Lol and still waiting on the other thing.
-
Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!
Learning Global Warming facts and fiction
- Thread starter Stormlover
- Start date
- Status
And you are not the supreme authority on this subject. I never said I don't take it serious, since when did questioning or even doubting some data not taking anything serious? And I'll never understand this misguided notion that you aren't "allowed" an opinion because you don't have a degree or published papers in said topic. Geez, shut the weather board down now then, absurd.
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
Your response to Nicky yesterday wasn’t belittling? Hmm, at the very least it was extremely off topic, completely uncalled for, & quite ignorant, but again I fully expect that from you because you're uneducated on the subject and refuse to learn anything new (tried to help you yesterday but you refused.)
Someone with an MS in climate science (me) that's actually published on the subject (also me) and has spent a majority of his life studying said topic, and was himself at one point a denier (when he didn't understand AGW) probably has a lot more weight than some random old white dude that never took a meteorology class in his entire life.
Me me me me me me me me
And now we have the real story, folks.
Oh and, no, I was belittling the attitude, the arrogance, the messaging...not the studying or expertise.
And by the way, you don't have the first clue about classes anyone took in college. What in the world lol
You got me
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
Let me know when you're ready to get back on the topic of the thread.
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
Let me know when you're ready to get back onto the topic of this thread.
Common Webber code for ----, I lost to Rain Cold again.
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
Let me know when you're ready to get back on topic. You're a moderator after all, it should be in your best interest to not encourage derailment of said thread
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
A.1.6 It is virtually certain that the global upper ocean (0–700 m) has warmed since the 1970s and extremely likely that human influence is the main driver. It is virtually certain that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main driver of current global acidification of the surface open ocean. There is high confidence that oxygen levels have dropped in many upper ocean regions since the mid-20th century, and medium confidence that human influence contributed to this drop.
A.1.7 Global mean sea level increased by 0.20 [0.15 to 0.25] m between 1901 and 2018. The average rate of sea level rise was 1.3 [0.6 to 2.1] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 1971, increasing to 1.9 [0.8 to 2.9] mm yr–1 between 1971 and 2006, and further increasing to 3.7 [3.2 to 4.2] mm yr–1 between 2006 and 2018 (high confidence). Human influence was very likely the main driver of these increases since at least 1971. {2.3, 3.5, 9.6, Cross-Chapter Box 9.1, Box TS.4}
In 2019, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were higher than at any time in at least 2 million years (high confidence), and concentrations of CH4 and N2O were higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years (very high confidence).
A.2.2 Global surface temperature has increased faster since 1970 than in any other 50-year period over at least the last 2000 years (high confidence). Temperatures during the most recent decade (2011–2020) exceed those of the most recent multi-century warm period, around 6500 years ago13 [0.2°C to 1°C relative to 1850– 1900] (medium confidence). Prior to that, the next most recent warm period was about 125,000 years ago when the multi-century temperature [0.5°C to 1.5°C relative to 1850–1900] overlaps the observations of the most recent decade (medium confidence).
A.2.4 Global mean sea level has risen faster since 1900 than over any preceding century in at least the last 3000 years (high confidence)
A.3.1 It is virtually certain that hot extremes (including heatwaves) have become more frequent and more intense across most land regions since the 1950s, while cold extremes (including cold waves) have become less frequent and less severe, with high confidence that human-induced climate change is the main driver of these changes. Some recent hot extremes observed over the past decade would have been extremely unlikely to occur without human influence on the climate system. Marine heatwaves have approximately doubled in frequency since the 1980s (high confidence), and human influence has very likely contributed to most of them since at least 2006
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf
A.1.7 Global mean sea level increased by 0.20 [0.15 to 0.25] m between 1901 and 2018. The average rate of sea level rise was 1.3 [0.6 to 2.1] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 1971, increasing to 1.9 [0.8 to 2.9] mm yr–1 between 1971 and 2006, and further increasing to 3.7 [3.2 to 4.2] mm yr–1 between 2006 and 2018 (high confidence). Human influence was very likely the main driver of these increases since at least 1971. {2.3, 3.5, 9.6, Cross-Chapter Box 9.1, Box TS.4}
In 2019, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were higher than at any time in at least 2 million years (high confidence), and concentrations of CH4 and N2O were higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years (very high confidence).
A.2.2 Global surface temperature has increased faster since 1970 than in any other 50-year period over at least the last 2000 years (high confidence). Temperatures during the most recent decade (2011–2020) exceed those of the most recent multi-century warm period, around 6500 years ago13 [0.2°C to 1°C relative to 1850– 1900] (medium confidence). Prior to that, the next most recent warm period was about 125,000 years ago when the multi-century temperature [0.5°C to 1.5°C relative to 1850–1900] overlaps the observations of the most recent decade (medium confidence).
A.2.4 Global mean sea level has risen faster since 1900 than over any preceding century in at least the last 3000 years (high confidence)
A.3.1 It is virtually certain that hot extremes (including heatwaves) have become more frequent and more intense across most land regions since the 1950s, while cold extremes (including cold waves) have become less frequent and less severe, with high confidence that human-induced climate change is the main driver of these changes. Some recent hot extremes observed over the past decade would have been extremely unlikely to occur without human influence on the climate system. Marine heatwaves have approximately doubled in frequency since the 1980s (high confidence), and human influence has very likely contributed to most of them since at least 2006
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf
Avalanche
Member
What should the climate look like, and how do we keep climate from changing? Do you go by historic norms that don't exist? Or try to make it just the way you like it? I'd love to change the climate of NC and make it 80's in the summer with afternoon storms and snow in the winter, but my buddy across the street might hate that. We can't define what it should look like or keep it from changing. When I was a kid there were fears of another ice age. Are we smarter than that now? Yes.
How were we measuring some of this data prior to 100-200yrs ago to be sure the change and base measurements are correct? Tree rings and ice core samples are not wholly accurate. Breaking a 3000yr sea level record cannot been undisputedly substantiated in my view. Global mean?--We have no way of truly knowing the sea level in many parts of the world at that time.
whatalife
Moderator
I stand corrected. This thread is a hot mess.
The only thing I have learned in this thread today is...If you do not have a meteorological degree do not comment in this thread. So much for this being an open weather discussion board.
The only thing I have learned in this thread today is...If you do not have a meteorological degree do not comment in this thread. So much for this being an open weather discussion board.
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
Well, actually yes we do. Analyses like these rely on synthesizing and comparing a multitude of sources (not just one or a few), tree rings, ice core records, deep sea sediment cores, coral records, isotopes in the water that are absorbed by creatures living within it (foraminifera is pretty common) or air bubbles trapped within snowflakes that fall onto ice sheets and are permanently trapped in glaciers that build over thousands of years are a few examples of how this is done. Said sea level estimates are also compared to records of global temperature at the time to decipher if those records are physically consistent, and in most cases they are. We're able to detect major sea level changes in the last several interglacial periods by studying these data sources and corroborating with global temperature records from many of those same sources to show that warmer periods were associated w/ sea level rise due land ice melt, hydrostatic adjustment of the water due to warming temperatures, (isostatic rebound from land surfaces once covered by ice during glacial periods offsets this somewhat), and positive feedbacks between ice cover, atmospheric circulation, and shortwave radiation absorption that drives further ice loss, etc. We also understand that for example warmer ocean water is more soluble to CO2 (leading to a lower pH) and less soluble to O2, therefore becoming increasingly anoxic (or oxygen deficient), which is a big reason why there was a mass extinction during the very warm PETM (the closest analog to today's climate change, although it still pales in comparison to the rate at which it's occurring today), and we can study those via proxy records.
Excerpt from the above link (w/ references)
"During two extended warm periods (interglacials) of the last 800,000 years, sea level is 5 estimated to have been at least six metres higher than today (Chapter 2; Dutton et al., 2015). During the last 6 interglacial, sustained warmer temperatures in Greenland preceded the peak of sea level rise (Figure 5.15 in 7 Masson-Delmotte et al., 2013). The paleoclimate record therefore provides substantial evidence directly linking warmer GMST to substantially higher GMSL"
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
I stand corrected. This thread is a hot mess.
The only thing I have learned in this thread today is...If you do not have a meteorological degree do not comment in this thread. So much for this being an open weather discussion board.
Apparently, if you're a meteorology student (nicky), you apparently don't have enough real-world experience to speak on the matter even if you're far more knowledgeable on said topic. The vitriol goes both ways. Shrug.
These are really good questions. Now the general counter argument is usually, yes, we have extremely reliable methods of dating events and measuring historical values of various variables. However, these kinds of things are usually said throughout every point in history. We used to be absolutely certain that leaches were necessary in healing patients.
Now, I don't think it's necessarily fair to compare measuring historical values to leaching, but we don't know what we're going to learn about that process over the next 50-100 years that might show our current thinking to be flawed. One should always consider that, if you're truly trying to be a scientist, before calling the other side dumb right wing idiots.
The climate has always changed and will continue to do so. 5 years from now, we may discover that the rate of change isn't as big of a boogie man as we thought. But none of that means we still shouldn't endeavor to care for our planet. And I don't know of anyone here who is advocating otherwise.
I wrote 3 papers in college regarding GW and crops/turfgrass yields. I'd actually like to know if I was way off base with my thoughts from 18 years ago. Seriously not being an ass I'm truly curious
Philstorm91
Member
I must confess that I'm a bit puzzled here. I seriously doubt anyone on this board denies climate change to some extent or other. Most of us would even say that human activities are at least a factor in the warming climate. Here is why many who frequent this weather board are hesitant to go all in on AGW. Too many times in the last few decades, media and government figures have used the data from scientific studies to make dire, immediate predictions of doom and catastrophe. Everytime the predicted date comes and goes and the disaster has failed to fully materialize, the credibility of those purveyors of the agenda look foolish and full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. This does not mean the science is necessarily flawed, but the absolute authority with which the warnings are issued by media and governments, make their failures to happen all the more embarrassing.
The next point I am perplexed about is that if we can assume that manmade global warming is real, and mostly responsible for the current climate variability, what is the common man to do about this? I'm not talking about big corporations and big governments, and changes they can make. I think we can all agree the excessive pollution and disregard for the earth by large companies is truly sad. Most of us laypeople on this site try to do our part to live greener. Indeed, if the recent reports are to be believed, we are already past the point of no return. Would it not be best to admit we have made our sauna and make the best of it at this point? Why are some here more interested in being right and flashing their badges in others' faces than in constructively discussing positive steps forward for civilization? What are some of the benefits of a warm world we can embrace?
The next point I am perplexed about is that if we can assume that manmade global warming is real, and mostly responsible for the current climate variability, what is the common man to do about this? I'm not talking about big corporations and big governments, and changes they can make. I think we can all agree the excessive pollution and disregard for the earth by large companies is truly sad. Most of us laypeople on this site try to do our part to live greener. Indeed, if the recent reports are to be believed, we are already past the point of no return. Would it not be best to admit we have made our sauna and make the best of it at this point? Why are some here more interested in being right and flashing their badges in others' faces than in constructively discussing positive steps forward for civilization? What are some of the benefits of a warm world we can embrace?
Speaking and conversing on the matter are far different than preaching and resenting.
It seems this thread has become somewhat of a generational battle here. As an over 50 individual I can say that I am in the camp who takes climate change very seriously and it is a great concern, especially with someone who has children and is concerned about their future. I do not think that generational differences here should matter at all, we all share the same climate. The last few pages are a microcosm of the whole issue and the political climate, along with other debates these days that makes it hard not to be depressed and cynical that the human race can figure out how to approach our big problems. It has more to do with our communication skills and that differences of opinion become more of an ego battle than actually discussing these issues with thought and empathy. This needs to be taught in our schools just as much as learning and interpreting scientific data. With social media, it has become more trash talking and insults than actual productive dialogue.
- Status