Global Warming ?

[oldncold]

Today across bc at flt level 370 isa was -12 oat -64c . Up in rabbit kettle ( nahanni national park) at 1am minus 52.5c = negative 72.5 farenheit that is so frickn cold they dont even have manuals for operating in that . Is climate change happening? Yes of course > the natural world abhors an imbalance and when it gets out of whack nature restores the balance . spieces go bye bye, Ive looked back on the past 6 years in my neck of the woods the winters have been colder snowy and the summers drier with 2021 some of the hottest on record.

Point is unless global population is reduced to 1920 levels 4.5 billion vs 9 billion today eatn ,fartn, consuming, no politician is going to advocate that ... Well a few dictaors would be on board. . ,we humans are in the way of the natural balance we cannot win that fight . the nasty cold this winter is the natural world attempting to restore the balance that us humans have put out of whack. In spite of all the bs from the enviromentalism movement significant climate change happens every 2000 years. there are palm fonds fossils on vancouver island etc . So oln coldsays, just take a realistic perspective , know in the grand scheme of things we humans a just a spec on the geological timeline of 4 billions years/

Enjoy your hoilday s light the gas barby for the smoked turkey , turn the lights on the tree politicans be dammed. hug your loved ones and celebrate this moment in your life, your time in the planets history . peace be with you all.

[SPR]

I guess you forgot about the whole "global" component of that. https://www.eldoradoweather.com/climate ... tremes.php The average global temperature can be higher than normal if the extreme highs outdo the extreme lows.

[oldncold]

Both points are realistic but , 9 billion humans verses 4.5 billion humans in1920 to which the the baseline of accumulated scientific data is internationally accepted. // the adoption of the automobile , internal combustion engine etc

There were electric cars in 1911 , but the forces of big oil killed it . Back on thread each citizen in the developed world emitts 16 tonnes of C02 , in canadas case we are accepting 500k immigrants each year = 8million tonnes gross C02 a year - 265000 natural death rate for net C02 gain of 3, 275000 we will never meet out climate targets . Ya too much time in hotels lol. and the enviromental nazis preventing getting asia off coal ( 1 million asian kids die each year due to resipitory illness caused by coal )by tranistioning to cleaner Canadian n shame on them natural gas for a net drop in the global C02 .

[Inverted2]

They don’t call it global warming anymore so when it’s cold, or stormy or whatever they now they can use “climate change”. It’s just a big scam so they can raise taxes, and force more stuff like electric cars etc.

[Gear Jerker]

As a "for instance", thermohaline circulation (think of jetstreams in the oceans; rivers of relatively high temperature, high salinity water which flow from the equator to the poles, then cool, sink, and flow back to the equator) is a significant driver of regional climates, as it is a large global heat pump.

As ice melts, it dumps freshwater into the oceans, which effectively interrupts thermohaline circulation. This is largely believed to be the cause of the younger dryas cooling event in North America approx 13000 years ago, where the rapid influx of freshwater from glacial melt lake Agassiz (the lakes in Manitoba are modern remnants of Lake Agassiz) flowing toward the arctic and north atlantic triggered a geologically brief reversal of the warming trend and north america snap cooled, prior to resuming its warming cycle which stabilized prior to the anthropocene/pre-industrial era.

Anyway, the point of the jargon above is to illustrate one of many processes which can; out of context, appear paradoxical. "If it's global warming, why is it so damn cold this winter"? It's about longer term, global climatic trends. Within these trends, it's expected to have weather events, or localized climates that are seemingly antithetical.

The big picture is this: Yes, Earth has seen extremes in temperature long before us, and it will long after us. It has been an iceball, and ice free multiple times before. Most recently, during the Eocene Earth was ice free and there are fossils near the poles dated to that time of ferns and large conifers. However, these swings normally occur over tens of millions of years.

What humans have done, and will continue to do, is interrupt the natural processes by rapidly dumping carbon in the atmosphere, which causes the planet to warm.

Global warming? Yes. Climate change? Yes. Regions and/or periods which actually cool, despite an overall trend of a hotter planet? Yes. It's all connected, and perfectly logical when one understands the various climactic feedback loops.

I'm not here to judge; I burn massive amounts of liquid dinosaurs for a living. But I will hop on board when sensible policies are implemented that reduce the rate at which we mess the planet up.

[TeePeeCreeper]

As a "for instance", thermohaline circulation (think of jetstreams in the oceans; rivers of relatively high temperature, high salinity water which flow from the poles to the equator, then cool, sink, and flow back to the equator) is a significant driver of regional climates, as it is a large global heat pump.

As ice melts, it dumps freshwater into the oceans, which effectively interrupts thermohaline circulation. This is largely believed to be the cause of the younger dryas global cooling event approx 13000 years ago, where the rapid influx of freshwater from glacial melt lake Agassiz (the lakes in Manitoba are modern remnants of Lake Agassiz) flowing toward the arctic ocean caused a reversal in the warming trend and north america cooled again, prior to resuming its warming cycle which stabilized prior to the anthropocene/pre-industrial era.

Anyway, the point of the jargon above is to illustrate one of many processes which can; out of context, appear paradoxical. "If it's global warming, why is it so damn cold this winter"? It's about longer term, global climatic trends. Within these trends, it's expected to have weather events, or localized climates that are seemingly antithetical.

The big picture is this: Yes, Earth has seen extremes in temperature long before us, and it will long after us. It has been an iceball, and ice free multiple times before. Most recently, during the Eocene Earth was ice free and there are fossils near the poles dated to that time of ferns and large conifers. However, these swings normally occur over a tens of millions of years time horizon.

What humans have done, and will continue to do, is interrupt the natural processes by rapidly dumping carbon in the atmosphere, which causes the planet to warm.

Global warming? Yes. Climate change? Yes. Regions and/or periods which actually cool, despite an overall trend of a hotter planet? Yes. It's all connected, and perfectly logical for those who understand the various climactic feedback loops.

I'm not here to judge; I burn massive amounts of liquid dinosaurs for a living. But I will hop on board when sensible policies are implemented that reduce the rate at which we mess the planet up.

Not jargon but rather insightful. Thanks for sharing that.

[rookiepilot]

Rooftop solar + batteries…..in its infancy.

[TC.Enforcement]

Point is unless global population is reduced to 1920 levels 4.5 billion vs 9 billion today…

Population didn’t reach 4.5 billion until the early 80’s

We only just reached 8 billion in November

[Roar]

What humans have done, and will continue to do, is interrupt the natural processes by rapidly dumping carbon in the atmosphere, which causes the planet to warm.

I always find that argument perplexing. Humans are part of nature not outside of it so by definition anything we do is a natural process, one wouldn't say a beaver building a dam to alter its environment is unnatural so why when humans do it, is it unnatural? I suspect it is just our species arrogance to think that anything we do actually matters to the planet. It doesn't, the earth was around 4.998 billion years before us and will be around for that after we are gone.

[sstaurus]

Sure, call it natural, as in we’re naturally speeding things up. Hope the grandkids don’t mind. No one said the earth will disappear, but we might.

[Roar]

Sure, call it natural, as in we’re naturally speeding things up. Hope the grandkids don’t mind. No one said the earth will disappear, but we might.

We will disappear for certain, as is the natural order of things. No species lasts forever. But considering average global temperatures during the Holocene climatic optimum were higher than temps now and stoned aged peoples managed to survive, your grandkids will be just fine.

[EPR]

https://www.icsc-canada.com/beat-climate-alarmism

[Meatservo]

When I was younger, I used to find it outrageous how most peoples' political affiliations were the sole determinant of their beliefs. I used to struggle to understand what could possibly be the thing that connects gun control, climate, immigration, acceptance of alternate lifestyles, pro-or-anti U.S.A. sentiment, and a whole lot of other things. I used to be baffled by the fact that once you learned one thing about a certain person, like for instance their feelings on the subject of vaccinations, you could pretty accurately guess where they stood on other seemingly unrelated things, like whether they were going to accept the use of gender-neutral pronouns, how they felt about AR-15s, and whether or not Omar Khadr is a victim or a war criminal, or whether one considers the "freedom convoy" to have been heroes or retards. Ipso facto, once you've lurked on "AvCanada" long enough, you can simply read the pseudonym of any particular member and pretty much guess what they are going to be on about.

I used to chalk it up to the general brainlessness of the average human- too dumb to understand how obviously their belief system mirrored that of their tribal group, and how little it reflected any genuine individual thought. It's the same kind of obliviousness and lack of self-awareness that makes the chief of a small northern community buy a brand-new F-150 and giant satellite dish within moments of being elected and not stop to wonder if anyone is going to consider that to be a bad look.

Now I understand it's an instinctive evolutionary trait that occurred naturally, because it allows people to form herds in which there's safety in numbers. It doesn't make it seem any less stupid, unfortunately. How incredibly boring.

[Gear Jerker]

What humans have done, and will continue to do, is interrupt the natural processes by rapidly dumping carbon in the atmosphere, which causes the planet to warm.

I always find that argument perplexing. Humans are part of nature not outside of it so by definition anything we do is a natural process, one wouldn't say a beaver building a dam to alter its environment is unnatural so why when humans do it, is it unnatural? I suspect it is just our species arrogance to think that anything we do actually matters to the planet. It doesn't, the earth was around 4.998 billion years before us and will be around for that after we are gone.

I mean.... ok, sure? Yes, we are living creatures that exist on the planet, if that's what you're looking for here with the "we're natural" argument. Where should I stop with things that are unnatural? We live in cities, we make nuclear bombs that can erase entire cities, we fly giant airplanes around the planet, we fly spaceships to the moon, we have a complex interrelated global monetary and political system, we have numbers and language, and there are artificially intelligent computers which use algorithms to trade massive amounts of money all day every day...

^I live comfortably in it and am quite content with it. But, there are consequences.

Fortunately, there's no scenario where we can trigger a runaway "hothouse earth" scenario; whereby a positive feedback loop exists that causes temperatures to increase, oceans to warm up to the point of boiling away, removing the largest heat sink on the planet which causes more warming until Earth looks more like Venus. The trajectory we are advancing toward is a "greenhouse earth", where glaciers and icecaps are largely nonexistant for most of the year. Earth has looked like this before, and it will look like it again. But in terms of the planet's stability if humans weren't here, this is an interglacial period. We are tipping it toward an ice free period. The planet will be fine, in time. There are natural processes that can tip it back, but they happen over geologic timescales; tens of millions of years.

The biosphere is, and will continue to be massively disrupted. A mass extinction event will occur (countless species will go extinct as they'll no longer be adapted to their environment). Humans will have wars over arable land, and living space. Mass migrations will occur. Gwynn Dyer is a military historian, but he also wrote the book 'Climate Wars' where he discusses the various ways humans will be impacted.

[Roar]

What humans have done, and will continue to do, is interrupt the natural processes by rapidly dumping carbon in the atmosphere, which causes the planet to warm.

I always find that argument perplexing. Humans are part of nature not outside of it so by definition anything we do is a natural process, one wouldn't say a beaver building a dam to alter its environment is unnatural so why when humans do it, is it unnatural? I suspect it is just our species arrogance to think that anything we do actually matters to the planet. It doesn't, the earth was around 4.998 billion years before us and will be around for that after we are gone.

I mean.... ok, sure? Yes, we are living creatures that exist on the planet, if that's what you're looking for here with the "we're natural" argument. Where should I stop with things that are unnatural? We live in cities, we make nuclear bombs that can erase entire cities, we fly giant airplanes around the planet, we fly spaceships to the moon, we have a complex interrelated global monetary and political system, we have numbers and language, and there are artificially intelligent computers which use algorithms to trade massive amounts of money all day every day...

^I live comfortably in it and am quite content with it. But, there are consequences.

Fortunately, there's no scenario where we can trigger a runaway "hothouse earth" scenario; whereby a positive feedback loop exists that causes temperatures to increase, oceans to warm up to the point of boiling away, removing the largest heat sink on the planet which causes more warming until Earth looks more like Venus. The trajectory we are advancing toward is a "greenhouse earth", where glaciers and icecaps are largely nonexistant for most of the year. Earth has looked like this before, and it will look like it again. But in terms of the planet's stability if humans weren't here, this is an interglacial period. We are tipping it toward an ice free period. The planet will be fine, in time. There are natural processes that can tip it back, but they happen over geologic timescales; tens of millions of years.

The biosphere is, and will continue to be massively disrupted. A mass extinction event will occur (countless species will go extinct as they'll no longer be adapted to their environment). Humans will have wars over arable land, and living space. Mass migrations will occur. Gwynn Dyer is a military historian, but he also wrote the book 'Climate Wars' where he discusses the various ways humans will be impacted.

And your Point is? The Biosphere is constantly being massively disrupted. At best humans will delay the next ice age a few thousand years when the planet will again under go a massive disruption. As for wars, name a period in human history when there weren't any. Human are part of nature not above it or distanced from it, anything we do, our cities, technological wonders are part of the natural order of things. Only human arrogance would think that if we don't burn fossil fuels the environment will stay stable and not require us to adapt to differing climate. I guarantee the climate will change with or without us and require adaptations from all species, some will make it some won't.

[Gear Jerker]

I always find that argument perplexing. Humans are part of nature not outside of it so by definition anything we do is a natural process, one wouldn't say a beaver building a dam to alter its environment is unnatural so why when humans do it, is it unnatural? I suspect it is just our species arrogance to think that anything we do actually matters to the planet. It doesn't, the earth was around 4.998 billion years before us and will be around for that after we are gone.

I mean.... ok, sure? Yes, we are living creatures that exist on the planet, if that's what you're looking for here with the "we're natural" argument. Where should I stop with things that are unnatural? We live in cities, we make nuclear bombs that can erase entire cities, we fly giant airplanes around the planet, we fly spaceships to the moon, we have a complex interrelated global monetary and political system, we have numbers and language, and there are artificially intelligent computers which use algorithms to trade massive amounts of money all day every day...

^I live comfortably in it and am quite content with it. But, there are consequences.

Fortunately, there's no scenario where we can trigger a runaway "hothouse earth" scenario; whereby a positive feedback loop exists that causes temperatures to increase, oceans to warm up to the point of boiling away, removing the largest heat sink on the planet which causes more warming until Earth looks more like Venus. The trajectory we are advancing toward is a "greenhouse earth", where glaciers and icecaps are largely nonexistant for most of the year. Earth has looked like this before, and it will look like it again. But in terms of the planet's stability if humans weren't here, this is an interglacial period. We are tipping it toward an ice free period. The planet will be fine, in time. There are natural processes that can tip it back, but they happen over geologic timescales; tens of millions of years.

The biosphere is, and will continue to be massively disrupted. A mass extinction event will occur (countless species will go extinct as they'll no longer be adapted to their environment). Humans will have wars over arable land, and living space. Mass migrations will occur. Gwynn Dyer is a military historian, but he also wrote the book 'Climate Wars' where he discusses the various ways humans will be impacted.

And your Point is? The Biosphere is constantly being massively disrupted. At best humans will delay the next ice age a few thousand years when the planet will again under go a massive disruption. As for wars, name a period in human history when there weren't any. Human are part of nature not above it or distanced from it, anything we do, our cities, technological wonders are part of the natural order of things. Only human arrogance would think that if we don't burn fossil fuels the environment will stay stable and not require us to adapt to differing climate. I guarantee the climate will change with or without us and require adaptations from all species, some will make it some won't.

I'm in total agreement that the climate will change with or without us, and I think I made that clear in my first post. Earth has existed ice free, and as more or less an iceball numerous times in it's history, and it will do so again in a time scale not relevant to present day human life, and due to causes over which we have no control.

We do have control over the rate at which we put CO2 in the atmosphere, and that has scientifically proven implications on multiple Earth processes and feedback loops; which overall has an impact on various aspects of climactic stability.

Your dismissive statement about human arrogance seems to suggest that you know something that the scientific consensus does not on this matter?

[Bede]

[rookiepilot]

“Thread goes silent”

“Paging Pelmet, et all”

[Bogus pitotubes]

The “hockey stick” of runaway global warming has been repeatedly debunked. Guess it’s making a comeback

[Curiousflyer]

The biggest issue with comparing todays temperature trends to previous years is the type of measurement used. We cannot go back in time to 20,000 BCE and apply geothermal satellite imagery. Instead we use ice cores, isotopes, and fossil records to predict the temperature. These types of measurements have little to no accuracy if you want a global temperature in the year 19,898 however, they can show there was warming from 20,000 to 19,000.

So what if we kept the types of measurements (ice cores, isotopes, and fossil records) consistent and didn’t change the level of precision in the last 100 years of your graph? Well NO warming would show up at all.

I’m not suggesting that there isn’t man made global warming, there is. But these graphs are inaccurate as they disguise the types of measurements and there level of precision to come up with something that intentionally appears alarming, which is not scientific.