CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Gaoth Laidir · 06-03-2020 11:32am

posidonia wrote: »

I do.

To reply to you in a similar tone, do you know what a greenhouse gas is and what the Greenhouse Effect is?

Is 'what goes up must come down' why the atmosphere is warming, and why February was the second warmest month in the global satellite record? What is the trend?

https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Yes I do know what it is, but it has nothing to do with my post.

Now do you want to acknowledge your and the mainstream media's ignorance of the equally record cold in the NW Atlantic region shown above?

February 2020 was not the 2nd highest on record, it was the 3rd. But as I keep saying, with the baseline having increased in the past 140 years, much of it natural, and us being in a positive AMO, it's no surprise that current years/months can be some of the warmest.

PS. For the sake of everyone, especially those on phones, could you please stop leaving triple spaces between lines in your post? There's no reason for it at all and it just takes up space. I've corrected your post yet again.

posidonia · 06-03-2020 11:47am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Yes I do know what it is, but it has nothing to do with my post.

Now do you want to acknowledge your and the mainstream media's ignorance of the equally record cold in the NW Atlantic region shown above?

It's not equally cold - eg look at January (February is not yet available) here.

February 2020 was not the 2nd highest on record, it was the 3rd. But as I keep saying, with the baseline having increased in the past 140 years, much of it natural, and us being in a positive AMO, it's no surprise that current years/months can be some of the warmest.

PS. For the sake of everyone, especially those on phones, could you please stop leaving triple spaces between lines in your post? There's no reason for it at all and it just takes up space. I've corrected your post yet again.

That's an unnecessary critical and provocative last paragraph. I'm posting with the software this site provides and it is not my doing or intention! I simple add a single space per paragraph.

Fwiw, I think posting links is better than large images. OK?

edit: I've gone back and taken two line spaces out of this post that I did no add. OK?

Could this be a Firefox problem? Or are line spaces best done by using 'return'?

06-03-2020 1:34pm

posidonia wrote: »

It's not equally cold - eg look at January (February is not yet available) here.

That's an unnecessary critical and provocative last paragraph. I'm posting with the software this site provides and it is not my doing or intention! I simple add a single space per paragraph.

Fwiw, I think posting links is better than large images. OK?

edit: I've gone back and taken two line spaces out of this post that I did no add. OK?

Could this be a Firefox problem? Or are line spaces best done by using 'return'?

I think it's a Firefox issue.
the same happens to me

Oneiric 3 · 06-03-2020 4:34pm

Hot take from MSM journalist:

"Don’t take this the wrong way but if you were a young, hardline environmentalist looking for the ultimate weapon against climate change, you could hardly design anything better than coronavirus.

Unlike most other such diseases, it kills mostly the old who, let’s face it, are more likely to be climate sceptics. It spares the young. Most of all, it stymies the forces that have been generating greenhouse gases for decades. Deadly enough to terrify; containable enough that aggressive quarantine measures can prevent it from spreading. The rational response for any country determined to prevent loss of life is to follow China’s lead and lock down their economy to stem its spread".

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-has-a-silver-lining-cz8wpc6xj

My lamp-posts are getting itchy for action...

M.T. Cranium · 07-03-2020 8:34am

Yep, there's somebody who is evidently relishing the decline of western civilization as if he (or she) were outside of it entirely and immune to the consequences of any breakdown of the economy or the social order.

Unless he can prove himself (or herself) useful to the likes of Bloomberg or some other billionaire, he can forget about having a pleasant or peaceful existence if the economy collapses.

At some point, sensible people are going to realize that the first ten feet above sea level are not the worst thing we could lose in the next half century.

Gaoth Laidir · 07-03-2020 12:57pm

posidonia wrote: »

It's not equally cold - eg look at January (February is not yet available) here.

That's an unnecessary critical and provocative last paragraph. I'm posting with the software this site provides and it is not my doing or intention! I simple add a single space per paragraph.

Fwiw, I think posting links is better than large images. OK?

edit: I've gone back and taken two line spaces out of this post that I did no add. OK?

Could this be a Firefox problem? Or are line spaces best done by using 'return'?

So what for you is the synoptic mechanism that made northern Eurasia warmer than average? Heat is not generated by greenhouse gases, only re-emitted. So any anomalous warmth was caused by warm advection from the south. How is that linked to anthropogenic ghc?

Here's February. Up and down. Up and down.

Gaoth Laidir · 07-03-2020 1:00pm

Here's how dumb some of the media outlets are. This is the level of fact-checking they carry out before running with a story. It extends beyond the basic maths of campain costs too, just look at the Guardian.

Just listen to the stupid flowing here... He's from NBC, she's from the NYT.

https://twitter.com/BadEconTakes/status/1235810967746793472

posidonia · 07-03-2020 3:04pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

So what for you is the synoptic mechanism that made northern Eurasia warmer than average? Heat is not generated by greenhouse gases, only re-emitted. So any anomalous warmth was caused by warm advection from the south. How is that linked to anthropogenic ghc?

Here's February. Up and down. Up and down.

Firstly, thank you for you acknowledgement that the line space issue you choose to attack me about is, in all likelihood, not my fault. I appreciate that, I really do

I note you still think they (temperature anomalies) all balance out 'up and down, up and down'- but the problem is they don't!

Firstly your graphic says February was .66C above normal. It doesn't say above which normal and even the Spencer and Christy satellite average was .76C so it seems like a low figure to me. Whatever, it didn't all balance out and it hasn't done for decades!

Anyway, onto synoptics. I said 'I don't dismiss the contribution of synoptic' and I don't. But that doesn't mean I said the warmth was all to do with synoptics.

Simply put the world is warming due to the increasing climate 'forcing' due to anthropogenic green house gasses changing how the planet re-radiates energy. That warming is greater in the N polar regions because as ice melts the dark surfaces revealed warm and you get feedback warming. Around the tropics that feedback is far less pronounced.

You can see there was warmer than normal air to our SW. Further, if you check back over the last several months the Arctic was notably warming last September October (via GISS) and even though sea ice has (as if this should be a talking point) nearly reach a normal extent, the winter has seen above average temperatures.

So, the atmosphere is warmer, the Arctic notably so. There is less cold air, there is more warm air. There will be a tendency for that to be reflected by the weather - by synoptics.

That is how I see it.

edit: extra line spaces put in by my browser removed.

Oneiric 3 · 07-03-2020 3:42pm

posidonia wrote: »

Firstly, thank you for you acknowledgement that the line space issue you choose to attack me about is, in all likelihood, not my fault. I appreciate that, I really do

I note you still think they (temperature anomalies) all balance out 'up and down, up and down'- but the problem is they don't!

Firstly your graphic says February was .66C above normal. It doesn't say above which normal and even the Spencer and Christy satellite average was .76C so it seems like a low figure to me. Whatever, it didn't all balance out and it hasn't done for decades!

Anyway, onto synoptics. I said 'I don't dismiss the contribution of synoptic' and I don't. But that doesn't mean I said the warmth was all to do with synoptics.

Simply put the world is warming due to the increasing climate 'forcing' due to anthropogenic green house gasses changing how the planet re-radiates energy. That warming is greater in the N polar regions because as ice melts the dark surfaces revealed warm and you get feedback warming. Around the tropics that feedback is far less pronounced.

You can see there was warmer than normal air to our SW. Further, if you check back over the last several months the Arctic was notably warming last September October (via GISS) and even though sea ice has (as if this should be a talking point) nearly reach a normal extent, the winter has seen above average temperatures.

So, the atmosphere is warmer, the Arctic notably so. There is less cold air, there is more warm air. There will be a tendency for that to be reflected by the weather - by synoptics.

That is how I see it.

edit: extra line spaces put in by my browser removed.

Here's how that map you posted looks when the 1200 km 'smoothed radius' is reduced to 250 km (which is still obscenely huge)

From the disclaimer on the page:
Note: Gray areas signify missing data.
Note: Ocean data are not used over land nor within 100km of a reporting land station.

posidonia · 07-03-2020 6:05pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Here's how that map you posted looks when the 1200 km 'smoothed radius' is reduced to 250 km (which is still obscenely huge)

From the disclaimer on the page:
Note: Gray areas signify missing data.
Note: Ocean data are not used over land nor within 100km of a reporting land station.

I was using the 'Robinson' projection - if you use 'equiretangular', as you have, the poles become very distorted.

Gaoth Laidir · 07-03-2020 6:53pm

posidonia wrote: »

Firstly, thank you for you acknowledgement that the line space issue you choose to attack me about is, in all likelihood, not my fault. I appreciate that, I really do

I note you still think they (temperature anomalies) all balance out 'up and down, up and down'- but the problem is they don't!

Firstly your graphic says February was .66C above normal. It doesn't say above which normal and even the Spencer and Christy satellite average was .76C so it seems like a low figure to me. Whatever, it didn't all balance out and it hasn't done for decades!

Anyway, onto synoptics. I said 'I don't dismiss the contribution of synoptic' and I don't. But that doesn't mean I said the warmth was all to do with synoptics.

Simply put the world is warming due to the increasing climate 'forcing' due to anthropogenic green house gasses changing how the planet re-radiates energy. That warming is greater in the N polar regions because as ice melts the dark surfaces revealed warm and you get feedback warming. Around the tropics that feedback is far less pronounced.

You can see there was warmer than normal air to our SW. Further, if you check back over the last several months the Arctic was notably warming last September October (via GISS) and even though sea ice has (as if this should be a talking point) nearly reach a normal extent, the winter has seen above average temperatures.

So, the atmosphere is warmer, the Arctic notably so. There is less cold air, there is more warm air. There will be a tendency for that to be reflected by the weather - by synoptics.

That is how I see it.

edit: extra line spaces put in by my browser removed.

Thank you for taking out the spaces. It didn't hurt, did it?

It is clearly stated on the chart I posted that it's using the 1981-2010 climatology. But you're right, another dataset says +0.76. Still the science is settled, apparently. Massive disagreement like this seems to be acceptable and something not to be questioned.

Yes, to our southwest was a warm anomaly. But to our west and northwest was a cold one. What's your point?

Oneiric 3 · 07-03-2020 7:30pm

NCAR/NCEP Feb analysis, also based around the 1981-2010 base:

and based on the mean of global values from the GFS/CSFR daily values, the Feb anomaly comes in at 0.66c, but note that this value is based on the 1979-2000 base

Previous Feb values in this series:
0.86 - 2016
0.68 - 2017
0.50 - 2018
0.48 - 2019
0.66 - 2020

posidonia · 07-03-2020 8:04pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Thank you for taking out the spaces. It didn't hurt, did it?

Did you not bother to read the explanation that it wasn't my doing? I have now gone to the trouble of removing the spaces and I get a condescending 'that didn't hurt' for my trouble

Perhaps, as a similar gesture, YOU could, in future, stop posting images and replace them with links? OK? No, that will probably not be a quid pro quo...

It is clearly stated on the chart I posted that it's using the 1981-2010 climatology. But you're right, another dataset says +0.76. Still the science is settled, apparently. Massive disagreement like this seems to be acceptable and something not to be questioned.

I noticed that on a bigger screen but it was hard to see using when using a phone - big images clutter up threads.

Yes, to our southwest was a warm anomaly. But to our west and northwest was a cold one. What's your point?

I'll post it again:

"You can see there was warmer than normal air to our SW. Further, if you check back over the last several months the Arctic was notably warming last September October (via GISS) and even though sea ice has (as if this should be a talking point) nearly reach a normal extent, the winter has seen above average temperatures.

So, the atmosphere is warmer, the Arctic notably so. There is less cold air, there is more warm air. There will be a tendency for that to be reflected by the weather - by synoptics."

The atmosphere is warming - hardly any month show a cold global anomaly any more. If it was all ' up and down' there would be cold months globally but it's all up now.

Gaoth Laidir · 07-03-2020 8:22pm

posidonia wrote: »

Did you not bother to read the explanation that it wasn't my doing? I have now gone to the trouble of removing the spaces and I get a condescending 'that didn't hurt' for my trouble

Did you not the see the "thank you" just before that?

Perhaps, as a similar gesture, YOU could, in future, stop posting images and replace them with links? OK? No, that will probably not be a quid pro quo...

No, posting images is part and parcel of this software and makes things easier to follow. Quoting images, however, is something I try to avoid.

I noticed that on a bigger screen but it was hard to see using when using a phone - big images clutter up threads.

Looks like you might need to review how you're using Boards and also how thoroughly you check data posted.

I'll post it again:

"You can see there was warmer than normal air to our SW. Further, if you check back over the last several months the Arctic was notably warming last September October (via GISS) and even though sea ice has (as if this should be a talking point) nearly reach a normal extent, the winter has seen above average temperatures.

So, the atmosphere is warmer, the Arctic notably so. There is less cold air, there is more warm air. There will be a tendency for that to be reflected by the weather - by synoptics."

The atmosphere is warming - hardly any month show a cold global anomaly any more. If it was all ' up and down' there would be cold months globally but it's all up now.

Maybe I should repeat my comment again that the baseline started rising 140 years ago and continues to this day. A lot of it is natural, some of it is anthro. Yet, much of the planet is still showing no warming and some remarkable cooling. However, different datasets shuffle the actual locations of these warm and cold spots. It's all too easy to say "synoptics" will reflect the trend without actually understanding how.

posidonia · 07-03-2020 8:39pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Did you not the see the "thank you" just before that?

No, posting images is part and parcel of this software and makes things easier to follow. Quoting images, however, is something I try to avoid.

Large images clutter the place up - they take up dozens of lines. Links would do and they give users the option to view or not.

But, if you're not prepared to do as I request then I might well not bother to correct a software problem with firefox you asked I correct. Sorry, but such gestures need to be reciprocated or they pointless.

Looks like you might need to review how you're using Boards and also how thoroughly you check data posted.

One minute I'm causing you problem because my posts are double spaced and I should sort that out, the next the problems your posting of large images cause me are my problem. You couldn't make it up.

:D

Maybe I should repeat my comment again that the baseline started rising 140 years ago and continues to this day. A lot of it is natural, some of it is anthro. Yet, much of the planet is still showing no warming and some remarkable cooling. However, different datasets shuffle the actual locations of these warm and cold spots. It's all too easy to say "synoptics" will reflect the trend without actually understanding how.

You what? How could temperatures start rising 140 years ago but much of the planet still show no warming? The reality is very little of the planet shows no warming over the last few decades, let alone the last 140 years.

Oneiric 3 · 07-03-2020 10:54pm

posidonia wrote: »

You what? How could temperatures start rising 140 years ago but much of the planet still show no warming? The reality is very little of the planet shows no warming over the last few decades, let alone the last 140 years.

Yes, it has been rising.. on and off.. over the last 140 years.

But in what way is the climate now worse than it was 140 years ago. Perhaps you could explain as I would have have thought that longer growing seasons, warmer winters and less hardship due to the cold would be more beneficial to mankind, but then, what do I know...

Nabber · 08-03-2020 12:43pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Yes, it has been rising.. on and off.. over the last 140 years.

But in what way is the climate now worse than it was 140 years ago. Perhaps you could explain as I would have have thought that longer growing seasons, warmer winters and less hardship due to the cold would be more beneficial to mankind, but then, what do I know...

It's the global sea level average. That's where it's at.

Oneiric 3 · 08-03-2020 4:42pm

Reading through the Norwegian Met Office (met.no) summary for February, and it is interesting to see, while Feb 2020 is amongst the warmest, it still falls signifanctly behind that of Feb 1990, +4.0c (2020) vs +6.8c (1990). But what makes both Feb 2020 and 1990 similar is the that both were very zonal months with very positive AO values.

https://www.met.no/nyhetsarkiv/mild-og-vat-februar

Here is the mean MSLP values and 850 hPa temps for Feb 1990: Very westerly, and compared to 2020, a far stormier month here in Ireland that put the 'wet farts' (borrowed that term from another poster who used it recently in another thread) that we saw this year to shame. :rolleyes:

But yes, synoptics do play the bigger part in the global distribution of daily, weekly, monthly and yearly temperatures, and the attempt to suggest otherwise is both misguided and disingenuous.

posidonia · 08-03-2020 5:38pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Yes, it has been rising.. on and off.. over the last 140 years.

Not according to GoathL. it hasn't. You better put GL right.

But in what way is the climate now worse than it was 140 years ago. Perhaps you could explain as I would have have thought that longer growing seasons, warmer winters and less hardship due to the cold would be more beneficial to mankind, but then, what do I know...

The good news is you seem to be accepting the evidence and data. Follow it to its conclusion...

I don't think farmers in the UK will think this winter has been of much benefit... and likewise the summer in Australia.

Oneiric 3 · 08-03-2020 8:46pm

posidonia wrote: »

Not according to GoathL. it hasn't. You better put GL right.

K.
GL, it has been warming, on and off, over the last 140 years...

posidonia wrote: »

The good news is you seem to be accepting the evidence and data. Follow it to its conclusion...

Exactly where have I ever not accepted the 'evidence and data'?

posidonia wrote: »

I don't think farmers in the UK will think this winter has been of much benefit... and likewise the summer in Australia.

I'm sure, but like any part of Europe, but I don't think we have seen many fatalities due to the cold this year. But it has been a grim winter, due in no small part to the near constant cold in the southern regions of the Arctic helping to drive the Atlantic jet during the season. Those wishing for a cooler Arctic & world should be a bit more careful for what they wish for.

Gaoth Laidir · 08-03-2020 9:03pm

posidonia wrote: »

Not according to GoathL. it hasn't. You better put GL right.

More lies. When did I say it has not warmed? Here are two posts from the past two days where I said the opposite...

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

with the baseline having increased in the past 140 years

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Maybe I should repeat my comment again that the baseline started rising 140 years ago and continues to this day.

Gaoth Laidir · 08-03-2020 9:06pm

posidonia wrote: »

I don't think farmers in the UK will think this winter has been of much benefit... and likewise the summer in Australia.

What's the story with this winter and the UK farmers? What's it got to do with climate change? I presume you have a peer-reviewed attribution study to back up your implication? That would be the fastest ever release of a study...:rolleyes:

Oneiric 3 · 08-03-2020 9:19pm

I think Posidonia may be a UK farmer himself, but the UK escaped the worst this winter, and certainly this Feb. The E&W mean Feb total came in around 25% to 30% lower than our mean national total. The UK farmer had it easy!

Oneiric 3 · 08-03-2020 9:30pm

But as I suggested before, I would recommend the works of H.H Lamb to anyone who might have an interest in the actual climate from a more historical perspective. And as he noted, stormy, wet winters over the N. Atlantic are indicative of colder than average Arctic. And again I forget which he referred to, but prior to either the 'Little Iceage' or the last Ice Age, the N. Atantic became dangerously active with storm after storm which were followed on by Summers that were barely any better.

Bring it on..?

Oneiric 3 · 09-03-2020 12:33am

My eyes..

https://twitter.com/XRLondon/status/1236611371854413824

"for what has been seen cannot be unseen".

Mortelaro · 09-03-2020 12:34am

Meanwhile:p

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKET8Hs2aac

posidonia · 09-03-2020 8:03am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

More lies. When did I say it has not warmed? Here are two posts from the past two days where I said the opposite...

Calm down and don't accuse me of something I've not accused you of.

I just noted you said "Yet, much of the planet is still showing no warming and some remarkable cooling." which seemed inconsistent.

Though I guess it does depend upon what you mean by 'much'.

posidonia · 09-03-2020 8:10am

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

But as I suggested before, I would recommend the works of H.H Lamb to anyone who might have an interest in the actual climate from a more historical perspective. And as he noted, stormy, wet winters over the N. Atlantic are indicative of colder than average Arctic. And again I forget which he referred to, but prior to either the 'Little Iceage' or the last Ice Age, the N. Atantic became dangerously active with storm after storm which were followed on by Summers that were barely any better.

Bring it on..?

As you've previously noted this winter wasn't actually as stormy as some have been.

Amongst other things, aren't low pressures also driven by temperature contrast, not absolute temperature, as well? Else why can there be storms in October before the Arctic really cools?

M.T. Cranium · 09-03-2020 8:25am

Here's a link to that weather journal I sometimes mention, giving detailed accounts of weather at Providence Rhode Island from about 1831 to 1860.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=oYY_AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA169&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

You can scroll all the way up and down the entire journal and get the print size a bit bigger with the mag controls provided. The winters were harsh especially around 1852 to 1857. Otherwise it looks fairly similar to the modern climate.

Oneiric 3 · 09-03-2020 1:31pm

posidonia wrote: »

As you've previously noted this winter wasn't actually as stormy as some have been.

Amongst other things, aren't low pressures also driven by temperature contrast, not absolute temperature, as well? Else why can there be storms in October before the Arctic really cools?

I'll try to root it out again if I still have it but I have posted data (MSLP) on this forum before that suggests that the start of Ireland's 'storm season' is being pushed ever forward from mid to late October to early to mid November (if I recall correctly), which again suggests a warming Arctic is resulting in less frequent and less severe storms, which makes sense given that the 'thermal contrast' between the sub tropics and the poles, of why M.T has spoken of in this very thread, is somewhat lesser than it was in bygone days. Again though, I ask, in what way can this be seen as a negative.. except to storm lovers like me? M.T.C recently spoke of a 'climate blanding' associated with global warming, and quite clearly, he is on to something.

M.T. Cranium · 09-03-2020 9:14pm

The later onset of mid-latitude autumn and high latitude winter can be clearly seen in every climate study I have done, including arctic Canada locations. The biggest changes in recent years (in particular a warm period 2005-2012) at arctic locations occurs at either end of the summer, such as it is up there. Snow tends to melt away in May now rather than waiting to early June as was frequently the case before 2000. And snow does not reappear as reliably in late August or early September, but waits until mid-September. Then the pace of winter onset is a bit delayed too, using the metric of first -20 C temperature, that has slipped back a week from (ball park) Oct 20th to near end of October. What normally happened before in mid-winter still happens though, and the peak of summer only warmed slightly.

This same sequence plays out at Toronto, the biggest warmings of the climate there come at either end of their winter season, namely late November into mid-December, then again late February through March. The other parts of the year have shown little if any real change.

This can be tied to a northward shift in storm tracks which have their greatest differential effect in those seasons (with the effect presumably moving south, I have not studied an intermediate location like perhaps Churchill Manitoba, but I would bet the same thing can be shown there at some intermediate times.

That all has a knock-on effect to the Atlantic which waits longer for its dose of arctic outflow to generate the stronger autumn storms. Spring would be a different proposition, needs a bit of thought by all of us to reason through what the earlier spring in North America might imply.

Gotta run as I am at a remote location.

Hooter23 · 13-03-2020 11:48am

As I was saying earlier more co2 and warmer temperatures would lead to bigger forests they confirm this in this news story today...and amazingly they make it out to be a very bad thing as with everything in the media everything that happens is negative...

They say more trees is now a bad thing and yet we have been hearing them say all along that the disappearing Amazon rainforest would increase global warming I suppose they just twist everything to suit themselves and the clmate change agenda and make it all up as they go along...

Treeless landscapes are becoming more wooded, which could result in a drastic shift in global temperatures.

While vast areas of woodland such as rainforests are increasingly under threat from the climate crisis, researchers from the University of Edinburgh have discovered something else is happening in other parts of the world: land that is typically wild and treeless is becoming increasingly wooded.

In a paper published to the journal Global Ecology and Biogeography, the researchers found that trees and shrubs are spreading across the tundra and savannah, transforming these vast plains and the fragile biodiversity within them.

The dramatic changes to these regions – which account for approximately 40pc of the world’s land – could alter the planet’s carbon balance and climate system, the researchers said. This is because trees store carbon, provide fuel for fires and influence how much of the sun’s heat is reflected back into space.

In Arctic tundra, spanning parts of northern Canada, the US and northern Europe, shrub plant cover has increased by 20pc over the past 50 years, the study found. This expanding shrub cover could raise soil temperature in the tundra, leading to the thawing of permafrost. Such an event would release nearly half of the world’s soil carbon.

Largest study of its kind

Meanwhile, in the savannah regions of the world such as in Africa and Australia, shrub and tree cover rose by 30pc over the past 50 years, while there was also an increase in rainfall.

To come to these conclusions, the researchers carried out the largest global woody cover change study of its kind to date. This involved comparing temperature and rainfall data with more than 1,000 records of plant coverage from almost 900 sites across six continents.

The study also found that wildfires and animal grazing patterns are affecting shrub and tree cover. This adds variables to our understanding of the future of the tundra and savannah regions, showing they are more complex than previously thought.

“This research indicates the far-reaching effects of climate change across the planet,” said Mariana García Criado, who led the study.

“Uncovering the ways in which different landscapes are responding requires collaboration among scientists, and cooperation with local peoples to better understand the changes we’re seeing and their impacts from different perspectives.”

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/trees-spreading-savanna-climate-change

13-03-2020 12:02pm

A beneficial positive feedback loop does not make good reading for climate alarmists.
It's really just part of the interglacial oscillation, temperate climates migrate towards the poles while glaciers & sea ice retreat and during cooler periods the reverse happens.
Historically, climate change has forced the abandonment of cities in the middle East and North Africa when deserts replaced savanna 2-500 years ago.

There have been studies of the Sahara that have shown up buried cities and evidence of previous civilisations, at the same time tundra in northern Europe was replaced by forests.

When the next ice age arrives (10k years as a wild guess) these processes will reverse and the Sahara will revert to savanna.

M.T. Cranium · 14-03-2020 8:52am

I made some progress with the posting of Toronto data and have now finished with the dry spells, moving on to a recalibration of raw temperatures to account for the urban heat island.

The main conclusion from the dry spells analysis was that one trend faded out and a new one began to emerge, the trend that faded out was a propensity to spring (often April) dry spells being quite frequent in decades from 1870s to 1890s, but the more preferred part of the year recently has been late summer and early autumn. This does not seem necessarily tied to either overall warming, nor does it seem like a negative for agricultural interests if the trend applies more widely to the climate of eastern North America. There is no real evidence for any increase in drought, more of a cyclical ebb and flow.

oriel36 · 16-03-2020 9:40pm

The coronavirus and the practical way to mitigate its spread by other countries has exposed the systemic failure known as experimental modeling/scientific method to which the English academics cling due to its origin in Royal Society circles.

For once, society got ahead of a damaging theory even though there are still others out there like 'climate change' and hypothetical future outcomes rather than dealing with what is in front of people in terms of atmospheric and oceanic pollution as a 'tidy towns' endeavour -

"But the reason that mathematicians are not perceptive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of perception where the principles do not allow of such arrangement....We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are perceptive, and that men of perception are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of perception mathematically, and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning." Pascal

For once a chink of light broke the strangehold of mathematical modeling and its limitations.

Roger_007 · 18-03-2020 11:42am

oriel36 wrote: »

The coronavirus and the practical way to mitigate its spread by other countries has exposed the systemic failure known as experimental modeling/scientific method to which the English academics cling due to its origin in Royal Society circles.

For once, society got ahead of a damaging theory even though there are still others out there like 'climate change' and hypothetical future outcomes rather than dealing with what is in front of people in terms of atmospheric and oceanic pollution as a 'tidy towns' endeavour -

"But the reason that mathematicians are not perceptive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of perception where the principles do not allow of such arrangement....We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are perceptive, and that men of perception are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of perception mathematically, and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning." Pascal

For once a chink of light broke the strangehold of mathematical modeling and its limitations.

Mathematical models only work where there are no ‘unknowns’ and where the assumptions that underlie the calculations are proven and robust. For instance, it is possible to model the solar system and predict with accuracy the position of any planet at any point in the foreseeable future.
The only way that the models used for climate predictions can be proven accurate is to look at historical models and compare them with accurate observed data collected over a long portion of time.
It is not possible to directly collect accurate temperature data on a global scale without substantial adjustments being made to the raw data and estimates being made for where no data is available.This is where disputes arise as to what adjustments are being made and how.
It only takes a minor error in the input data or in assumptions being made to render climate models more and more inaccurate the more you roll them forward in time.
The claim that if we reduce or increase atmospheric CO2 by x amount, that the average global temperature will be y degrees in 100 years time is simply preposterous.

oriel36 · 18-03-2020 1:09pm

Roger_007 wrote: »

Mathematical models only work where there are no ‘unknowns’ and where the assumptions that underlie the calculations are proven and robust. For instance, it is possible to model the solar system and predict with accuracy the position of any planet at any point in the foreseeable future.

Rude moderators will cut me off quickly and especially when calling into question how experimental modeling ended up subsuming astronomical predictions -

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

The problem with this is that modeling and conclusions become one and the same so that empirical proponents of whatever stripe, in this case for or against 'climate change', are arguing over the models as if they were conclusions.

The predictive positions of the planets, Sun and moon within a geocentric celestial sphere framework were based on the 365/366 day calendar framework using the Sun's motion along the ecliptic plane -

https://community.dur.ac.uk/john.lucey/users/sun_ecliptic.gif

When accurate clocks emerged in the late 17th century, the framework was altered to RA/Dec in order to permit the use of the 24 hour day within the calendar framework to create more accurate predictions of the positions of planets and Sun -

https://community.dur.ac.uk/john.lucey/users/solar_year.gif

While making astronomical predictions more accurate, it was further adrift between cause and effect linking the Earth's motions to terrestrial sciences like climate, geology and biology. You can see this today with the rubbish attempt to explain the Equinox using a hideous pivoting circle of illumination and an Earth with a zero degree inclination -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap170319.html

What matters to the experimental theorists is that observations fit the model hence the backwards manipulation of imaging above to suit a wandering Sun through the background stars.

Asking contributors to deal with what is in front of them is bypassed for hypothetical future outcomes and that is dangerous, at least when it comes to dealing with the current plague much less 'climate change' modeling. I learned my lesson here before when it comes down to the technical ins and outs but mark well that in terms of the spread of the virus, the action of the Irish people and Government was based on immediate conditions rather than future conditions where the virus is expected to conform to modeling and there is a massive difference and distance between the two perspectives.

Nabber · 18-03-2020 8:12pm

oriel36 wrote: »

Rule III.

I prefer these rule 3s

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rule%203

oriel36 · 19-03-2020 11:06am

Nabber wrote: »

I prefer these rule 3s

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rule%203

The limitations of modeling also exposes its disruptive nature including today where polar sunrise happens at the North pole for the one and only time this year.

Like all sunrises, it is due to a surface rotation, however, the polar sunrise event is a function of the orbital motion of the Earth and the fact that when daily rotation and all its effects are subtracted, the entire surface of the planet still turns once each year to the Sun. This includes your location.

It happens that I have immunity from the empirical herd who are lost in these important matters -

"My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal scientists of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these scientists shut their eyes to the light of truth" Galileo

The Earth doesn't tilt towards and away from the Sun, it turns parallel to the orbital plane as a function of its orbital motion hence the weather will warm up in Ireland in the coming months as that orbital induced rotation combines with daily rotation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM

What happens at the South pole in September is about to happen at the North pole presently.

pistolpetes11 · 19-03-2020 10:17pm

DONT POST IN THIS THREAD AGAIN or you will banned from the entire forum

oriel36 wrote: »

Rude moderators will cut me off quickly and especially when calling into question how experimental modeling ended up subsuming astronomical predictions -

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

The problem with this is that modeling and conclusions become one and the same so that empirical proponents of whatever stripe, in this case for or against 'climate change', are arguing over the models as if they were conclusions.

The predictive positions of the planets, Sun and moon within a geocentric celestial sphere framework were based on the 365/366 day calendar framework using the Sun's motion along the ecliptic plane -

https://community.dur.ac.uk/john.lucey/users/sun_ecliptic.gif

When accurate clocks emerged in the late 17th century, the framework was altered to RA/Dec in order to permit the use of the 24 hour day within the calendar framework to create more accurate predictions of the positions of planets and Sun -

https://community.dur.ac.uk/john.lucey/users/solar_year.gif

While making astronomical predictions more accurate, it was further adrift between cause and effect linking the Earth's motions to terrestrial sciences like climate, geology and biology. You can see this today with the rubbish attempt to explain the Equinox using a hideous pivoting circle of illumination and an Earth with a zero degree inclination -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap170319.html

What matters to the experimental theorists is that observations fit the model hence the backwards manipulation of imaging above to suit a wandering Sun through the background stars.

Asking contributors to deal with what is in front of them is bypassed for hypothetical future outcomes and that is dangerous, at least when it comes to dealing with the current plague much less 'climate change' modeling. I learned my lesson here before when it comes down to the technical ins and outs but mark well that in terms of the spread of the virus, the action of the Irish people and Government was based on immediate conditions rather than future conditions where the virus is expected to conform to modeling and there is a massive difference and distance between the two perspectives.

Roger_007 · 22-03-2020 10:47am

In reference to the title of this thread, I think that the third option has arrived unexpected and unwelcome. It’s called Covid-19.
The arrival of this pandemic has opened all our eyes to the real existential threat to humanity. This one may not kill us all but the next one might.
Where are all those ‘concerned’ young people now with their ‘climate strikes’ and condemnation of the older generations. Where is Greta Thunberg now. Why is she not using her immense influence over the youth of the world to tell young people to behave responsibly to safeguard older people.

22-03-2020 12:08pm

Roger_007 wrote: »

In reference to the title of this thread, I think that the third option has arrived unexpected and unwelcome. It’s called Covid-19.
The arrival of this pandemic has opened all our eyes to the real existential threat to humanity. This one may not kill us all but the next one might.
Where are all those ‘concerned’ young people now with their ‘climate strikes’ and condemnation of the older generations. Where is Greta Thunberg now. Why is she not using her immense influence over the youth of the world to tell young people to behave responsibly to safeguard older people.

From an environmental aspect, the rapid reduction in travel and industrial activity has had quite dramatic affects on the local environment in many areas, if that doesn't wake up people to the damage that human activity is doing, nothing will.

I am, of course referring to local pollution and nothing else.

Akrasia · 22-03-2020 1:31pm

The current coronavirus is an acute crisis that we had plenty of warning about but still did nothing to prevent it from spreading before it was too late.

It is now going to cost astronomical amounts of money to deal with and will lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths

Sound familiar?

The biggest difference between Covid 19 and Climate change, is that we will have 1 or 2 years of severe economic impact, but it will end. Climate change is unstoppable and cumulative, and when the penny finally drops, we will be faced with a new permanent reality

All the people who were saying 'it's just a flu' or 'Our health system can cope' or 'we'll have a vaccine before it becomes our problem' are the same as everyone who has, and continues to, deny the reality and seriousness of climate change.

Covid 19 is an acute crisis, a viral infection that takes weeks to spread around the world. Climate change is a chronic disease, that takes decades to manifest itself, but is incurable and if we don't do enough to limit it, it will have economic, social and environmental consequences that will make this crisis look like a mild runny nose

The scientific consensus on Covid 19 is that we need to test extensively and isolate carriers as quickly as possible.

Some countries are ignoring this because they think the science doesn't apply to them. Reality bites and it bites hard, and those countries who delayed and dithered will be the worst affected, ecomically, socially and in terms of loss of life and long term health impacts from lung damage and mental health consequences.

SeaBreezes · 24-03-2020 11:27pm

Akrasia wrote: »

The current coronavirus is an acute crisis that we had plenty of warning about but still did nothing to prevent it from spreading before it was too late.

It is now going to cost astronomical amounts of money to deal with and will lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths

Sound familiar?

The biggest difference between Covid 19 and Climate change, is that we will have 1 or 2 years of severe economic impact, but it will end. Climate change is unstoppable and cumulative, and when the penny finally drops, we will be faced with a new permanent reality

All the people who were saying 'it's just a flu' or 'Our health system can cope' or 'we'll have a vaccine before it becomes our problem' are the same as everyone who has, and continues to, deny the reality and seriousness of climate change.

Covid 19 is an acute crisis, a viral infection that takes weeks to spread around the world. Climate change is a chronic disease, that takes decades to manifest itself, but is incurable and if we don't do enough to limit it, it will have economic, social and environmental consequences that will make this crisis look like a mild runny nose

The scientific consensus on Covid 19 is that we need to test extensively and isolate carriers as quickly as possible.

Some countries are ignoring this because they think the science doesn't apply to them. Reality bites and it bites hard, and those countries who delayed and dithered will be the worst affected, ecomically, socially and in terms of loss of life and long term health impacts from lung damage and mental health consequences.

I beg to differ.
My views on the seriousness of this virus and its effect on humanity and global economies has been consistent.

And yet not 3 weeks ago (Feb 25) you said the complete opposite about the seriousness of this virus.. (quote the post below)
So... if you were wrong about how to manage the virus, could you possibly be misled with your other views too?

Just saying...

By the way hope your wife is doing ok. Horrible times.

Akrasia:
Nope. It would be completely counterproductive and an overreaction once the virus has already become so widespread that it’s not possible to contain anymore. You want to also close down all businesses, schools, public facilities, restaurants, sporting and recreation facilities.....?

This is a virus that is 98% non lethal and we will probably have a vaccine for it within 18 months.

Shutting down the economy will kill many more vulnerable people than this virus would on its own

If I was dependent on medication right now, I’d be more worried about my meds being unavailable because of restrictions on travel than the risk of me getting Covid 19

M.T. Cranium · 25-03-2020 8:53am

Just wanted to mention that the data for Toronto are now completely posted with the UHI adjustments made to the temperature series, all months and seasons ranked for that now. I am taking a sort of vacation from the work for a week or two as it has been a grind lasting several months. We had planned a real holiday (before the virus outbreak) but of course that is now impossible to execute as we can't even cross the border let alone get anywhere warm. Oh well, it is what it is.

I don't think we can necessarily draw parallels between the pandemic and the climate challenge. Presumably governments have generalized plans in place for health emergencies then draw in the details when the exact nature of the threat is better known. In this case it would appear that they weren't very well prepared for the need for specific intervention tools (ventilators the primary example).

But with the risk of rising sea levels, the threat is already known and understood. I have taken a different approach as to cause and effect, but would not expect a different effect than any standard warminista who might still believe it can be averted through cutting back greenhouse gas emissions. Whether they're right or not, or I'm right or not, sea levels are either going to rise, or stay steady, it seems quite unlikely that they would fall. So for me, it seems like an absolute necessity for governments to draw up plans to cope with rising sea levels. If they want to believe the orthodox theory and participate in schemes to avoid the outcome, I can't really say or do anything that would change such an approach, but I can say with sincerity that I don't think it will work, and it may be worse for the economy than doing nothing would have been.

Even if they do believe in that, and work diligently towards it, they must be realistic and accept that the intervention could fail (or possibly could be incapable of working). Therefore it remains necessary to have plans in place -- what will happen as and if sea levels do start to rise? Can there be any diversion of any of the surplus water to large-scale desalination and irrigation. I've been told it would be a drop in the bucket, maybe my proposed schemes are a bit larger than what we have thought about in the past, but even so, I could see where a half metre would be about the upper limit of convertible water from the oceans. What about other technological interventions? Increasing the volume of the oceans by taking undersea ridges, possibly, and dismantling them over 20-30 years. Boiling off water into the atmosphere in strategic places to allow the evaporation to seed rainfall that would hit arid land masses. I even thought of this -- and I don't know the consequences, perhaps somebody might -- just pipe a lot of seawater far inland into the Sahara desert and let it loose in selected areas -- most of it would evaporate. If you removed 0.1 metres of ocean surface per year (sounds like a massive amount) how much would return to the oceans through runoff or rainfall created over oceans? My guess is some small fraction of the 0.1 metres, maybe 0.02 metres, for a net gain of 0.08 metres. That's a net drop of 8 cm or a bit over three inches. Would there be any large scale negative impacts from this concept, or any gains, or would it simply be a zero-sum proposition for the arid, desolate Sahara, and a net gain on the sea level front?

I can't see how this would cost any more than is spent on worthless military misadventures at the present time.

Akrasia · 26-03-2020 11:06am

SeaBreezes wrote: »

I beg to differ.
My views on the seriousness of this virus and its effect on humanity and global economies has been consistent.

And yet not 3 weeks ago (Feb 25) you said the complete opposite about the seriousness of this virus.. (quote the post below)
So... if you were wrong about how to manage the virus, could you possibly be misled with your other views too?

Just saying...

By the way hope your wife is doing ok. Horrible times.

Akrasia:
Nope. It would be completely counterproductive and an overreaction once the virus has already become so widespread that it’s not possible to contain anymore. You want to also close down all businesses, schools, public facilities, restaurants, sporting and recreation facilities.....?

This is a virus that is 98% non lethal and we will probably have a vaccine for it within 18 months.

Shutting down the economy will kill many more vulnerable people than this virus would on its own

If I was dependent on medication right now, I’d be more worried about my meds being unavailable because of restrictions on travel than the risk of me getting Covid 19

My post was responding to this comment "Originally Posted by Ikozma View Post
What are the chances of a complete shutdown of air and sea travel around Europe in the coming months, would it be a possibility?"

We still haven't done this, there has not been a shutdown in all air sea transport around europe. All businesses have not closed, freight and air travel is still happening . We are trying to follow the scientific advice from the epidemiological models, but we are playing catch up.

The Evidence based recommendations from the expert bodies, are to do testing testing testing, and to target isolation at people who have been tested positive, contact tracing to find people who have been in close contact with confirmed cases

Our problem is that when the evidence of a pandemic was emerging, we should have spent much more resources on ramping up production on things like testing kits. Ireland and most other countries were too slow to react and thought they could follow the usual pace of action in the face of a crisis that was predicted with confidence but not certainty

We have the capacity to take emergency measures, but we didn't recognise the emergency quick enough to prevent it

Now we are delaying the spread and mitigating it's impact. The solution was never to shut down all travel and the entire economy, it is to take appropriate measures to reduce the spread of the disease while still keeping the ability to have enough food and medical supplies and other critical services. Earlier action would have allowed less severe measures later on. And much less severe consequences.

We are watching two worlds playing out before us. In one world, we have countries who took action early and reduced the spread of the disease, these countries will suffer a much lower cost, economically, and in human suffering compared with the countries who did nothing or pretended it wasn't happening long after the evidence was overwhelming on the need to act.

In many many ways, this crisis is very very similar to the climate change crisis, except it's happening in a much shorter timescale.

Akrasia · 26-03-2020 11:15am

There are some important differences however, Coronavirus will have either a vaccine, or good treatments within months (estimates are 18 months for a vaccine, treatments hopefully much sooner)

Climate change does not have a cure, the damage we are doing now is basically irreversible in human timescales.

Akrasia · 26-03-2020 11:28am

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Just wanted to mention that the data for Toronto are now completely posted with the UHI adjustments made to the temperature series, all months and seasons ranked for that now. I am taking a sort of vacation from the work for a week or two as it has been a grind lasting several months. We had planned a real holiday (before the virus outbreak) but of course that is now impossible to execute as we can't even cross the border let alone get anywhere warm. Oh well, it is what it is.

I don't think we can necessarily draw parallels between the pandemic and the climate challenge. Presumably governments have generalized plans in place for health emergencies then draw in the details when the exact nature of the threat is better known. In this case it would appear that they weren't very well prepared for the need for specific intervention tools (ventilators the primary example).

But with the risk of rising sea levels, the threat is already known and understood. I have taken a different approach as to cause and effect, but would not expect a different effect than any standard warminista who might still believe it can be averted through cutting back greenhouse gas emissions. Whether they're right or not, or I'm right or not, sea levels are either going to rise, or stay steady, it seems quite unlikely that they would fall. So for me, it seems like an absolute necessity for governments to draw up plans to cope with rising sea levels. If they want to believe the orthodox theory and participate in schemes to avoid the outcome, I can't really say or do anything that would change such an approach, but I can say with sincerity that I don't think it will work, and it may be worse for the economy than doing nothing would have been.

Even if they do believe in that, and work diligently towards it, they must be realistic and accept that the intervention could fail (or possibly could be incapable of working). Therefore it remains necessary to have plans in place -- what will happen as and if sea levels do start to rise? Can there be any diversion of any of the surplus water to large-scale desalination and irrigation. I've been told it would be a drop in the bucket, maybe my proposed schemes are a bit larger than what we have thought about in the past, but even so, I could see where a half metre would be about the upper limit of convertible water from the oceans. What about other technological interventions? Increasing the volume of the oceans by taking undersea ridges, possibly, and dismantling them over 20-30 years. Boiling off water into the atmosphere in strategic places to allow the evaporation to seed rainfall that would hit arid land masses. I even thought of this -- and I don't know the consequences, perhaps somebody might -- just pipe a lot of seawater far inland into the Sahara desert and let it loose in selected areas -- most of it would evaporate. If you removed 0.1 metres of ocean surface per year (sounds like a massive amount) how much would return to the oceans through runoff or rainfall created over oceans? My guess is some small fraction of the 0.1 metres, maybe 0.02 metres, for a net gain of 0.08 metres. That's a net drop of 8 cm or a bit over three inches. Would there be any large scale negative impacts from this concept, or any gains, or would it simply be a zero-sum proposition for the arid, desolate Sahara, and a net gain on the sea level front?

I can't see how this would cost any more than is spent on worthless military misadventures at the present time.

The problem with climate change is that there are some very plausible low probabilty High Impact scenarios that could take place if we get to certain tipping points, and Nobody knows what those tipping points are

The only way to reduce the risk, is to reduce our climate change impact by reducing emissions

Nabber · 26-03-2020 8:52pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Climate change does not have a cure, the damage we are doing now is basically irreversible in human timescales.

What damage is that?

Akrasia · 27-03-2020 12:54am

Nabber wrote: »

What damage is that?

have You been living under a rock?

CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Comments