Catastrophic Global Cooling

[Greg Locock]

". You´re free to ignore if you will, but I can´t ignore weather is becoming more extreme year by year at a worrying rate"

...and causing fewer and fewer deaths. Now, fair enough the weather could be getting more extreme and the death rate due to weather related stuff falls because we are so goddam clever, or maybe the weather statistics aren't reliable. The IPCC certainly thinks that assigning any trends in weather to climate change is a low confidence position.

[DChemTech]

". You´re free to ignore if you will, but I can´t ignore weather is becoming more extreme year by year at a worrying rate"

...and causing fewer and fewer deaths. Now, fair enough the weather could be getting more extreme and the death rate due to weather related stuff falls because we are so goddam clever, or maybe the weather statistics aren't reliable. The IPCC certainly thinks that assigning any trends in weather to climate change is a low confidence position.

For draught/extreme rainfall I generally see medium/high confidence positions in the 2018 special report on 1.5 degC warming; which source do you use? Would be Interested in reading it.

Anyway, it will be very difficult to pin any individual weather event to warming, just like it's difficult to conclusively pin an individual cancer incidence to smoking or so. But climate change should make a statistical difference.

[Andres125sx]

". You´re free to ignore if you will, but I can´t ignore weather is becoming more extreme year by year at a worrying rate"

...and causing fewer and fewer deaths. Now, fair enough the weather could be getting more extreme and the death rate due to weather related stuff falls because we are so goddam clever, or maybe the weather statistics aren't reliable. The IPCC certainly thinks that assigning any trends in weather to climate change is a low confidence position.

Where did you get the idea that death rate due to weather related stuff is a good indicator about weather changes? Death rates due to weather is NOT a weather statistic, far from that. Death rates will depend on many factors wich are not related to weather at all. For example, a flooding in the night will cause a lot more deaths than a flooding in daylight. Will that mean the weather is changing more drastically? Obviously not.

[Zynerji]

I read that a single volcanic eruption emits more tons of CO2 than the entire human civilization from all times, combined.

Maybe work on preventing volcanoes should be focused on, as we have several out-gassing 24/7, and have had several during my lifetime.

The human contribution seems paltry.

Where did you read that?

When you read something that contradict scientific comunity you think that source is reliable and they know better than scientists?

Or maybe you think volcanoes only erupt since industrial revolution?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 400kyr.png

I collect info from lots of sources. I probably read 500+ pages a day from about 2 dozen news letters that I've followed for about 20 years.

I just consume data, I can care less what narrative it paints. I'm also a critical thinker, so very data driven. And I've seen the raw (not modified/ filtered) data that had very different graphs than has been presented here by others.

The real problem is a trusted data source for the public, because all of them seem to be biased.

[Big Tea]

It is only very recently we have any idea of the numbers. Before a TV crew was able to fly anywhere in the world a 'catastrophe' could be anything between tens of people and hundreds of thousands of people, some would go unreported others complete exaggerations passed on by a person who told someone they were there.

I am always doubting of 'largest/hottest/coldest/wettest on record as the record is now nothing like it was a short time ago.


Edit, some may find this FAQ of NASA interesting,
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/

[nzjrs]

I read that a single volcanic eruption emits more tons of CO2 than the entire human civilization from all times, combined.

Maybe work on preventing volcanoes should be focused on, as we have several out-gassing 24/7, and have had several during my lifetime.

The human contribution seems paltry.

Where did you read that?

When you read something that contradict scientific comunity you think that source is reliable and they know better than scientists?

Or maybe you think volcanoes only erupt since industrial revolution?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 400kyr.png

I collect info from lots of sources. I probably read 500+ pages a day from about 2 dozen news letters that I've followed for about 20 years.

I just consume data, I can care less what narrative it paints. I'm also a critical thinker, so very data driven. And I've seen the raw (not modified/ filtered) data that had very different graphs than has been presented here by others.

The real problem is a trusted data source for the public, because all of them seem to be biased.

Personal observation; I fought this climate battle for more than 10 years, and retired from active service years ago. I did and do as you do. The thing I noticed was that every coherent research finding from 15 years ago has stood the test of time. The volcano emissions thing was a bigger point people argued about in the past, but it was never a good argument, and nothing seems to changed in the intervening time. For someone so well read, it's a weak point to bring up.

Anyway, I'm out of the game now, but I do observe the mechanisms of disagreement with interest.

[strad]

Not one of the U.Ns models/projections has proven out as accurate.
I thought we had this AGW discussion. Why start yet another argument?

[DChemTech]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wJoMp-k_H ... e=youtu.be

Except that already the models from the 80ies made decent predictions, but yeah, we had these discussions before.

[Zynerji]

Where did you read that?

When you read something that contradict scientific comunity you think that source is reliable and they know better than scientists?

Or maybe you think volcanoes only erupt since industrial revolution?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 400kyr.png

I collect info from lots of sources. I probably read 500+ pages a day from about 2 dozen news letters that I've followed for about 20 years.

I just consume data, I can care less what narrative it paints. I'm also a critical thinker, so very data driven. And I've seen the raw (not modified/ filtered) data that had very different graphs than has been presented here by others.

The real problem is a trusted data source for the public, because all of them seem to be biased.

Personal observation; I fought this climate battle for more than 10 years, and retired from active service years ago. I did and do as you do. The thing I noticed was that every coherent research finding from 15 years ago has stood the test of time. The volcano emissions thing was a bigger point people argued about in the past, but it was never a good argument, and nothing seems to changed in the intervening time. For someone so well read, it's a weak point to bring up.

Anyway, I'm out of the game now, but I do observe the mechanisms of disagreement with interest.

It's still pertinent, because there is no question that it emits. My concern is the trust (by myself and others) in any data source enough to make a conclusion when they have all been shown to have inherent bias.

[strad]

the ones from the 80s had us in an ice age by now and more recent ones had you under water by now.
Neither one came true.
The problem is that the U.N guys won't even allow anyone to enter the conversation unless that commit to the idea of AGW.
They only accept "the science is settled".... Which is a very unscientific approach.

[Greg Locock]

If increasing extreme weather has no increasing effect on death rates then it is merely bothersome as opposed to significant.

[DChemTech]

the ones from the 80s had us in an ice age by now and more recent ones had you under water by now.
Neither one came true.
The problem is that the U.N guys won't even allow anyone to enter the conversation unless that commit to the idea of AGW.
They only accept "the science is settled".... Which is a very unscientific approach.

Those are not IPCC predictions. The cooling part was a scientific hypothesis pursued by a minor part of the scientific community which was tested and found wrong. The "underwater by now" part was a rhetorical statement by a single scientist what might happen if the co2 concentration doubled (and presumably without mitigation). Not only is that not an IPCC prediction, the conditions to assess the truth of this statement haven't even been met yet.

The graphs shown in the video I linked to do show IPCC (and other) predictions. They all capture the trend right and are all within 25% margin, which is good accuracy considering the complexity of the problem and relative simplicity of early models. Contemporary models have a margin closer to 10% even.

[Andres125sx]

Not one of the U.Ns models/projections has proven out as accurate.
I thought we had this AGW discussion. Why start yet another argument?

True, they were too conservative and arctic ice is melting at a much higher rate than predicted, but some will use this data as an evidence of CC denial

[Andres125sx]

If increasing extreme weather has no increasing effect on death rates then it is merely bothersome as opposed to significant.

Thousands people in Spain STRONGLY disagree with you

Under the water of this picture, there were hothouses whose crops have been ruined at 100% and whose farmer hard work for years is also ruined. Do you think this is merely bothersome because none died? At small scale this is ruining hundreds farmers, if this continue scaling up then lack of crops might be a bit more problematic not just for them, but for everyone



Extreme weather biggest threat is NOT that it can kill people Greg, we use millions hectares all around the world to produce food. What do you think will happen if extreme weather become normal and every year some storm ruin a good percentage of that season crops?

[strad]

Antarctic is growing on one side and shrinking on the other. Guess why it's shrinking on the one side...Cause it has an active volcano under the ice.