Catastrophic Global Cooling

[DChemTech]

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.

So, are you actually going to substantiate any of your claims regarding IPCC or do you just keep up your red-herring show?

[Greg Locock]

Here's what the IPCC says about floods
Low confidence (~20%) in global projections of changes in
flood magnitude and frequency because of insufficient
evidence.
Medium confidence (~50%) (based on physical reasoning)
that projected increases in heavy precipitation would
contribute to rain-generated local flooding in some
catchments or regions.
Very likely (>90%)earlier spring peak flows in snowmelt- and
glacier-fed rivers.

and here's what they say about precipitation to tie up with the second point

Likely (>66%) increase in frequency of heavy precipitation
events or increase in proportion of total rainfall from
heavy falls over many areas of the globe, in particular
in the high latitudes and tropical regions, and in
winter in the northern mid-latitudes

So, what's the long term change in the rain in Spain? Does it fall mainly on the plain?

Many flooding problems are caused by changes in land use. has there been any changes in land use or damming practices on that river system?

[Andres125sx]

No there wasn´t any significant change.

But even if it was, you can´t take a global report and apply it locally Greg, global and local are opposites, what is true globaly, could be false locally.

Anycase I see you´re obsessed to contradict my opinion looking for death rates, IPCC reports or whatever to not accept what I´m saying. I know it´s difficult to accept we´ve already modified weather so we´re not talking about a far future, but about present, but it is what it is.

Another example, in Spain there are farmers who are substituding traditional crops with different ones wich traditionally would have never succedd in Spain as they´re from hotter parts of the globe. Today they grow better in Spain than those they´ve been planting for decades.

These are facts from people who would LOVE if this is false, but their lifestyle and job has been modified by CC like it or not. Some people will keep blinding theirselves to reality, that´s human nature, we struggle to accept any mayor change. This has happened continuously in human history, no major change was accepted without massive opposition, that´s how we humans are, but changes happen anycase

[Andres125sx]

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.

Kidding about something you´ve only heard/read some biased and cropped report to deny CC doesn´t make you any favour Strad

Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

Quoted from here:
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/an ... rd-maximum


Animation about massive Arctic loss


This is serious, these are not predictions, but real changes wich are taking place for several years now

[strad]

Which part Andres? About the warm cave under the ice cap that are actually causing the melting?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... manhattan/
That and many other from NASA.
Or the volcanoes?

West Antarctica’s Pine Island Glacier (PIG) is the fastest-melting glacier in Antarctica, making it the single biggest contributor to global sea-level rise. The main driver of this rapid loss of ice is the thinning of the PIG from below by warming ocean waters due to climate change. However, a study, published June 22, 2018, in Nature Communications, discovered a volcanic heat source beneath the PIG that is another possible driver of the PIG’s melting.

https://earthsky.org/earth/volcano-unde ... st-melting
There are many articles if you would read something other than what you want to hear.
I think you're brainwashed but I don't blame you. That's their whole game plan.
When you are bombarded by one side and not allowed to hear the other it can only be expected.
I suggest they close this thread like they did the other.
Both sides are locked in and nothing you or I can say will alter the others view.
It will just lead to arguing.
Better we discuss F1 or how to get rid of the damn mole invading my yard.

[DChemTech]

Which part Andres? About the warm cave under the ice cap that are actually causing the melting?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... manhattan/
That and many other from NASA.
Or the volcanoes?

West Antarctica’s Pine Island Glacier (PIG) is the fastest-melting glacier in Antarctica, making it the single biggest contributor to global sea-level rise. The main driver of this rapid loss of ice is the thinning of the PIG from below by warming ocean waters due to climate change. However, a study, published June 22, 2018, in Nature Communications, discovered a volcanic heat source beneath the PIG that is another possible driver of the PIG’s melting.

https://earthsky.org/earth/volcano-unde ... st-melting
There are many articles if you would read something other than what you want to hear.
I think you're brainwashed but I don't blame you. That's their whole game plan.
When you are bombarded by one side and not allowed to hear the other it can only be expected.
I suggest they close this thread like they did the other.
Both sides are locked in and nothing you or I can say will alter the others view.
It will just lead to arguing.
Better we discuss F1 or how to get rid of the damn mole invading my yard.

And of course, when called out, just try and change the subject, and make ad-hominem accusations of others being brainwashed while they actually present evidence and proper arguments to support their points - which you then conveniently ignore because it debunks the position you've already dogmatically cemented yourself in. Really mature, really making your point stronger. And you know, it wouldn't be so bad if we were discussing F1 or moles or other hobbies - but in this discussion, there is actually something at stake.

[strad]

Laughable.. Pot callimg the kettle.
Which ad hominin that is that D?

[Greg Locock]

There's nothing at stake. Your opinion is just as meaningless as mine or strad's, in context. Andres is free to get his knickers in a twist about AGW, but he won't change anything. he doesn't use data, he moans and posts photos. perhaps in first world countries we have easy access to historical data, oh look, here's rainfall for my valley for the last 100 years.

[Zynerji]

In this argument, I'm not sure that I would trust any data that I havent collected myself.

Historical data has been altered. Current data is altered in real time.

If it was truly catastrophic, there would be zero need nor enormous money invested in altering these measurements.

But yet, I have read dozens of articles about proven alterations, so I'm very skeptical.

[DChemTech]

Laughable.. Pot callimg the kettle.
Which ad hominin that is that D?

Calling out ones behavior is not the same as an unsubstantiated attack on ones person Strad. Everything I said is directly based on the behavior you chose to exhibit in arguing within this topic.

[DChemTech]

There's nothing at stake. Your opinion is just as meaningless as mine or strad's, in context. Andres is free to get his knickers in a twist about AGW, but he won't change anything. he doesn't use data, he moans and posts photos. perhaps in first world countries we have easy access to historical data, oh look, here's rainfall for my valley for the last 100 years.

https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/6ecc/ ... gr1d6g.jpg

So what happened around 2000? Did it stay dry for 5 years in a row? That seems pretty problematic - you do realize climate change does not mean more rainfall everywhere, right? And that drought is also something to be worried about?

Now I'm not planning to regurgitate the entire collection of thousands of papers on climate change, or their collected conclusions in a lengthy IPCC report, right here. But I do hope you realize that one graph of rainfall in one valley somewhere on earth does not invalidate any conclusion on global climatic effects, right?

Of course, this discussion in this forum is not going to change the global effort towards combating climate change directly. But the collective effort of calling out misinformation, unsubstantiated cries of uncertainty, or outright lies is. And yes, there is stuff at stake in that. The most recent projections for the Netherlands are an 86 cm rise (Based on the IPCC report this week) in sea level in this century, and several meters over the centuries to come. That won't drown us all directly, but it does mean a lot of money needs to be invested in protective measures, and damages from storm floods are going to rise. If we're crossing the one to two meter line, we will need to sacrifice some inhabited areas back to sea.

Droughts that were extremely rare at the start of last century now occur every three years or so. Yields go down substantially, damages are in order of magnitude of a billion (which is ~10% of the agricultural revenue). Projections are that by the end of this century, such droughts are pretty much yearly (dutch weather institute models). The temperature is going up, heatwaves are increasing in frequency, meaning expenses on airconditioning are going up - and productivity goes down because at the hottest points, working conditions in many sectors become unbearable. These are all costs we're making as a society within our borders. The increase in climate refugees is not yet accounted.

It's not going to kill us all or end society - but climate change will impact our economy, it will impact us all financially. And in due time, those costs are going to be substantially higher than the investments we need to curtail climate change now.

[DChemTech]

In this argument, I'm not sure that I would trust any data that I havent collected myself.

Historical data has been altered. Current data is altered in real time.

If it was truly catastrophic, there would be zero need nor enormous money invested in altering these measurements.

But yet, I have read dozens of articles about proven alterations, so I'm very skeptical.

Yes, there's a lot of articles calling out cover-ups of temperature corrections.
Thing is, these corrections are not covered up. They are very much public. It's because thermometers become more accurate over time, it's because the proximity of buildings changes temperature dynamics, and so on. These things need to be taken into account and homogenized - otherwise a thermometer near a forest cannot be compared with one in a city. Or worse, the same thermometer may change from a rural to urban environment as cities expand - so is that thermometer showing signs of climate change, or a change in it's surroundings? Adjustments need to be made to correct for such effects, otherwise it's impossible to comment on global temperature dynamics. And yes, as our insights on the matter develop, sometimes re-calibrating historical data is necessary. In which case the methods and reasons are published - hardly a cover-up, right?

Sketpicalscience published elaborate articles describing these practices: https://skepticalscience.com/truth-abou ... -data.html, https://skepticalscience.com/understand ... -data.html. For US local measurements the corrections means the warming is a bit increased, but for NOAA global data, this re-calibration has in fact reduced warming. If it was intentional doctoring to strengthen the case for climate change, that would be pretty ineffective doctoring.

So maybe this is not some 'money draining campaign that was unnecessary if the effect was truly catastrophic' ; maybe it's just an honest effort to measure the true impact on global temperatures as accurate as possible, based on our ever-progressing scientific understanding and technological possibilities. Evaluating the underlying reasoning rather than only the frequently regurgitated blogs making accusations on doctoring certainly suggests so.

(note: catastrophic in geographical time can mean many decades - so if you define catastrophic as a societal collapse before 2050, it's not catastrophic indeed.)

[henry]

There's nothing at stake. Your opinion is just as meaningless as mine or strad's, in context. Andres is free to get his knickers in a twist about AGW, but he won't change anything. he doesn't use data, he moans and posts photos. perhaps in first world countries we have easy access to historical data, oh look, here's rainfall for my valley for the last 100 years.

https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/6ecc/ ... gr1d6g.jpg

I would have thought that flood events are only very loosely tied to annual rainfall. They’re typically caused by very high short term precipitation rates, not always at the location of flooding. The data you have posted does not contain that information.

These high precipitation rate events are often exacerbated, as you have pointed out, by human activities, farming practises, deforestation, river manipulation, housing siting etc. etc. And therein lies much of the problem, IMO. The people benefiting from these things are often not the people who suffer the consequences, or at least not directly. They can view them as bothersome.

[Andres125sx]

Which part Andres? About the warm cave under the ice cap that are actually causing the melting?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... manhattan/
That and many other from NASA.
Or the volcanoes?

West Antarctica’s Pine Island Glacier (PIG) is the fastest-melting glacier in Antarctica, making it the single biggest contributor to global sea-level rise. The main driver of this rapid loss of ice is the thinning of the PIG from below by warming ocean waters due to climate change. However, a study, published June 22, 2018, in Nature Communications, discovered a volcanic heat source beneath the PIG that is another possible driver of the PIG’s melting.

https://earthsky.org/earth/volcano-unde ... st-melting
There are many articles if you would read something other than what you want to hear.
I think you're brainwashed but I don't blame you. That's their whole game plan.
When you are bombarded by one side and not allowed to hear the other it can only be expected.
I suggest they close this thread like they did the other.
Both sides are locked in and nothing you or I can say will alter the others view.
It will just lead to arguing.
Better we discuss F1 or how to get rid of the damn mole invading my yard.

What part of "the antarctic is increasing, but at a rate wich is not a third of the arctic ice loss" is what you didn´t understand Strad?

Agree about the rest tough, some people only hear/read what they´re programmed to read, your reply is a perfect example ignoring it´s the Arctic what is melting at a worrying rate and convicing yourself a volcano under the antarctic explain the melting, even if it´s exactly the opposite side of the planet

[Andres125sx]

There's nothing at stake. Your opinion is just as meaningless as mine or strad's, in context. Andres is free to get his knickers in a twist about AGW, but he won't change anything. he doesn't use data, he moans and posts photos. perhaps in first world countries we have easy access to historical data, oh look, here's rainfall for my valley for the last 100 years.

https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/6ecc/ ... gr1d6g.jpg

Not using data is better than using useless data or misinterpreting data.

Death rates are NOT a weather statistic Greg. And total rainfall means nothing about weather becoming extreme wich is the problem with CC.

100l / sq meter might be good for everyone if they fall during a week, or a complete disaster for everyone if they fall in half an hour, and that graph says nothing about this crucial parameter

Pictures proving how extreme weather is becoming on a country where it had never been extreme but the opposite, very calm and stable, are a better evidence than a graph of total rainfalls wich say nothing about how that rain felt. At least IMHO