Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wasn't asking regarding the existence of the period. The Roman Warming period was ~250 BC to ~400 AD - much closer to 2,000 years ago than 1,000. It wasn't anywhere relevant. You're also ignoring that the medieval warming period WAS exactly 1,000 years ago and we're currently beating those temperatures. Edit to match your edit: Neither the MWP nor the RWP were global phenomenas - they were hotspots at different tim…
You are claiming that the last two warm periods where not global? So you deny the existence of the Minoan, Roman, and the Medieval interglacials? I think geologists would disagree.
US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming
191–200 of 224 posts
Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Of course we know drunk driving increases deaths, but if that wasn’t obvious then you couldn’t say either of these statements. And we know that climate change causes more drastic heat waves. If that weren't the case, you'd be correct, but alas.
Climate change produces heat waves by definition . If we're going to take a heat wave as hard proof for climate change, then climate change is a valid theory by definition , and that's not exactly scientific. > If that weren't the case, you'd be correct, but alas. Why so snarky?
Wasn't trying to be snarky. And you're inverting my statements. I'm saying, precisely, that heat waves are not definitive evidence of climate change, the same way colder than average weather is not hard evidence against it.
The evidence in my analogy would be blood alcohol tests of the people who crashed, and the evidence in the case of climate change is the measured/calculating heat trapping ability of the atmosphere.
My point is, we have evidence enough that is is valid to say the former, and that is what differentiates it from the latter.
Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate that. From the perspective of the skeptic the Popper quote comes to mind. Karl Popper — 'A theory that explains everything, explains nothing'
Or you know, the refutability criterion. The denialist theory is that CO2 have no impact on temperature. So let's build two closed of greenhouses with the same sun exposition, fill one of them with old ambiant air with 450 ppm of CO2 and one with current/predicted ambiant air (750 ppm of CO2), same humidity (or rather, a bassin with the same quantity of water). After a day under the sun, check the temperature of both…
There's a wide gulf between, "CO2 has no impact" and, "Humanity is responsible for climate and weather".
Your experiment would be better formulated as such:
1) Establishing the optimal climate and weather.
2) Create two entire solar systems.
3) Place humans on the Earth of one solar system*
4) Observe the climate of both Earths
5) Decide which one best meets your standard of the ideal climate
As with any scientific experiment, you would want to conduct it multiple times to ensure the results are reproducible. Measure the deviation of each climate and count the number of experiments to determine your degree of certainty.
*3. Make sure humans don't appear (naturally?) on your non-human bearing earth. The question of if humans are a part of nature and therefore part of the ecosystem will arise.
If humans are part of nature, you may then ask if any changes they may or may not contribute are therefore natural.
Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming
#194Not only is it possible but the worst heat waves on record were experienced in the 1930s: https://www.weather.gov/arx/heat_jul36
There was a theory, although it may have now been debunked, that the testing of nuclear weapons caused a nuclear winter to some extent, thus offsetting the obvious effects of global warming for some time. So from the 1940s, to whenever it was finally phased out (1980s) , nuclear weapons tests somewhat blocked the possibility of heatwaves being so extreme. This could partly explain the absence of such extremes between 1930s and now. Or it could entirely be a coincidence and randomness. What worries me is simply the extent to which this year's heatwave beats previous records. It does seem to point to an accelerating scenario. Established climate scientists are now saying they may have underestimated how bad its going to be. Previous worst case scenarios for warming were scary enough. I'm concerned about a vicious circle scenario, a positive feedback loop. We really don't want to go there.
Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming
#195"When will people wake up?" "Politicians don't care!" "Rich people are just greedy!" "Animals are dying!" "Science deniers!" What are those but moral and/or intellectual superiority declarations? And they're false too! We historically never cared or done as much for the environment as we do right now. Cars are getting stricter pollution norms on a schedule. Home appliances are rated by efficiency, we even banned some…
>"When will people wake up?" "Politicians don't care!" "Rich people are just greedy!" "Animals are dying!" "Science deniers!"
lol.
Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming
#196Looks like I need to move to a cooler area. Is there anywhere that has maps with projected yearly temperatures in different regions of the US? For example right now Boston is miserable in the winter, but it'd be nice to see projections or at least a historical trend of what the average monthly temperatures would look like 5-10 years from now. If they looked better then I'd look to moving up there. If they're too cold…
If you can, move to Scandinavia or UK, I think. An alpine valley would also be nice like Davos in Switzerland, however with climate change alpine regions experience disruptions like mud flows which can be deadly.
Lapland (Finland) has had record heat of 34 C this year. UK is regularly getting well into the 30s now. Hit a record of 38.7 C in Cambridge a couple years back. Not quite the current N America heat dome temps, but given that hardly anyone living in Seattle in the 2000 would've ever imagined they'd see 42C just 21 yrs later, I think the lesson is nowhere is immune.
Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps it is a bit unfair to more nuanced proponents of climate apocalypse, but in popular discourse, every weather event is attributed to climate change. There is no observation of weather which cannot be construed as a result of anthropogenic climate change. If the conclusion opposes impending doom the popular refrain, "weather is not climate" is employed. >massive amounts of energy are added... Yes, but the claim…
There are lots of examples of where science has gotten it wrong. So what do we do, philosophically, with this fact? It is possible that the 97+% of climate scientists are wrong in their beliefs. Let us ponder this possibility and assign it an unknown probability of X. Let us now ponder the following two facts. Every known example of where science has gotten it wrong is also an example of where science has corrected i…
> 97+% of climate scientists
People should understand what that 97% number means. It means that from the papers that addressed the global warming or any effect AND made a position on it, 97% acknowledged that at least to some degree that humans do indeed contribute to global warming. That is the bar for the 97% number.
97% does not address: - how much humans contribute to global warming
- how large the positive feedback effects are (without these, there is little warming from CO2 alone)
- how bad global warming will be
- what are the right policies to address it
What happens in public discourse is that people just dangle the 97% to justify anything, literally anything they say.
You don't want diesel engines? but 97%....why do you hate polar bears?
You don't want to ban plastic straws? 97% of scientists want to ban them
You don't want to live in a small house? but 97%...why do you hate the planet?
You don't think *this* hurricane is caused by global warming? 97% of scientists disagree
Thermometer shows 100F today in Arizona, it's because of global warming, 97% of scientists agree.
It's getting ridiculous, to be honest. It's the pinnacle of appeal to authority.
Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m curious why you ask this question. Does the answer matter or in some way lead to a broader point? If so what is that point? Assume it’s the worst possible energy source as far as you are concerned. Then what is your response?
The irony of as we have more hot days, more AC is used, using more kWh, generating more CO2, leading to more hot days. There's also the OPs complaint that he has no agency in this - but he chooses to have AC. I wonder how many tons of CO2 are emitted so people in offices can wear suits and jackets and work through the day, rather than shorts and t-shirts and siesta in the cool.
> I wonder how many tons of CO2 are emitted so people in offices can wear suits and jackets and work through the day, rather than shorts and t-shirts and siesta in the cool.
A whole lot less than 1.5 years ago!
Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming
#199Looks like I need to move to a cooler area. Is there anywhere that has maps with projected yearly temperatures in different regions of the US? For example right now Boston is miserable in the winter, but it'd be nice to see projections or at least a historical trend of what the average monthly temperatures would look like 5-10 years from now. If they looked better then I'd look to moving up there. If they're too cold…
If you can, move to Scandinavia or UK, I think. An alpine valley would also be nice like Davos in Switzerland, however with climate change alpine regions experience disruptions like mud flows which can be deadly.
UK could get freezing cold in the winter if the Atlantic conveyor belt slows down due to Greenland melting.
Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are claiming that the last two warm periods where not global? So you deny the existence of the Minoan, Roman, and the Medieval interglacials? I think geologists would disagree.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/24/climate-epochs-...
So you are denying the glacial/interglacial cycle that is taught in geology. I guess that makes you a science denier ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial
Also worth noting this from your article... "During the following Little Ice Age, which lasted roughly from 1300 to 1850"
There's that 1850 again, the climactic minimum, and coincidentally the exact year that climate change models start from.
"1550 to 1850 AD Little Ice Age Coldest temperatures since the beginning of the Holocene. Populations die from crop failure and famine in Europe." http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo...