How climate change alters regional climate in unpredictable ways

[PB666]

http://sciencenordic.com/scientists-discover-cause-behind-prehistoric-climate-change?

This article discusses the global phenomena that occurred as the northern hemisphere warmed 14 to 15 thousand years ago. The oceans, a giant temperature modulator,mwould disequilibrate with atmospheric temperatures causing droughts, or floods and temperatures could shift wildly.

Edited November 30, 2015 by PB666

[Just Jim]

I saw something similar not long about the Little Ice Age, just a few hundred years ago, that sounds similar. Had nothing to do with man, apparently the gulf stream shifted and suddenly Europe was in a small ice age. What I found interesting is the few years prior to this event was a period of rapid warming, similar to today. Then suddenly, Wham, the northern hemisphere turned cold.

While I don't deny the climate changes, this just supports my belief man has little to do with it.

The climate has never, ever been "stable". It's constantly changing, and will constantly change. And I refuse to listen to junk science about "Stopping Climate Change". Can't be done. Unless you can cap a raging volcano, which can change the worlds climate in a matter of days, you can't prevent the climate from changing when and how it wants.

[WinkAllKerb'']

*in*

criticial events that induce fast change remain critical events, daily event that induce slow changes over time are another matter.

minimizing daily events that slowly change things because a critical event can always happen remain a direct profit way to think. Some care about themselves and their sole lifespan and direct profit whatever they will crush on the way, some care about the next gens and childs over many generations.

some like playing with puppet(s) also.

*out*

Edited November 15, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''

[Dieselpower]

I saw something similar not long about the Little Ice Age, just a few hundred years ago, that sounds similar. Had nothing to do with man, apparently the gulf stream shifted and suddenly Europe was in a small ice age. What I found interesting is the few years prior to this event was a period of rapid warming, similar to today. Then suddenly, Wham, the northern hemisphere turned cold.

While I don't deny the climate changes, this just supports my belief man has little to do with it.

The climate has never, ever been "stable". It's constantly changing, and will constantly change. And I refuse to listen to junk science about "Stopping Climate Change". Can't be done. Unless you can cap a raging volcano, which can change the worlds climate in a matter of days, you can't prevent the climate from changing when and how it wants.

Human induced Climate Change is real and happening right now.

There is an overwhelming support for this theory by more than 97% of all scientists active in this field backed up by decades of research and data.

Please stop repeating this nonsense, it is the same as saying the world is flat, we can travel faster than light or we all go to heaven.

Not happening, science says no.

This article does not refute that knowledge in any way by the way.

Average global temperatures are going up in an unprecedented level, as is the production of CO2 by the burning of biomass and fossil fuels.

There maybe variances in where and how much temperatures change due to oceans storing heat and acting as an intermediate variable.

For over two decades we have a clear causal chain, which we can discuss, test and debunk.

Yet, there has been no major publication that has provided a better explanation, and in fact evidence keeps on piling up confirming the hypotheses.

If you are not a scientist and you are denying human induced global warming, you are most likely to be a conspiracy believer or paid by fossil fuel companies. And if you are neither of those, it is time to wake-up.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Dieselpower

[PB666]

I saw something similar not long about the Little Ice Age, just a few hundred years ago, that sounds similar. Had nothing to do with man, apparently the gulf stream shifted and suddenly Europe was in a small ice age. What I found interesting is the few years prior to this event was a period of rapid warming, similar to today. Then suddenly, Wham, the northern hemisphere turned cold.

While I don't deny the climate changes, this just supports my belief man has little to do with it.

The climate has never, ever been "stable". It's constantly changing, and will constantly change. And I refuse to listen to junk science about "Stopping Climate Change". Can't be done. Unless you can cap a raging volcano, which can change the worlds climate in a matter of days, you can't prevent the climate from changing when and how it wants.

There is at least a large consensus of climate scientist that coal burning terminated the little ice age and that the little ice age would have transited into the next stadial.

[Just Jim]

Human induced Climate Change is real and happening right now.

I did not say I denied man-made climate change. I said man has little to do with it.

Perhaps I need to be more specific. Man has had an impact, sure. But one large volcano erupting can pump thousands of times more toxic crap in the atmosphere in a couple days than man can in a couple centuries.

Man is infinitesimal compared to nature itself.

If a volcano erupts, or a cat-5 hurricane forms, or an earthquake causes a massive tsunami, all of which will drastically effect the environment and climate, how did man cause it, and how will he stop it?

If the gulf stream shifts, how did man cause it, and how is man going to stop it?

No, I am NOT in the pocket of big-oil, or whatever you want to call it. And even if I was, how is it any different than handing over a bunch of cash to a politician or whoever that claims to be able to "Stop the climate from changing", (if you'll just re-elect me)????

Does anyone realize how rich y'all made some of these folk???

[ZetaX]

But one large volcano erupting can pump thousands of times more toxic crap in the atmosphere in a couple days than man can in a couple centuries.

This is factually so very wrong. The yearly amount of fossil fuels spent by humanity is in the magnitude of 10km³. hence you would say that a large volcano spits out something like a million km³ of bad stuff; that's a 100km cube. Really?...

[Just Jim]

This is factually so very wrong. The yearly amount of fossil fuels spent by humanity is in the magnitude of 10km³. hence you would say that a large volcano spits out something like a million km³ of bad stuff; that's a 100km cube. Really?...

Krakatoa erption:

In the year following the eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).^[10] Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.^[10] The record rainfall that hit Southern California during the “water year†from July 1883 to June 1884 – Los Angeles received 38.18 inches (969.8 mm) and San Diego 25.97 inches (659.6 mm)^[11] – has been attributed to the Krakatoa eruption.^[12] There was no El Niño during that period as is normal when heavy rain occurs in Southern California,^[13] but many scientists doubt this proposed causal relationship.^[14]

The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) gas high into the stratosphere, which was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfuric acid (H₂SO₄) concentration in high-level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation

Tsunamis were clearly responsible for most of the fatalities at Krakatau. However, ~4,500 deaths (over 10% of the total) have been attributed to falling tephra and hot pyroclastic flows. The amount of tephra generated is thought to be about 20 cubic kilometers, or twenty times that of the destructive Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980. Near Sumatra, the Sunda Straits were clogged with so much debris that it looked like solid ground. Relief ships were unable to reach coastal communities like Telok Betong for weeks. Over the ensuing months, storms and high-tides would disperse thick banks of floating pumice beyond the Straits, into the Java Sea and Indian Ocean. Ships thousands of kilometers from Krakatau would report huge fields of this floating debris for months after the eruption. One such accumulation floated 8,170 km, until it reached Durban, South Aftica in September, 1884.

About 2000 of the corpses in southern Sumatra had severe burns, indicating that they had been scorched to death, peresumably from pyroclastic flows. Although the behavior of pyroclastic flows and surges over water is poorly contrained by direct observations, the evidence suggests that they can travel great distances over open water. One compeling feature of the Krakatau eruption is that the pyroclastic flows appear to have travelled an incredible 40 km across the Sunda Straits, where they remained hot enough to cause the burn-related fatalities on Sumatra. These same flows, however, were also recorded by several ships located at greater distances. On August 27, the Louden (see above) was located ~65 km north-northeast of Krakatau when it was struck by severe winds and tephra, and the W.H. Besse was located at ~80 km east-northeast of Krakatau when it was hit by hurricane-force winds, heavy tephra, and the strong smell of sulfur. At these greater distances, the pyroclastic flows were at lower temperatures so that the ships and crew survived.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Just Jim

[ZetaX]

Krakatoa erption:

Nowhere there is mentioned something about there being 1 000 000 km³ of volcanic ashes and such being erupted. Actually, Krakatoa is probably closer to 10km³.

Yes, it had a dramatic effect on the climate, yet still it only threw only about as much stuff into the atmosphere as humanity does per year. And last but not least, the fact that it has an effect does in no way prove me wrong in saying that your numbers above are so very wrong.

Instead of insisting to be right, despite your basic assumption being utterly disproven, you should apologize for such a wrong claim, and only then try to explain how you still come to your conclusion; or abandon said conclusion.

[Findthepin1]

I mostly agree with Just Jim.

[ZetaX]

I mostly agree with Just Jim.

With what? That volcanoes just happen to spit 100km sized cubes of matter into the world, which is about 100 000 times as much as in the largest eruption in recent history (at least since the 19th century)? I hope not.

Anyway, this is not a contest of agreement, but simply a matter of science. And the science says that volcanoes short of Yellowstone are not on the same order of magnitude than humanity in regard to climate.

[Just Jim]

Ynowhere there is mentioned something about there being 1 000 000 km³ of volcanic ashes and such being erupted. Actually, Krakatoa is probably closer to 10km³.

Yes, it had a dramatic effect on the climate, yet still it only threw only about as much stuff into the atmosphere as humanity does per year. And last but not least, the fact that it has an effect does in no way prove me wrong in saying that your number above are so very wrong.

Instead of insisting to be right, despite your basic assumption being utterly disproven, you should apologize for such a wrong claim, and only then try to explain how you still come to your conclusion; or abandon said conclusion.

Apologize???

No.... I am not going to argue any more, and I am definitely NOT going to apologize!

Apologize for not supporting a scientific theory? There are no absolutes in science, and asking for me to apologize for not supporting your absolute proves to me you do not truly understand the scientific process. What do you propose next? Have me burned at the stake for not believing the earth is flat?

Because only a few hundred years ago people KNEW it was flat, and at the center of the universe, and it was heresy to say or believe otherwise.

Respectfully, asking me to apologize for not believing what you believe sounds just as dangerous.

That's not how science and scientists work. Scientists propose theories, which most of the time other scientists disagree on, and it's no different in this case.

What you want is absolute compliance to your belief, which is something I will not bow down to.

I am going to go play KSP and respectfully agree to disagree.

[ZetaX]

No, apologize for coming up with numbers that are off by a factor of 100 000 (I guess you just made them up). Nobody forces you to (not) support something. But there is a certain basic adherence to truth everyone should adhere to. One of those is to not invent "arguments", and when being utterly disproven with real world data or even simple common sense (again: 1 000 000 km³ per volcano was your claim!) to keep insisting be right without change.

You do not agree to disagree. You only attributed something to me I never said, and then went away after doing something that can only be called disgusting from a scientific perspective: inventing data.

Edit: oh, and by the way, earth was not thought to be flat by most since millenia. Get your facts straight there, too. Also, it were again those scientists that found out that earth is not the center of the universe. But it seems you only support the scientist's opinion if it is your own, because this entire climate change business is just like back then: the common person claims that the scientists are wrong.

Edited November 15, 2015 by ZetaX

[Elthy]

People saying climate change isnt caused by humans dont only disagree with 97% of the scientists (with lots of examples of those 3% being founded by oil companys etc.), but they are also a threat to human lifes and the enviroment, when they continue their way.

[ZetaX]

People saying climate change isnt caused by humans dont only disagree with 97% of the scientists (with lots of examples of those 3% being founded by oil companys etc.), but they are also a threat to human lifes and the enviroment, when they continue their way.

Yes, and that is why, unlike with evolution and other recent "discussions", this is not only a matter of being right. It is a moral choice, as climate change is probably causing many deaths (if someone has an actual scientific estimate, please post it). I can easily imagine that there are many more deaths by climate change than by ISIS (or insert your terrorist organisation of choice). But the public cares only about the bloody messy deaths from the latter, while not even realising the many unknowns dying in an unknown country from thirst, hunger, lack of shelter or natural (but climate change induced) disaster.

[WinkAllKerb'']

*in (again 'sigh')*

may i play flute a littl' too Jim ? i ll take that for a yes ...

let's time warp back in 2000 happy translation happy reading

http://www.iarc.fr/fr/publications/pdfs-online/wcr/2003/wcrf-1.pdf

source: http://www.iarc.com/

so back to now & now that we have some serious "old" data may be we can speak a little about cancer rising near the poles the last 5 decades, the industry the last 10 (or so) decades, the worker in thoose industry the last same decade and relocation matter, and the pal from market place that continue to act and totally don't care of nothing but there own bank(s) account(s) ?

I took Cancer just as one example amongst some others ... i suspect that if i devellopp furthermore this thread won't end well ...

also we can speak how it impact other thing than human ... seriously ... seriously ...

*out (bis)*

Edited November 15, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''

[Just Jim]

Yes, and that is why, unlike with evolution and other recent "discussions", this is not only a matter of being right. It is a moral choice, as climate change is probably causing many deaths (if someone has an actual scientific estimate, please post it). I can easily imagine that there are many more deaths by climate change than by ISIS (or insert your terrorist organisation of choice). But the public cares only about the bloody messy deaths from the latter, while not even realising the many unknowns dying in an unknown country from thirst, hunger, lack of shelter or natural (but climate change induced) disaster.

So your implying I'm worse than the folk that just shot up Paris???

Seriously??

[Elthy]

No, you are implying he meant that, to counter his argument without disproving it.

[ZetaX]

So your implying I'm worse than the folk that just shot up Paris???

Seriously??

You can continue missinterpreting what I said if you wish so. I only said that you are ignorant and that this ignorance of the masses (you alone are clearly not enough) could cause many deaths; many more than from terrorism. An obvious difference is that the terrorists are willingly and consciously killing others, while the science-deniers are only killing by neglicience, arrogance or ignorance, but not on purpose.

[PB666]

So your implying I'm worse than the folk that just shot up Paris???

Seriously??

US DOD considers climate change to be a hostile force multiplyer, as potent as any hostile force out ther.

[WinkAllKerb'']

*off topic*

you don't get it Jim, it's because chewbaka is better at playing benta than c3po ...¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and this is proven true by star war episode 4

http://thenightwriterblog.com/files/thenightwriterblog-Star_Wars_chess.jpg

*on topic*

Edited November 15, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''

[Just Jim]

You can continue missinterpreting what I said if you wish so. I only said that you are ignorant and that this ignorance of the masses (you alone are clearly not enough) could cause many deaths; many more than from terrorism. An obvious difference is that the terrorists are willingly and consciously killing others, while the science-deniers are only killing by neglicience, arrogance or ignorance, but not on purpose.

OK, I give up, it is clear you are set in your belief.

Time for this ignorant, arrogant, negligent, old man to shut-up.

Have a great day.

[ZetaX]

*sigh*

Really?...

I am set in a belief for which I used words such as "could", "might" and such? I am not set in any belief of that kind. I am a seeker of truth and will point out flawful arguments on any side (look up my post history if you don't believe me).

Actually, I am assigning probabilities to this kind of things, and the math says that the probability of climate change being real is far too high to be ignored. But how goes the saying: "what if we changed to a better world for nothing?"

[Elthy]

Its an interessting question, does extreme pollution justify military actions? E.g. when one country poisons a river leading into another country with unfiltered chemical waste, and in the other country people are dying from the poisoned water, would that justify a use of military force, e.g. against a powerplant to shut those factorys down? What does international law say?

[WinkAllKerb'']

Its an interessting question, does extreme pollution justify ...

killing in real time, killing tons people with delay time in 250 years due to today action ... basically laws are stucks with that it seem feel free to remove the "t" ... did you mean by anyway that military action could outpass law elthy ? ... nah ... no way ...