JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

But it's changed from nearly the coldest it's ever been, to nearly the hottest it's ever been in 150 years, not the 100,000 years it took in the past. As I said, that is the ENTIRE POINT. That's the proof it's cause by humans; that's the reason it's a problem.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

LOL There you go again, it doesn't matter if it's hotter now than it has in the past 150 years lol, that's just stupid and doesn't prove ANYTHING. You can believe and subscribe to whatever you want, I go by the whole picture not just cherry picking time frame likes you do. I will go with the evidence of a longer period of time which is more accurate than the cherry picked "evidence" you swallowed whole without even thinking for yourself. I used to believe in this man caused global warming BS many years ago, but than I decided to think for myself and not fall into that "consensus" BS any longer.

The Aardvark Is Ready

I'm kind of an agnostic on this issue. Haven't been persuaded one way or the other. Trying to keep an open mind. But you just made two falsehoods in your post. There is no way that it was nearly the coldest it's ever been 150 years ago and there's no way it's now nearly the hottest it's ever been. That's simply not true. Now if you want to say it's the hottest it's ever been over this extremely small time frame in which we've been taking measurements, that's a different story. That's just too small a sample size to prove a theory of global warming.
And there's no way to prove what the earth's temperature was 1,000, 10,000, 10,000,000 years ago. We can infer it from studying tree rings, ice cores and such, but it's impossible to narrow it down to a measure like single degrees. JMHO

Haenzel Loc: South Holland, The Netherlands

If facts are inconsistent with your thoughts you can always hit the "I don't trust them" buzzer.

Very convenient!

This only works with a non-functional awareness system though...
Wish I was born stupid...

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

Your last article cited leans heavily on the biased musings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (iPCC) who throw around untruths like “every major scientific organization agrees…”. This organization is primarily sponsored by the UN and benefits politically its members. Humans obviously have some effect on the condition of this planet but to what extent and is it fair placing extraordinary costs on United States citizens while China, India and all third world nations are going to burn whatever it takes to produce energy. (Maybe you should focus on plastic, in all of our water and recently even measured in the Sierra snow pack)

Here is an opinion written by Jason S. Johnston:

Since 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has produced regular assessments of the state of climate science and also provided reports on particular aspects of climate science when requested by the United Nations, its primary sponsoring entity. The IPCC has long advertised itself as an unbiased and objective reporter on the state of cli- mate science, and even otherwise independent-minded people often base arguments about the consequences of climate change on IPCC numbers. By explaining the origins, structure, process, and output of the IPCC, this essay shows that such reliance on the IPCC is badly misplaced. The IPCC is not and has never been an objective science assessment organization.
It was created by and has always been controlled by the governments of countries that perceive political benefits from international regulatory ac- tion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The IPCC is a scientific advocacy organization. It presents science that supports costly regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while suppressing or ignoring entirely scientific work that shows that the costs of such action is likely far higher and the benefits far lower than advertised.
As this study shows, while the IPCC advertises its reports as pro- duced by a process involving peer review by thousands of outside review- ers, not only are many “outside” review comments actually submitted by authors or contributors to IPCC reports, but the IPCC has no mechanism to ensure that outside review comments have any impact. Authors of IPCC reports are overseen only by review editors who are themselves chosen by and responsible not to scientists but to IPCC government officials. In any event, IPCC authors have complete discretion to disregard review editor comments—and any external review comments.
Predictably, this process has generated assessment reports that repeatedly ignore published scientific work that contradicts or qualifies the methodology and conclusions drawn by those reports. For example, in its most recent 2021 report on the the physical science of climate change, the IPCC says with “high confidence” that surface temperatures over
the last 50 years have increased at the fastest rate in the last 2000 years. What the IPCC report completely fails to say is that because instrumental surface temperature measurements only became generally available in the
fraserinstitute.org / i

ii / The Hand of Government in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
fraserinstitute.org
late nineteenth century, “measurements” prior to that time are not meas- urements but reconstructions from temperature proxies such as tree ring growth records. Different temperature reconstructions vary enormously, and according to several such reconstructions, temperatures today are not higher than temperatures reached during the Medieval Warm Period about 1000 years ago. Even worse, the 2021 IPCC report fails entirely to note that recent surface temperature increases are much larger than trends in the troposphere measured by satellites, a divergence that many scientists take as indicating that surface temperature trends do not reliably measure the influence of rising atmospheric greenhouse gases, but rather have been caused by the vast and rapid urbanization and land conversion that oc- curred throughout the world in the latter half of the twentieth century.
IPCC reports are highly selective, typically ignoring or dismissing scientific work that questions the methodology or contradicts the con- clusions drawn by such reports. Summaries of IPCC reports, which are widely disseminated to the media and general public, are written line by line not by scientists, but by the government officials who comprise the IPCC panel, and such summaries must receive unanimous approval from those officials before release. These summaries often make claims about climate science that are completely unsupported by the full reports they ostensibly summarize and often even contradict material included in the summaries themselves.
For example, in the Summary for Policymakers of its 2021 report on the physical science of climate change, the IPCC stated with confidence that “human induced climate change” has caused increases since 1950 in the frequency of both heavy precipitation events and severe drought. But the figures and data in the summary itself do not support these headline claims. The data and figures show that in the vast majority of regions in the world, there has been no increase in the frequency of either type of severe weather event. Likewise, the figures and data actually report that
in few if any regions of the world (to be precise, 2 out of 47) is there any evidence of a human contribution. Thus the headline statements in the summary are not even supported by the summary, let alone the full report ostensibly being summarized.
International climate policy should be based on a full and fair assess- ment of what is known and not known regarding the causes and conse- quences of global climate change. The IPCC has never produced such an assessment, and its structure and processes ensure that it never will. The IPCC in fact misleads more than it informs, and its continuing existence is harmful to sound policy design.

The Aardvark Is Ready

Well, I was gonna respond with " well, you got your wish, you were", but I'm above that and won't stoop to your level.

Haenzel Loc: South Holland, The Netherlands

I shouldn't have said that...it's distracting from the real issue.

And it's not my style. Apologies...

The Aardvark Is Ready

No problem. Apology accepted. We all get carried away once in awhile. And I'll admit, my original comment about NASA was a little baiting.

Haenzel Loc: South Holland, The Netherlands

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

I am willing to concede you are not a “climate change denier” in the sense you admit there has been climate change in geologic history.
However, by your own admission, you (”. . . oppose or deny the way (that I) believe it has changed.”

I really do not think you comprehend what I “believe”.

And I must admit my considerations of the rate-of-change(s) (in both directions) has changed after considering current available evidence. (*)

Are you willing to concede there is evidence of recent warming at a rapid rate, and that this warming MAY be, at least partially, of human origin?

Evidence of previous climate change (both hotter and colder) is undeniable.

Current scientific consensus is that climate change has occurred, and that it is currently changing.

Most importantly: that the current RATE OF CHANGE is occurring faster.(*)


Perhaps I did not make myself clear on the climate subject:

A. There is no doubt whatsoever the climate has changed historically.

1. There is ample evidence climatic conditions have been much colder. Evidence of past glacial periods is abundant and inarguable. The geologic and topographical evidence is visible world-wide.

2. There is evidence conditions have been much warmer. Vegetal remains under the current Greenland ice sheet is evidence of that fact.


B. There is abundant evidence of past RAPID climate change. IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.

1. COOLING events — Volcanic eruptions have been tied to climate changes in Europe in ~536, and similar aftereffects of various volcanic eruptions (Karakatoa, Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland in recent history), where cooling was measured the same year. Or the extreme climate change after the asteroid impact at (present day) Chicxulub crater ca 66 Ma.
Also, see “Volcanic Winter”: https://www.britannica.com/science/volcanic-winter — where it is postulated the COOLING occurred in a short time.

2. WARMING events — There is evidence of rapid warming: Studies of ice cores (Greenland, Antartica) have revealed warming of several degrees in three to five seasons, or as little as one season! (*)

Up until the late 1990’s to the 2000’s, the consensus was that rapid warming cycles could not take place — in fact could never have taken place !

That has all changed:
An article detailing the evidence for rapid climate change and the history of changing ideas about the rapidity of climate alterations — from the geologically slow “uniformitarianism” concept; to the short-time alterations between near-opposite conditions explainable by ‘chaotic systems’ and ‘tipping points’ to change between extremes, is: https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm

From the article:
”A lesson about how science proceeds can be learned from this history. Asked about the discovery of abrupt climate change, many climate experts today would put their finger on one moment: the day they read the 1993 report of the analysis of Greenland ice cores.
Before that, nobody confidently believed that the climate could change massively within a decade or two; after the report, nobody felt sure that it could not. So wasn't the preceding half-century of research a waste of effort? If only scientists had enough foresight, couldn't we have waited until we were able to get good ice cores, and settle the matter once and for all with a single unimpeachable study?

The actual history shows that even the best scientific data are never that definitive. People can see only what they find believable.
Over the decades, many scientists who looked at tree rings, varves, ice layers, and so forth had held evidence of rapid climate shifts before their eyes. They easily dismissed it.
There were plausible reasons to believe that global cataclysm was a fantasy of crackpots and Bible fundamentalists.

Records of the past were mostly too fuzzy to show rapid changes, and where such a change did plainly appear, scientists readily attributed it (usually correctly) to something other than climate. Sometimes the scientists' assumptions were actually built into their procedures. When pollen specialists routinely analyzed their clay cores in 10-centimeter slices, they could not possibly see changes that took place within a centimeter's worth of layers.(78) If the conventional beliefs had been the same in 1993 as in 1953 — namely, that significant climate change always takes many thousands of years — scientists would have passed over the decade-scale fluctuations in ice cores as meaningless noise.

First scientists had to convince themselves, by shuttling back and forth between historical data and studies of possible mechanisms, that it made sense to propose shifts as "rapid" as a thousand years. Only then could they come around to seeing that shifts as "rapid" as a hundred years could be plausible. And only after that could they credit changes within a decade or so, and later still, possibly within a couple of years.
Without this gradual shift of understanding, the Greenland cores would never have been drilled.
The funds required for these heroic projects came to hand only after scientists reported that climate could change in damaging ways on a timescale meaningful to governments. In an area as difficult as climate science, where all is complex and befogged, it is hard to see what one is not prepared to look for.” (Emphasis added)


(*) Rapid climate change — https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm

btbg

One of the interesting things about rapid warming is where the measurements are being taken. Several years ago the Oregon climatologist, who worked at Oregon State University, started measuring temperatures in farmland rather than in cities like where most measurements are taken. What he found is that the temperature had actually cooled in the farmland and the rise in temperatures in the metropolitan areas was at least in part as a result of more concrete and asphalt and fewer trees, rather than an actual rise in temperature across the region.

As a result of printing his findings the state of Oregon fired him and hired a climatologist that parroted the party line.

As an interesting side note Michael Crichton wrote the book State of Fear about climate change. When he started writing the book he took the premise that global warming was indeed occurring. By the time he finished his research he had changed his mind. Everyone should read the book and look at the charts and graphs in the appendix.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

I was familiar with the disparity of temperature readings between urban and rural environments. Heck, we can observe a similar differential between our home weather temperatures (in town) and the local airport, at a lower elevation.

Crichton’s State of Fear is indeed an interesting one. The appendices present a lot of interesting information.

You might investigate: https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm for a synopsis of some recent data as well as a history of the alteration of thought regarding how quickly climate change may actually occur.

It appears the present climate is itself a chaotically-unstable state, and that changes may “flip” conditions one way to another.

Are we at such a “tipping point”? I do not think anyone knows for sure. Some say yea, some say nay.

btbg

I can't argue with anything you are saying here. My concern is that we are going to tank the economies of much of the western world in the name of protecting the climate, while allowing China to continue to increase their pollution while helping them economically at our expense.

Tipping point or no tipping point the actions that are in the U.N. climate recommendations will do much to aid China at the expense of the U.S., while doing nothing to protect the planet.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

AGAIN (!) it comes down to political will.
The balance of the planet could become fervently “green”, yet if polluting countries like China, America, India and others do not change, overall conditions will not change at all.
At the present, China is the single most polluting country.

I (likewise) am not trying to claim ANYONE has the answers as to what (if anything) will occur in regards to climate conditions. Some people postulate another “mass extinction”. (e.g. The Sixth Extinction various authors:
The Sixth Extinction: Patterns of Life and... by Roger Lewin and Richard E. Leakey
The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History... by Elizabeth Kolbert
Dead Serious: Wild Hope Amid the Sixth Extinction... by Eli Knapp

I do not know if there is sufficient evidence to support this allegation, as, for example, extinction-rates in the past may have been approximately the same as now — but due do a lack of communication—and world-wide reportage in the past—we do not know.


I am optimistic in that I *hope* the momentum(?) of the planet may have sufficient hysteresis to overcome changes.

If, however, the climate does indeed switch between two ‘chaotic endpoint-conditions’, there may be some point at which a rapid change may occur. And there may be little mankind can do to prevent the switch.

Geologic history indicates numerous climatic alterations or switches between ‘glacial’ and ‘hot-house’ conditions.
~~~~~~~~~

Levels of pollution in various categories:

Polluted Air(US = #99/180): https://www.iqair.com/us/world-most-polluted-countries

11 categories (US = #43/180): https://epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2022/component/epi
………> Various categories. Each with a separate rating.

Particulate Matter (PM) (top 10 worst): https://healthyhumanlife.com/blogs/news/top-polluting-countries
(PM2.5 is a pollutant in the air made of a mixture of small particles with a diameter smaller than 2.5 micrometers …causing chronic lung and respiratory problems like asthma and bronchitis as well as life-threatening heart attacks.)

Top ten countries in 2017 for PM2.5 air pollution, mean annual exposure (micrograms per cubic meter (mmg/m^3):
Nepal (100)
Niger (94) Qatar (94)
India (91)
Saudi Arabia (88)
Egypt (87)
Cameroon (73)
Nigeria (72)
Bahrain (71)
Chad (66)


[u]Most polluting countries — Total emissions per capita (metric tonnes) https://www.countryliving.com/uk/news/a37266476/most-polluting-countries-un-report/
The top 10 most polluting countries according to the IPCC:
Qatar — 37
Kuwait — 23
Saudi Arabia — 19
Canada — 17
United States — 16
Germany — 10
China — 8
Spain — 6
France — 5
Thailand — 4


CO2 Emissions - Total — https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/co2-emissions-by-country
Top 10 Countries with the Highest CO₂ Emissions in the World (Unit= million tons (MT) CO₂ *), 2020.
China - 11,680
United States - 4,535
India - 2,412
Russia - 1,674
Japan - 1,062
Iran - 690
Germany - 637
South Korea - 621
Saudi Arabia - 589
Indonesia - 568
* Rounded to nearest MT

Pollution Per Capita CO2
Top 10 Countries with the Highest CO₂ Emissions Per Capita (Unit: million tons (MT) CO₂)* - 2020:
Palau - 55
Qatar - 36
New Caledonia - 26
Trinidad & Tobago - 22
Bahrain - 22
Kuwait - 21
United Arab Emirates - 21
Brunei - 18
Saudi Arabia - 18
Oman - 17
* Rounded to nearest MT

jcboy3

Yes. There is no such thing as climate. It's a hoax.

Next week: no such thing as anything.