Polar vortex the Sky is falling

[EXETER]

La Niña usually means less rain and warmer winters for us, from more varied Pacific winds, which may be the case this year.

In addition, the polar winds seem to be missing us, but are hitting the eastern states hard.

But those Santa Ana winds going against the flow have hit SoCal hard.

It does seem to be the case that the average global temperature has risen a couple degrees Fahrenheit in the last couple hundred years.

That may not seem like much, but I think any change to the average global temperature over a 200 year span is very significant.

I expect a stable earth climate would never see any change in the average global temperature, as observed through seasons over 200 years.

Based on ice core data, the average temperature of the Earth was stable over the last 24,000 years or so, up until the beginning of the industrial revolution  (usually taken to be 1850). There were occasional fluctuations due to things like volcanic eruptions, and whatnot, but they were 100 times slower compared to today.  Today, we are a bit more than 1 degree C warmer than the preindustrial era, and almost all of that has occurred since 1975.  The rate of change today is about 0.2 degrees C per decade, it's all in the upward direction, and it tracks the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere very closely. I don't think the rate of change has ever been this fast due to strictly natural causes.  The possible exception might be when the asteroid hit the Earth and formed the Chicxulub Crater near the Yucatan Peninsula.  That one killed the dinosaurs overnight.

[guyfriday]

Based on ice core data, the average temperature of the Earth was stable over the last 24,000 years or so, up until the beginning of the industrial revolution  (usually taken to be 1850). There were occasional fluctuations due to things like volcanic eruptions, and whatnot, but they were 100 times slower compared to today.  Today, we are a bit more than 1 degree C warmer than the preindustrial era, and almost all of that has occurred since 1975.  The rate of change today is about 0.2 degrees C per decade, it's all in the upward direction, and it tracks the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere very closely. I don't think the rate of change has ever been this fast due to strictly natural causes.  The possible exception might be when the asteroid hit the Earth and formed the Chicxulub Crater near the Yucatan Peninsula.  That one killed the dinosaurs overnight.

I talked about some of the reasons why we are having these weird and wild temperatures in this thread about the Climate Scam (Link is to page two as that is where I go mostly into the topic of weather and the coming Ice Age)
Climate Scam

you might want to rethink a lot of the data you used to draw your conclusions.

[putnam6]

La Niña usually means less rain and warmer winters for us, from more varied Pacific winds, which may be the case this year.

In addition, the polar winds seem to be missing us, but are hitting the eastern states hard.

But those Santa Ana winds going against the flow have hit SoCal hard.

It does seem to be the case that the average global temperature has risen a couple degrees Fahrenheit in the last couple hundred years.

That may not seem like much, but I think any change to the average global temperature over a 200 year span is very significant.

I expect a stable earth climate would never see any change in the average global temperature, as observed through seasons over 200 years.

 
Im not arguing just discussing the topic, first of all, La Niña, El Niña patterns happen in varying degrees, it just means southern snows are less likely overall, but it doesn't rule out any singular weather events like earlier this week.

I'm open to any possibilities.

But I disagree with the "stability" of our weather patterns, the weather/climate is based on thousands and thousands of variables our human interaction is just one variable in the whole climate puzzle. Weather is ever-changing and dynamic and full of uncertainties, there is a reason weather forecasting is a little like sports gambling odds.

 

For example

What are the environmental and temperature impacts of volcanic eruptions in history specifically the last 200 years?

https://intlpollution.commons.gc.cuny.ed...pollution/
 

Volcanoes release up to 130 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year (USGS, 2010). It is averaged out that volcanism, per year, contributes anywhere between 65-319 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (EIA, 2011). One volcanic eruption has the opportunity to outgas as much carbon dioxide in one day than 250 years of anthropogenic activity (Primer, 2010). The United States Geological Survey stated that ” Our studies here at Kilauea show that the eruption discharges between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO[sub]2[/sub] into the atmosphere each day” (USGS, 2007). The eruptions of the supervolcano Toba in Sumatra 75,000 years ago released up to 250 ppm of carbon dioxide on five different outgassing events (Krulwich, 2012).

Im not saying we should continue our current industrialization path, I just question the hyperbolic claims, just like we were told the hole in the ozone was irreversible 

Just as Bill Maher stated it's estimated these recent California fires' carbon outputs have wiped out the years of our driving around the shitty little Toyota Prius.

I need to see more evidence that 100 years or so of human industrialization means that if we don't change in 7 years, the impacts are irreversible, and the end of the world

Which I believe were the claims of Congressperson Alexandra Ocasio Cortez

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/24/politics/...index.html
 

Ocasio-Cortez’s claimWith her 12-year timeline, it’s possible that Ocasio-Cortez is referencing a major global report from last October by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nation’s scientific authority on climate change.
The year 2030 came up prominently in that report, marking the first year that the planet is likely to warm by 1.5 degrees Celsius (the report provided a range of between 2030 and 2052). This temperature was set as an idealistic goal during the 2015 Paris Climate Accord. It is widely seen among climate scientists as a marker, beyond which long-term, irreversible change begins to occur, but does not signify the end of the world.

 
The report certainly does not say that the world will end in 12 years, but it does warn that if there has not been a major shift in human’s reliance on fossil fuels for energy, land, and industrial systems by that time, we may begin living in a world that is more hostile to our current way of life – with higher sea levels, hotter heat waves and more extreme disasters.
Says Shepherd, “When the extreme rhetoric dominates the headlines or social media space, the real science gets lost. Trust me, climate change is bad enough as it is, it doesn’t need to be inaccurately inflated…”

[MonkMode]

Based on ice core data, the average temperature of the Earth was stable over the last 24,000 years or so, up until the beginning of the industrial revolution  (usually taken to be 1850). There were occasional fluctuations due to things like volcanic eruptions, and whatnot, but they were 100 times slower compared to today.  Today, we are a bit more than 1 degree C warmer than the preindustrial era, and almost all of that has occurred since 1975.  The rate of change today is about 0.2 degrees C per decade, it's all in the upward direction, and it tracks the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere very closely. I don't think the rate of change has ever been this fast due to strictly natural causes.  The possible exception might be when the asteroid hit the Earth and formed the Chicxulub Crater near the Yucatan Peninsula.  That one killed the dinosaurs overnight.

I often look at the Younger Dryas graph for analysis of the last 20,000+ years. That is just analyzing layers of ice & snow, I’m not sure how effectively one can extrapolate average global fluctuation in temperature from that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

I’m not sure any measurements dating back farther than that is worthy of much consideration.

As far as what the graphs tell us, seems Greenland snow has been piling up at a very steady rate for the past 10,000 years. 20,000 to 10,000 years ago saw more volatility.

And snow seems to be piling on at a declining rate in Antarctica for the past 20,000 years.

I don’t think there are many good records of global temperature data further back than 200 years ago. But the apparent increase in temperature during this time, I think is attributable to increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[MonkMode]

 
Im not arguing just discussing the topic, first of all, La Niña, El Niña patterns happen in varying degrees, it just means southern snows are less likely overall, but it doesn't rule out any singular weather events like earlier this week.

I'm open to any possibilities.

But I disagree with the "stability" of our weather patterns, the weather/climate is based on thousands and thousands of variables our human interaction is just one variable in the whole climate puzzle. Weather is ever-changing and dynamic and full of uncertainties, there is a reason weather forecasting is a little like sports gambling odds.

 

For example

What are the environmental and temperature impacts of volcanic eruptions in history specifically the last 200 years?

https://intlpollution.commons.gc.cuny.ed...pollution/
 

Im not saying we should continue our current industrialization path, I just question the hyperbolic claims, just like we were told the hole in the ozone was irreversible 

Just as Bill Maher stated it's estimated these recent California fires' carbon outputs have wiped out the years of our driving around the shitty little Toyota Prius.

I need to see more evidence that 100 years or so of human industrialization means that if we don't change in 7 years, the impacts are irreversible, and the end of the world

Which I believe were the claims of Congressperson Alexandra Ocasio Cortez

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/24/politics/...index.html
 

Weather is an absolutely amazing force that I follow quite religiously. I didn’t mean to imply that severe weather is stable.

I was trying to say, if Earth is in stable dominion, and one could measure the average global temperature each year, there would be no significant change.

I have no idea how much cause for alarm there is in the slight change we have estimated in the past 200 years or so.

There hasn’t been any climate catastrophe over densely populated cities that I can observe in modern history.

However, that blast over the Tunguska coal mining operation, which destroyed so many trees, I point to as a near catastrophe in recent times. Luckily the trees came back stronger than ever.

[sahgwa]

I'm so over the hype it seems like every week this year the MSM have been hyping the weather to "Life threatening" levels.
I just saw next week another "Polar Vortex" is coming with historic cold. Now just how many times can we break historic records.

I grew up in the Midwest we walked to school in the freezing snow and just about blizzard snow fall. In today's world your flight gets canceled over an inch of snow. 

I'm over this nanny snowflake movement you might die it's snowing outside in case you live under ground with no windows to see for yourself.

It is all part of the 'soft' programming of society to (attempt to) make us weaker and more reliant on Big Government.  TPTB absolutely abhor free thinking independent humans.
It's always been that way but it's way more in your face these days.

I don't have kids but I hear at work all the time how school is cancelled or has a late start due to snow, and half the time there is NO snow ,it's based on faulty forecasting, and when there is, it's barely an inch, and I am in a Rocky Mountain state!

[putnam6]

Weather is an absolutely amazing force that I follow quite religiously. I didn’t mean to imply that severe weather is stable.

I was trying to say, if Earth is in stable dominion, and one could measure the average global temperature each year, there would be no significant change.

I have no idea how much cause for alarm there is in the slight change we have estimated in the past 200 years or so.

There hasn’t been any climate catastrophe over densely populated cities that I can observe in modern history.

However, that blast over the Tunguska coal mining operation, which destroyed so many trees, I point to as a near catastrophe in recent times. Luckily the trees came back stronger than ever.

Thanks for the clarification ...

The abundance of paving certainly doesn't help the temperature, but we could go on there are just many factors involved.

Im not sure if Tunguska would be classified as a climatic or weather event, though like volcanos it likely had a long-lasting effect on the weather

[MonkMode]

Thanks for the clarification ...

The abundance of paving certainly doesn't help the temperature, but we could go on there are just many factors involved.

Im not sure if Tunguska would be classified as a climatic or weather event, though like volcanos it likely had a long-lasting effect on the weather

Actually I think paving helps: the lime in concrete sucks CO2 out of the air. I think it is something like calcium hydroxide sucks in carbon dioxide and calcium carbonate is formed, a solid on the ground, no longer part of the atmosphere. But I’m not a chemist so don’t quote me on that exact chemical reaction.

However a coal seam fire would appear to suck less weight in O2 out of the air than the weight it adds in CO2.

The Tunguska blast is not sufficiently explained by any prestigious scientific publication. But I am quite convinced it was due to the serious climate risk of excessive coal burning, from the massive Tunguska coal mining operation, going on directly underneath the blast. That is no spurious correlation.

[argentus]

I'm so over the hype it seems like every week this year the MSM have been hyping the weather to "Life threatening" levels.
I just saw next week another "Polar Vortex" is coming with historic cold. Now just how many times can we break historic records.

I grew up in the Midwest we walked to school in the freezing snow and just about blizzard snow fall. In today's world your flight gets canceled over an inch of snow. 

I'm over this nanny snowflake movement you might die it's snowing outside in case you live under ground with no windows to see for yourself.

Yes.  Growing up in Ice-n-Snow-Idaho, we called this "winter".    I'm not trying to minimize the severe conditions that people experience, only the response and drama.    Unlike you, we didn't walk to school during a blizzard.   We stayed home.  Nobody had to make a radio announcement, although often they did.   Stay home.   Okeydokey.   After the storms, we were often snowed in.   Us kids would ride our horses through the "tundra" and imagine ourselves warriors of the snow, and ride to the local store and get stuff for our Moms.   Snow days were a real treat.   The rest of town was mostly closed down.   I mean, sure the snow plows would push Main Street and some others, but nothing really functioned.   We stayed home, and were glad for the wood most of the outlier homes had put away for such conditions.    My Mom canned and dehydrated a lot of vegetables and fruits, and we also had stuff stored away in the fruit cellar entombed in layers of straw or hay.   

 I believe that cities are unnatural, and I also believe that the human civilization of the future -- should we survive and not kill ourselves -- will disperse the cities and tend more toward locally agriculturally sustainable civilizations.    Where I grew up, a small town in Idaho, is much the same as it ever was.   They cater more toward the visitor/tourist than when I lived there, but the population is fairly small still.   Yes, they require goods from the big cities and their supplies, but don't you worry for a moment that if TSHTF, these small places couldn't still sustain themselves.   That is the way we should all live.   Simpler, with less wealth, and more mutual assurance.

[putnam6]

Actually I think paving helps: the lime in concrete sucks CO2 out of the air. I think it is something like calcium hydroxide sucks in carbon dioxide and calcium carbonate is formed, a solid on the ground, no longer part of the atmosphere. But I’m not a chemist so don’t quote me on that exact chemical reaction.

However a coal seam fire would appear to suck less weight in O2 out of the air than the weight it adds in CO2.

The Tunguska blast is not sufficiently explained by any prestigious scientific publication. But I am quite convinced it was due to the serious climate risk of excessive coal burning, from the massive Tunguska coal mining operation, going on directly underneath the blast. That is no spurious correlation.

On the paving of the world, I was commenting more on various issues...

more importantly, are you asserting the coal mining operation was the cause of the Tunguska blast?

Thought I had heard all the theories from mini black holes to antimatter, where can I read more about this interesting theory?

https://climate.mit.edu/posts/study-carb...are-needed

Almost 2.8 million lane-miles, or about 4.6 million lane-kilometers, of the United States are paved.
Roads and streets form the backbone of our built environment. They take us to work or school, take goods to their destinations, and much more.
However, a new study by MIT Concrete Sustainability Hub (CSHub) researchers shows that the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of all construction materials used in the U.S. pavement network are 11.9 to 13.3 megatons. This is equivalent to the emissions of a gasoline-powered passenger vehicle driving about 30 billion miles in a year.
As roads are built, repaved, and expanded, new approaches and thoughtful material choices are necessary to dampen their carbon footprint. 
The CSHub researchers found that, by 2050, mixtures for pavements can be made carbon-neutral if industry and governmental actors help to apply a range of solutions — like carbon capture — to reduce, avoid, and neutralize embodied impacts. (A neutralization solution is any compensation mechanism in the value chain of a product that permanently removes the global warming impact of the processes after avoiding and reducing the emissions.) Furthermore, nearly half of pavement-related greenhouse gas (GHG) savings can be achieved in the short term with a negative or nearly net-zero cost.