indeed chaotic - especially on a local scale. But it is also scientifically possible to predict what changed planetary climate will do to global weather systems including precipitation and drought.

There is nothing natural about the ongoing climate change. This is scientifically proven. The pace of global climate change might be slow from our human perspective, but on a geologic, evolutionary time scale it is mind blowingly fast. for instance way faster than the natural changes in the glacial cycle.

Since the change is extremely fast on an evolutionary time scale, it turns out to be dire for a huge number of ecological systems. If it's dire for ecological systems - it's indeed also extremely dire for us humans. Therefore there's no wonder it is top priority.

 

[Kartski]

Funny how perspectives change over time.

Remember when Big Tobacco had doctors and scientists to support their claim that smoking tobacco didn't cause cancer?

Big Oil actually supported the idea of human caused/facilitated climate change 30 years ago, but they have all modified their stances and are now denying it. They are even employing some of the same firms that the tobacco companies used to shape public opinion.

Don't believe me? Watch this short film from 1991 (by an oil company warning that the burning of fossil fuels will cause climate change) then start asking questions & finding your own answers before adopting those that are being spoon fed to you:

Thanks for this. Very interesting.

 

[AdamC]

I don't fear climate change, I fear the government's response to it. There are a great many dumb ideas flying around that, if implemented, will do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions while doing great economic damage. Economic damage that harms people as much, if not more, than climate change. That the one solid way to displace fossil fuels for energy production (nuclear power) is not even discussed is very telling, IMHO. People say that nuclear power is not politically possible. Well, I sure hope that world socialism is also politically impossible.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. AC. NOT going to comment on government(s) but will comment on nuclear power.
Yep, great source of energy BUT!!!! My first and major concern, barring accidents and insurrections is: What the heck do you do with the waste which will be deadly hazardous for thousands or tens of thousands of years?

 

[MurrayM]

There is a tipping point, where there will be no chance to stop runaway global warming, and that is when the Earth's permafrost starts to rapidly melt with a subsequent release of CO2 and Methane.

It has begun, but is it still early enough to reverse?

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/01/11/thawing-permafrost-matters/