The Climate thread

[Parliament 14133]

46 minutes ago, Mapache said:

U.S. report: Greenhouse gases surge to new highs worldwide in 2017

Planet-warming greenhouse gases surged to new highs as abnormally hot temperatures swept the globe and ice melted at record levels in the Arctic last year due to climate change, a major U.S. report said Wednesday. 

The annual State of the Climate Report, compiled by more than 450 scientists from over 60 countries, describes worsening climate conditions worldwide in 2017, the same year that U.S. President Donald Trump pulled out of the landmark Paris climate deal. 

The United States is the world's second leading polluter after China, but has rolled back environmental safeguards under Trump, who has declared climate change a "Chinese hoax" and exited the Paris deal signed by more than 190 nations as a path toward curbing harmful emissions.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-report-greenhouse-gases-surge-to-new-highs-worldwide-in-2017/ar-BBLn5sI

Not our fault.

 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/us-carbon-emissions-drop-now-12-below-2005-levels/

[Turkleton 145]

The planet would be perfect if it wasn't for all these damn humans on it

[TKthunder2 4980]

I also used to believe that climate change was a bunch of bull$#@!; that there was some sort of conspiracy to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights to private property via the scare tactics and fear-mongering of global warming/climate change.  

Then I went back to school, took a course in Chem 101, Physics 101, 102, and had instructors throughout the sciences and maths who contributed to the body of climate change research (including a a Calc IV/Diff EQ instructor with a masters in meteorology who flew into Rita ... of all people).

To anyone who is on the fence on climate change or perhaps with an affinity for the truth, I urge them to set aside the politics and supernatural religious woo-woo long enough to learn the science themselves. Don't listen to the politicians, pundits, or liberal arts column writers/bloggers who don't have the expertise in science to render an expert opinion.

For me, I learned that the science itself is settled ... as settled as anything ever is in science, and that the waters have been muddied by $$$, politics, and useful idiots who are ignorant of science. 97% of the peer-reviewed papers of scientists qualified to have a non-ignorant opinion (via education) agree that climate change is very real and is indeed anthropogenic.

The politics of what to do about it is a whole other matter. But the rampant denialism ... that $#@! has got to go. I urge that conservatives cease the anti-science crusade, accept reality, and to start working on solutions that aren't steeped in collectivism and aren't a rejection of individual rights to ownership and liberty.

[Biff Tannen 45492]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

I urge that conservatives cease the anti-science crusade, accept reality, and to start working on solutions that aren't steeped in collectivism and aren't a rejection of individual rights to ownership and liberty.

[Buzzrock 14870]

Y’all hurry up and figure this out, it’s hot af and I have to take my kid to football practice.

[Dahobbs 17444]

15 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

Y’all hurry up and figure this out, it’s hot af and I have to take my kid to football practice.

It's figured it out. Make your politicians actually do any of the number of plans that I have been identified as opposed to their current selection of doing the opposite. 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20343]

Scorching, record hot summer on four continents.  We are not ready:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/The-Message-of-a-Scorching-2018-We-re-Not-13151045.php?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=HoustonChronicle_MorningReport

[sheeeit 129]

2 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Scorching, record hot summer on four continents.  We are not ready:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/The-Message-of-a-Scorching-2018-We-re-Not-13151045.php?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=HoustonChronicle_MorningReport

This paper is a perfect example of why some people question the hyperbole around climate change.  I do not question the actual science as I am sure that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere have some influence on warming.  I think the actual influence is way, way overstated and I think the negative ramifications of an incrementally warming planet are way, way overstated.  It is doubtful people will ever agree on those points but, ultimately, time will tell.

However, this paper is just full of shit under even basic scrutiny and serves as an example of why people tend to dismiss the entire issue.  Here is a direct section of the paper where they lay out the supposed dire effects of climate change:

Quote

The disruptions to everyday life have been far-reaching and devastating. In California, firefighters are racing to control what has become the largest fire in state history. Harvests of staple grains like wheat and corn are expected to dip this year, in some cases sharply, in countries as different as Sweden and El Salvador. In Europe, nuclear power plants have had to shut down because the river water that cools the reactors was too warm. Heat waves on four continents have brought electricity grids crashing.

And dozens of heat-related deaths in Japan this summer offered a foretaste of what researchers warn could be big increases in mortality from extreme heat. 

One by one:

California fires- No evidence at all that these are the product of climate change.  Ca has had fires forever and these current fires and their scope were predicted years ago and Ca was warned of what would happen if thinning and brush removal were ignored.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/07/30/californias-devastating-fires-are-man-caused-but-not-in-the-way-they-tell-us/#314f7ff70af9

Wheat/Corn- Typical cherry picked data regarding Sweden.  First, just last year Sweden set an all time record for grain production. 

http://www.world-grain.com/Departments/Country-Focus/Country-Focus-Home/Focus-on-Sweden.aspx?cck=1

The issue with wheat in Sweden this summer is tied to actually too much rain last fall which prevented the winter wheat from fully developing.  Hardly an act of warming.  Further, globally wheat and corn are at historic highs.  Droughts happen ever year somewhere in the world.  The Oklahoma dust bowl  and droughts was n the 1930s.

Rivers too hot for Nuclear-   This one is just too good.  It is completely misleading and just plain wrong.  First, the temp of the rivers used to cool the reactors was never changed or too high as the article states.  There was a fear that the water RELEASED from the reactors would make rivers too hot and that it might have an affect on fish life.  It was really just 1 old reactor in France (not anywhere else in Europe as the article suggested) and it was shut down for a whopping 1 afternoon.  Not mentioned in the article was that the same thing happened in 2003 and that the temps in France are still below the temps recorded in the 1940s there. Totally bogus claim.

Electric grids crashing in 4 continents- I searched every combination I could think of from 2018 and can not find 1 single case of an electric grid crashing due to excessive heat anywhere.

Japan heat Deaths- Obviously any deaths are tragic, but this is about climate change effects.  138 people died of heat related issues in japan this year.  Comparatively, over 900 died due to heat waves in 2007.  Further, the current average high temps in japan are still not as high as those recorded in 1868.  I am certain recordings are much more accurate now than in 1868 but, somehow, the temp in japan got just as hot in 1868 as it is now and that was way before the industrial revolution.  

So, to recap, every single thing that the article claimed as alarming effects of climate change was just bullshit.  It is the problem with the issue.  The facts do no stand on their own so people resort to lying and exaggerating and cherry picking to try and prove their point.  For the sane folks, that is just a sign that their underlying premises are bad.

 

[Dahobbs 17444]

24 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

This paper is a perfect example of why some people question the hyperbole around climate change.  I do not question the actual science as I am sure that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere have some influence on warming.  I think the actual influence is way, way overstated and I think the negative ramifications of an incrementally warming planet are way, way overstated.  It is doubtful people will ever agree on those points but, ultimately, time will tell.

Science agrees on those points. Pretty much unanimously. CO2 doesn't have "some" influence on warning. It is the the primary driver of climate change today. Again, even fucking Exxon admitted as much in court (see previous articles I posted). And the negative ramifications are overstated only if you are not a human being. The earth will be fine; humans, not so much. 

Edited August 14, 2018 by Dahobbs

[David Dennison 18655]

Whistle past that graveyard.

Also, keep confusing global warming with climate change.

Edited August 14, 2018 by David Dennison

[sheeeit 129]

28 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Science agrees on those points. Pretty much unanimously. CO2 doesn't have "some" influence on warning. It is the the primary driver of climate change today. Again, even fucking Exxon admitted as much in court (see previous articles I posted). And the negative ramifications are overstated only if you are not a human being. The earth will be fine; humans, not so much. 

Like I said, we will just disagree at this point on the effects.

But it is certainly telling that you decided not to comment on the main point of my post which was that the article posted used completely bogus and/or made up stories/facts to bolster its point.  You seem fine with that.

[Dahobbs 17444]

35 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Like I said, we will just disagree at this point on the effects.

But it is certainly telling that you decided not to comment on the main point of my post which was that the article posted used completely bogus and/or made up stories/facts to bolster its point.  You seem fine with that.

You said you have no problem with the science, but doubted the extent of CO2's effects on warming. Those are contradictory statements. The fact remains that the science is clear that: global warming is happening, it is being driven by increased CO2, and that increase is caused by humans. There is no real scientific debate on those points. 

I didn't read the article posted and wasn't interested in your response to it. But, since asked, here is some material on rivers and nuclear reactors that support the original article:

https://www.montelnews.com/en/story/eon-cuts-nuclear-output-amid-hot-spell/917602

Quote

 

Eon has started to cut production at three nuclear power units in Germany due to warm temperatures and low levels in rivers, a company spokeswoman told Montel on Friday. It reduced output at its 1,410 MW Brokdorf unit – which is situated at the Elbe river – by 40 MW, and at its 1,360 MW Grohnde reactor by 50-60 MW. The German utility also lowered output at its 1,410 MW Isar 2 unit by 100 MW ahead of maintenance planned from Saturday until 27 July. “Because of the dry conditions we currently have minor restrictions in all three units,” said a spokeswoman for Eon’s nuclear unit PreussenElektra, without giving further details. Bankside nuclear reactors recycle river water for cooling but output must be reduced if the water is deemed too warm. The production curbs come as temperatures at the Elbe river currently range around 20C, while the Weser river is around 19.2C, according to government data. The website for power plant outages at Germany’s other large power producer ENBW currently shows a 439 MW reduction at the 1,320 MW Neckarwestheim 2 nuclear plant from 21 July for two days. However, the firm has not immediately replied to Montel regarding the reason for the output reduction.

In neighbouring France, utility EDF plans to stop its 910 MW Bugey 3 reactor in the south of France for 24 hours from 00:00 CET on Sunday due to “environmental issues” with hot temperatures forecast.

And here is an older NPR article: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13818689

And an even older article from the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/jul/30/energy.weather

Quote

The European heatwave has forced nuclear power plants to reduce or halt production. The weather, blamed for deaths and disruption across much of the continent, has caused dramatic rises in the temperature of rivers used to cool the reactors, raising fears of mass deaths for fish and other wildlife.

Spain shut down the Santa Maria de Garona reactor on the River Ebro, one of the country's eight nuclear plants which generate a fifth of its national electricity. Reactors in Germany are reported to have cut output, and others in Germany and France have been given special permits to dump hot water into rivers to avoid power failures. France, where nuclear power provides more than three quarters of electricity, has also imported power to prevent shortages.

So, based on these, it does seem that warmer river water, both before and after cooling of the plants, is the issue. The water starts warmer. And it gets even warmer after use by the plants, ultimately causing adverse environmental consequences. The plants are shut down to avoid those consequences. 

Edited August 14, 2018 by Dahobbs

[Jiggy-Z 3432]

20 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Like I said, we will just disagree at this point on the effects.

But it is certainly telling that you decided not to comment on the main point of my post which was that the article posted used completely bogus and/or made up stories/facts to bolster its point.  You seem fine with that.

The article points out things going on and states that this is what climate change /global warming would look like and thus far we seem unprepared.

Yes, they take some leaps and hope the reader infers certain things not stated.

They got one point totally wrong about the reactors(I'm pretty sure a grid of some kind crashes almost every day-so no), but had they gotten the order correct-i.e "rivers to warm to accept warmed reactor water for fear of fish kill" then it would have been on point with the thesis of the article, which is this is what this would look like-even tough the actual example was limited to a case of one.

I get your point.  This reads like a do gooder housewife wrote it, which is why I get my news from better sources and you should too.

[sheeeit 129]

29 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You said you have no problem with the science, but doubted the extent of CO2's effects on warming. Those are contradictory statements. The fact remains that the science is clear that: global warming is happening, it is being driven by increased CO2, and that increase is caused by humans. There is no real scientific debate on those points. 

I didn't read the article posted and wasn't interested in your response to it. But, since asked, here is some material on rivers and nuclear reactors that support the original article:

https://www.montelnews.com/en/story/eon-cuts-nuclear-output-amid-hot-spell/917602

And here is an older NPR article: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13818689

And an even older article from the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/jul/30/energy.weather

So, based on these, it does seem that warmer river water, both before and after cooling of the plants, is the issue. The water starts warmer. And it gets even warmer after use by the plants, ultimately causing adverse environmental consequences. The plants are shut down to avoid those consequences. 

A couple of things and I appreciate the civilized discourse.  

On the rivers, there is not any evidence anywhere that the rivers in France are warmer on average than they have been in the past as a result of global warming.  Of course rivers and lakes get warmer when it is hot outside.  But sporadic heat waves (which have occurred forever) that cause temporary problems are not a sign of whole scale climate change problems.  As mentioned in the article, the current heat wave that led to the issue in France was NOT as hot as it was in 1868.  Heat waves happen all the time.  Attributing this latest shut down to macro global warming is completely disingenuous. The issue was that due to increased temps the reactors were working harder/longer/ and required MORE river water for longer durations to cool so they backed off.  And literally for less than a day.

The issue with crops has been brought up repeatedly and it is, again, very disingenuous.  Global grain production is at all time highs.  That some areas suffer  from drought each year is completely normal and has been happening since forever.  It is very disingenuous to blame lower grain production in Sweden in 2018 on global warming when Sweden set records for grain production last year.  

And on the Chevron lawyer, you may be misstating what they actually agreed with.  The difference is slight but meaningful.  Everything I have read has said that the oilies have agreed that humans were contributing to warming.  Not that humans were the main drivers.  I find this in the IPCC report also and the 97% claim.  I could very well be wrong about this but I have tried to find definitive facts and it is surprisingly difficult. 

What I think I have found and what I generally agree with is that the vast majority of scientists believe that the earth is warming and that humans are contributing to the warming through CO2 and other green house gas emissions.  What I could not find was that a vast majority of the scientists agreed that humans were the primary driver of the warming.  Virtually all agreed that humans contribute but not nearly as many believe that humans are primarily responsible.  As mentioned it is hard to get true numbers from surveys but I did find this:

Quote

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made 

  Of course that is a small sampling and is 6 years old.  I just couldn't find anything else that was actually definitive.  

And ultimately, the thing that matters is what happens if we keep warming.  What is the economic and social impact.  There is zero consensus on that front.  You can find as many scientists that will say warming on the lower end of projections will have a net positive impact on the world as those that do not.  And even the most ardent believers in climate doom must agree that, to date, the ability of us to predict the actual temp increases has been horrible.

I think the issue is important and I support continued funding and research of the issue.  Like all things, we will get better at making predictions on the future as we go along.  I support continued awareness objectives to make people aware of the issue and let them do what they can to help reduce emissions.  I just do not support radical, expensive measures to combat the issue yet.  And I am not sure I will ever support any measure that does not have a global buy in from everyone, especially china and india .  China seems to be at least paying lip service to curbing emissions which is good.

[Dahobbs 17444]

23 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

A couple of things and I appreciate the civilized discourse.  

On the rivers, there is not any evidence anywhere that the rivers in France are warmer on average than they have been in the past as a result of global warming.  Of course rivers and lakes get warmer when it is hot outside.  But sporadic heat waves (which have occurred forever) that cause temporary problems are not a sign of whole scale climate change problems.  As mentioned in the article, the current heat wave that led to the issue in France was NOT as hot as it was in 1868.  Heat waves happen all the time.  Attributing this latest shut down to macro global warming is completely disingenuous. The issue was that due to increased temps the reactors were working harder/longer/ and required MORE river water for longer durations to cool so they backed off.  And literally for less than a day.

As already covered (and agreed I think), the earth is warming. Warming climate means more "heat waves" (which are just hotter days). All the articles attribute the warming river water (temporary as it may be) to the heat waves. While it may be impossible to definitely say any particular heat wave was caused by global warming, it is possible to say with scientific certainty that a warming climate will result in more frequent heat waves as compared to historical average temperatures. As to whether rivers are warming, here is some pertinent evidence (related to arctic rivers, not European) from those unscientific folks at NASA:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/1046/warm-rivers-play-role-in-arctic-sea-ice-melt/ 

 The heat from warm river waters draining into the Arctic Ocean is contributing to the melting of Arctic sea ice each summer, a new NASA study finds.

A research team led by Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., used satellite data to measure the surface temperature of the waters discharging from a Canadian river into the icy Beaufort Sea during the summer of 2012. They observed a sudden influx of warm river waters into the sea that rapidly warmed the surface layers of the ocean, enhancing the melting of sea ice. A paper describing the study is now published online in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

* * * 

The team said the impacts of these warm river waters are increasing due to three factors. First, the overall volume of water discharged from rivers into the Arctic Ocean has increased. Second, rivers are getting warmer as their watersheds (drainage basins) heat up. And third, Arctic sea ice cover is becoming thinner and more fragmented, making it more vulnerable to rapid melt. In addition, as river heating contributes to earlier and greater loss of the Arctic’s reflective sea ice cover in summer, the amount of solar heat absorbed into the ocean increases, causing even more sea ice to melt.

[Dahobbs 17444]

51 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

And on the Chevron lawyer, you may be misstating what they actually agreed with.  The difference is slight but meaningful.  Everything I have read has said that the oilies have agreed that humans were contributing to warming.  Not that humans were the main drivers.  I find this in the IPCC report also and the 97% claim.  I could very well be wrong about this but I have tried to find definitive facts and it is surprisingly difficult. 

Chevron accepted the general findings of the IPCC's last two reports. I'll pull the transcript to get the specific language, but until then, here is the language from the most recent report:

"Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond (see Figure SPM.10). Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2. {12.5}

* * * 

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems. {1}

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen. {1.1}

* * *

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {1.2, 1.3.1]"

Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system.

The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750 (see Figure SPM.5). {3.2, Box 3.1, 8.3, 8.5}

The total anthropogenic RF for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 [1.13 to 3.33] W m−2 (see Figure SPM.5), and it has increased more rapidly since 1970 than during prior decades. The total anthropogenic RF best estimate for 2011 is 43% higher than that reported in AR4 for the year 2005. This is caused by a combination of continued growth in most greenhouse gas concentrations and improved estimates of RF by aerosols indicating a weaker net cooling effect (negative RF). {8.5} 

The RF from emissions of well-mixed greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, and Halocarbons) for 2011 relative to 1750 is 3.00 [2.22 to 3.78] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.5). The RF from changes in concentrations in these gases is 2.83 [2.26 to 3.40] W m–2. {8.5} • Emissions of CO2 alone have caused an RF of 1.68 [1.33 to 2.03] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.5). Including emissions of other carbon-containing gases, which also contributed to the increase in CO2 concentrations, the RF of CO2 is 1.82 [1.46 to 2.18] W m–2. {8.3, 8.5} 

Emissions of CH4 alone have caused an RF of 0.97 [0.74 to 1.20] W m−2 (see Figure SPM.5). This is much larger than the concentration-based estimate of 0.48 [0.38 to 0.58] W m−2 (unchanged from AR4). This difference in estimates is caused by concentration changes in ozone and stratospheric water vapour due to CH4 emissions and other emissions indirectly affecting CH4. {8.3, 8.5}

Emissions of stratospheric ozone-depleting halocarbons have caused a net positive RF of 0.18 [0.01 to 0.35] W m−2 (see Figure SPM.5). Their own positive RF has outweighed the negative RF from the ozone depletion that they have induced. The positive RF from all halocarbons is similar to the value in AR4, with a reduced RF from CFCs but increases from many of their substitutes. {8.3, 8.5}

Emissions of short-lived gases contribute to the total anthropogenic RF. Emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) are virtually certain to have induced a positive RF, while emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) are likely to have induced a net negative RF (see Figure SPM.5). {8.3, 8.5}

The RF of the total aerosol effect in the atmosphere, which includes cloud adjustments due to aerosols, is –0.9 [–1.9 to −0.1] W m−2 (medium confidence), and results from a negative forcing from most aerosols and a positive contribution from black carbon absorption of solar radiation. There is high confidence that aerosols and their interactions with clouds have offset a substantial portion of global mean forcing from well-mixed greenhouse gases. They continue to contribute the largest uncertainty to the total RF estimate. {7.5, 8.3, 8.5} 

The forcing from stratospheric volcanic aerosols can have a large impact on the climate for some years after volcanic eruptions. Several small eruptions have caused an RF of –0.11 [–0.15 to –0.08] W m–2 for the years 2008 to 2011, which is approximately twice as strong as during the years 1999 to 2002. {8.4}

The RF due to changes in solar irradiance is estimated as 0.05 [0.00 to 0.10] W m−2 (see Figure SPM.5). Satellite observations of total solar irradiance changes from 1978 to 2011 indicate that the last solar minimum was lower than the previous two. This results in an RF of –0.04 [–0.08 to 0.00] W m–2 between the most recent minimum in 2008 and the 1986 minimum. {8.4} • The total natural RF from solar irradiance changes and stratospheric volcanic aerosols made only a small contribution to the net radiative forcing throughout the last century, except for brief periods after large volcanic eruptions. {8.5}"

Edited August 14, 2018 by Dahobbs

[Telegraph_it 3354]

Positive feedback loops are a bitch. 

[berlinerbaer 670]

So when do we start pumping sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere?

Keep the sunblock handy.

[Dahobbs 17444]

I didn't highlight the key conclusion well enough, so here it is again:

"Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {1.2, 1.3.1]"

[WhatTheBuck 28710]

And why wouldn't they be?

[DigglerontheHoof 21060]

Been nice knowing y’all.

[JBJ 3649]

 

15 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

As already covered (and agreed I think), the earth is warming. Warming climate means more "heat waves" (which are just hotter days).

Heat waves are a weather pattern.  This is akin to saying global warming causes more hurricanes. 

I can see why someone could think this. "More heat --> more heat waves" makes intuitive sense. But its not true. 

Maybe if there are local features that make an area prone to heat waves (like Moscow and NYC) they could get more, but more likely there's just a shift in location or timing (like being centered over Albany instead of NYC, hitting a week later than normal).

[Dahobbs 17444]

24 minutes ago, JBJ said:

 

Heat waves are a weather pattern.  This is akin to saying global warming causes more hurricanes. 

I can see why someone could think this. "More heat --> more heat waves" makes intuitive sense. But its not true. 

Maybe if there are local features that make an area prone to heat waves (like Moscow and NYC) they could get more, but more likely there's just a shift in location or timing (like being centered over Albany instead of NYC, hitting a week later than normal).

My logical is simpler. More heat --> warmer rivers. 

I agree that "heat waves" are a weather pattern. And I agree that the weather pattern won't necessarily increase as a result of global warming. But "heat waves" are simply a weather pattern that results in higher than average temperatures. Those higher than average temperatures warm rivers. Here, global warming is increasing the average. Thus, instead of having a "heat wave" of higher than average temperatures warming the rivers, you have the now higher "average" temperature warming the water. The ultimate result is the same -- hotter weather and warmer rivers. 

[JBJ 3649]

18 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

My logical is simpler. More heat --> warmer rivers. 

I agree that "heat waves" are a weather pattern. And I agree that the weather pattern won't necessarily increase as a result of global warming. But "heat waves" are simply a weather pattern that results in higher than average temperatures. Those higher than average temperatures warm rivers. Here, global warming is increasing the average. Thus, instead of having a "heat wave" of higher than average temperatures warming the rivers, you have the now higher "average" temperature warming the water. The ultimate result is the same -- hotter weather and warmer rivers. 

You ever jumped into a river in the middle of summer?   You are talking about affecting a tiny fraction of the water on the surface.  And ground water / melting point temperatures wouldn't change.  For rivers headed around mountains, hotter temperatures could mean larger flows and colder water temperatures.

Slower/shallower flows = warmer rivers

Was N. Europe in a drought this summer?  I'm guessing so if they had several heat waves.

[Dahobbs 17444]

27 minutes ago, JBJ said:

You ever jumped into a river in the middle of summer?   You are talking about affecting a tiny fraction of the water on the surface.  And ground water / melting point temperatures wouldn't change.  For rivers headed around mountains, hotter temperatures could mean larger flows and colder water temperatures.

Slower/shallower flows = warmer rivers

Was N. Europe in a drought this summer?  I'm guessing so if they had several heat waves.

So, your very scientific conclusion is that more energy in a system will result in lower temperatures? Good luck with that. Find some science to back it up. NASA reached the opposite conclusion on Arctic rivers (see my post above). 

Here is some more from the IPCC:

"It is very likely that the number of cold days and nights has decreased and the number of warm days and nights has increased on the global scale. It is likely that the frequency of heat waves has increased in large parts of Europe, Asia and Australia. It is very likely that human influence has contributed to the observed global scale changes in the frequency and intensity of daily temperature extremes since the mid-20th century. It is likely that human influence has more than doubled the probability of occurrence of heat waves in some locations. There is medium confidence that the observed warming has increased heat-related human mortality and decreased cold-related human mortality in some regions. {1.4}

* * *

Surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed emission scenarios. It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last longer, and that extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions. The ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and global mean sea level to rise. {2.2}

* * *

It is virtually certain that there will be more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes over most land areas on daily and seasonal timescales, as global mean surface temperature increases. It is very likely that heat waves will occur with a higher frequency and longer duration. Occasional cold winter extremes will continue to occur. {2.2.1}

* * *

The global ocean will continue to warm during the 21st century, with the strongest warming projected for the surface in tropical and Northern Hemisphere subtropical regions (Figure SPM.7a). {2.2.3, Figure 2.2}"

Here here is a study on the matter also reaching the opposite conclusion, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378012001331:

 Climate change will affect hydrologic and thermal regimes of rivers, having a direct impact on freshwater ecosystems and human water use. Here we assess the impact of climate change on global river flows and river water temperatures, and identify regions that might become more critical for freshwater ecosystems and water use sectors. We used a global physically based hydrological-water temperature modelling framework forced with an ensemble of bias-corrected general circulation model (GCM) output for both the SRES A2 and B1 emissions scenario. This resulted in global projections of daily river discharge and water temperature under future climate. Our results show an increase in the seasonality of river discharge (both increase in high flow and decrease in low flow) for about one-third of the global land surface area for 2071–2100 relative to 1971–2000.

Global mean and high (95th percentile) river water temperatures are projected to increase on average by 0.8–1.6 (1.0–2.2) °C for the SRES B1–A2 scenario for 2071–2100 relative to 1971–2000. The largest water temperature increases are projected for the United States, Europe, eastern China, and parts of southern Africa and Australia. In these regions, the sensitivities are exacerbated by projected decreases in low flows (resulting in a reduced thermal capacity). For strongly seasonal rivers with highest water temperatures during the low flow period, up to 26% of the increases in high (95th percentile) water temperature can be attributed indirectly to low flow changes, and the largest fraction is attributable directly to increased atmospheric energy input. A combination of large increases in river temperature and decreases in low flows are projected for the southeastern United States, Europe, eastern China, southern Africa and southern Australia. These regions could potentially be affected by increased deterioration of water quality and freshwater habitats, and reduced water available for human uses such as thermoelectric power and drinking water production.

[Jiggy-Z 3432]

Dahobbs cites loads of pier reviewed studies.

JBJ writes:

51 minutes ago, JBJ said:

You ever jumped into a river in the middle of summer?

[LongestHorn 759]

I've lived in Austin long enough to remember summers that it did not break 100 degrees.  I'm not a climate scientist, but just looking at the hottest days each year for the past 100 years suggests it is getting hotter.  

https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/TX/Austin/extreme-annual-austin-high-temperature.php

2011.  Never Forget.  

[JBJ 3649]

57 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

So, your very scientific conclusion is that more energy in a system will result in lower temperatures? Good luck with that. Find some science to back it up. NASA reached the opposite conclusion on Arctic rivers (see my post above). 

Yes.  If that increased energy is a larger volume of water flowing, then the temperature of that river will fall.  This doesn't have to be true for every application.  But it will be for 99.99% of European rivers in the summer.

43 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

Dahobbs cites loads of pier reviewed studies.

Sorry for trying to make the subject relatable instead of walls of texts that DaHobbs has no  chance of understanding himself much less explaining.  The NASA report he is pointing to is based on the same river mechanic that I'm saying is responsible for the reactor shutdown, so citing walls of texts doesn't really help his case.

But you probably took Chem 101 and learned all about it.

[Dahobbs 17444]

2 hours ago, JBJ said:

Yes.  If that increased energy is a larger volume of water flowing, then the temperature of that river will fall.  This doesn't have to be true for every application.  But it will be for 99.99% of European rivers in the summer.

Sorry for trying to make the subject relatable instead of walls of texts that DaHobbs has no  chance of understanding himself much less explaining.  The NASA report he is pointing to is based on the same river mechanic that I'm saying is responsible for the reactor shutdown, so citing walls of texts doesn't really help his case.

But you probably took Chem 101 and learned all about it.

Dude, those "walls of text" are the summary conclusions. If you have any study or science that supports your conclusions, than provide it. I'll be happy to review. So far the only thing I've seen is your unsupported, untested gut feelings. Further, I've been entirely cordial and don't appreciate the playground insults. I'm perfectly capable of understanding this material, and you're welcome to point out anything you believe I've misinterpreted. Of course, I'm not really doing much interpreting here, but rather just posting the conclusions.  

As to the actual underlying science: do I disagree with you that in certain conditions an increase in temperature could result in cooler river water? No. Do I disagree with you that in general "slower/shallower flows = warmer rivers", no, I don't. 

But, you cannot simply conclude that those two interactions means that an increase in global temperatures will result in an average net decrease in river temperature. Why? Well, as a start, warming average temperatures are going to affect the life cycle of the rivers by decreasing the period of time that ice/snow accumulates in the mountains. This decreases the amount of ice/snow that is available at the river's source. Additionally, that now more limited source is drained over a longer time period due to increase # of days over which the temperature is sufficient to cause a melt. Potentially, you'll end up with a smaller and smaller source of ice/snow for the river and ultimately a shallower, weaker, and warmer river. 

The ultimate issue is that we aren't talking about a temporary, short term increase in global temperature. A single event could logically act exactly as you predict, releasing more water and resulting in a cooler river, at least close to the source. But a long term shift in climate is a completely different proposition, as discussed above. Still, we will need more robust data to make firm conclusions either way. But, the available scientific evidence points in one direction at this point. 

Finally, since this all started with your opinion that we can't say whether global warmer would result in additional "heat waves," I again point to the current IPCC report, available http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1:

Quote

It is virtually certain that there will be more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes over most land areas on daily and seasonal timescales, as global mean surface temperature increases. It is very likely that heat waves will occur with a higher frequency and longer duration. Occasional cold winter extremes will continue to occur. {2.2.1}

By all means, post ANY scientific journal, article, or study that supports your opinions (whatever they are). 

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17444]

Some more studies:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/hyp.10181

Changes in water temperature can have important consequences for aquatic ecosystems, with some species being sensitive even to small shifts in temperature during some or all of their life cycle. While many studies report increasing regional and global air temperatures, evidence of changes in river water temperature has, thus far, been site specific and often from sites heavily influenced by human activities that themselves could lead to warming. Here we present a tiered assessment of changing river water temperature covering England and Wales with data from 2773 locations. We use novel statistical approaches to detect trends in irregularly sampled spot measurements taken between 1990 and 2006. During this 17-year period, on average, mean water temperature increased by 0.03 °C per year (±0.002 °C), and positive changes in water temperature were observed at 2385 (86%) sites. Examination of catchments where there has been limited human influence on hydrological response shows that changes in river flow have had little influence on these water temperature trends. In the absence of other systematic influences on water temperature, it is inferred that anthropogenically driven climate change is driving some of this trend in water temperature.

 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0326-z (this one seems pretty weak based on the data they had to use)

Quote

 

We assembled 18 temperature time-series from sites on regulated and unregulated streams in the northwest U.S. to describe historical trends from 1980–2009 and assess thermal consistency between these stream categories. Statistically significant temperature trends were detected across seven sites on unregulated streams during all seasons of the year, with a cooling trend apparent during the spring and warming trends during the summer, fall, and winter. The amount of warming more than compensated for spring cooling to cause a net temperature increase, and rates of warming were highest during the summer (raw trend = 0.17°C/decade; reconstructed trend = 0.22°C/decade). Air temperature was the dominant factor explaining long-term stream temperature trends (82–94% of trends) and inter-annual variability (48–86% of variability), except during the summer when discharge accounted for approximately half (52%) of the inter-annual variation in stream temperatures. 

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by Dahobbs

[Enchubben 5509]

3 hours ago, LongestHorn said:

I've lived in Austin long enough to remember summers that it did not break 100 degrees.  I'm not a climate scientist, but just looking at the hottest days each year for the past 100 years suggests it is getting hotter.  

https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/TX/Austin/extreme-annual-austin-high-temperature.php

2011.  Never Forget.  

We should totally use only the last 100 of the total 4.5 billion years to determine what the average temperature should be and define heat waves and global warming cycles. 

Also - 112 degrees must really suck. Electricity usage that day must have been ridiculous.

[JBJ 3649]

I'll be cordial.  I was meaning to be snarky to JiggyZ, not you.  Sorry it ended up thay way.

 

I'll explain rivers.  It'd be much easier if you were here and I were drawing on a white board, but here we go:

We've got a flow of water with warmer air at the surface, every foot that it travels it absorbs some amount of heat from the air.

    Unit of Heat = v

v v v v v v v v v v

O--------------------->

O--------------------->

 

If we double to amount of water flowing through this foot this does a combination of two things, depth increases and speed increases.

Let's look at each one in isolation:

Depth

v v v v v v v v v v

O--------------------->

 

 

O--------------------->

 

Same amount of heat and twice the water to heat = lower temperature.  (The amount of heat increases somewhat as a bank is less than vertical, so there's more water surface... but S/V is going to decrease in every scenario where water is capable of flowing.)

 

Flow velocity.  This might be somewhat less intuitive.  The water used to gather heat every foot, but it's speed has doubled so it'll gather that same amount of heat over twice the distance, or half the heat over the same distance as shown here:

v    v    v    v    v 

O--------------------->

O--------------------->

 

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

But, you cannot simply conclude that those two interactions means that an increase in global temperatures will result in an average net decrease in river temperature.

I didn't.

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Well, as a start, warming average temperatures are going to affect the life cycle of the rivers by decreasing the period of time that ice/snow accumulates in the mountains. This decreases the amount of ice/snow that is available at the river's source. Additionally, that now more limited source is drained over a longer time period due to increase # of days over which the temperature is sufficient to cause a melt. Potentially, you'll end up with a smaller and smaller source of ice/snow for the river and ultimately a shallower, weaker, and warmer river. 

No.  In the long term, precipitation is controlling the amount of water available.  You are either replacing your reserves or not - whether it's snow or groundwater is irrelevant.  Outside one-off melting events of course.

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

The ultimate issue is that we aren't talking about a temporary, short term increase in global temperature. A single event could logically act exactly as you predict, releasing more water and resulting in a cooler river, at least close to the source. But a long term shift in climate is a completely different proposition, as discussed above. Still, we will need more robust data to make firm conclusions either way. But, the available scientific evidence points in one direction at this point. 

Yeah.  We are actually talking about a one-time event in Northern Europe.  I asked if there was a drought or not because it explains both heat waves and river temperatures without the voodoo science of heat waves impacting river temperatures.

Edited August 15, 2018 by JBJ

[Dahobbs 17444]

1 hour ago, JBJ said:

I'll be cordial.  I was meaning to be snarky to JiggyZ, not you.  Sorry it ended up thay way.

 

I'll explain rivers.  It'd be much easier if you were here and I were drawing on a white board, but here we go:

We've got a flow of water with warmer air at the surface, every foot that it travels it absorbs some amount of heat from the air.

    Unit of Heat = v

v v v v v v v v v v

O--------------------->

O--------------------->

 

If we double to amount of water flowing through this foot this does a combination of two things, depth increases and speed increases.

Let's look at each one in isolation:

Depth

v v v v v v v v v v

O--------------------->

 

 

O--------------------->

 

Same amount of heat and twice the water to heat = lower temperature.  (The amount of heat increases somewhat as a bank is less than vertical, so there's more water surface... but S/V is going to decrease in every scenario where water is capable of flowing.)

 

Flow velocity.  This might be somewhat less intuitive.  The water used to gather heat every foot, but it's speed has doubled so it'll gather that same amount of heat over twice the distance, or half the heat over the same distance as shown here:

v    v    v    v    v 

O--------------------->

O--------------------->

 

All of these make sense and I believe I agreed with them previously. If that wasn't clear, I apologize.

But, limiting yourself to air temperature as the heat transfer mechanism seems incorrect as far as physics is concerned since a larger portion of the surface would contact the ground and air is poor conductor of heat. Even if an incomplete physical description, the data appears to indicate a general linear correlation between air temperature and water temperature between an air temperature of 0 and 20 degrees Celsius. It flattens on the periphery because other factors become more predominant (e.g., discharge rate). This is why your comment on voodoo science seems odd: we have ample evidence of a positive correlation and the basic physical interaction that causes air temperature to increase river temperature. That isn't voodoo science, it is simple physics.

The broader question of whether global warming itself would cause increased river temperatures is complicated by the very interactions you've previously identified. But, the science (including the articles I've posted), point to global warming causing temperature increases in river even after accounting for potential mediators like increased stream levels. This appears to be partly be the case because global warming is also predicted to cause droughts and heatwaves, particular during the low seasons when rivers are most sensitive to variances in air temperature. 

Again, feel free to post any scientific articles that conclude otherwise.   

[Dahobbs 17444]

2 hours ago, Enchubben said:

We should totally use only the last 100 of the total 4.5 billion years to determine what the average temperature should be and define heat waves and global warming cycles. 

Also - 112 degrees must really suck. Electricity usage that day must have been ridiculous.

We don't (there is an XKCD for everything!):

Ewww, that didn't work right. Here is the direct link:

https://xkcd.com/1732/

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17444]

The important point to notice is that not only are we approaching unprecedented average temperatures within the last 20,000 years, but also that the rate of change is dramatic, and simply not found in the geologic record outside of natural disasters (super volcanoes and large meteors). The trend line is simply terrifying. 

Edited August 15, 2018 by Dahobbs

[WhatTheBuck 28710]

Why is anyone blathering about rivers in a thread about climate?

[TKthunder2 4980]

On 8/15/2018 at 6:20 PM, Dahobbs said:

The important point to notice is that not only are we approaching unprecedented average temperatures within the last 20,000 years, but also that the rate of change is dramatic, and simply not found in the geologic record outside of natural disasters (super volcanoes and large meteors). The trend line is simply terrifying. 

The population growth of humans and domesticated animals is also unprecedented especially when you factor in the loss of vegetation over the centuries.  That seems like a far more likely cause of warming than how much CO2 our cars and air conditioning are putting out.  But even the most avid environmentalist knows that taking away people’s hamburgers and instituting populations controls (be it limiting children or restricting life extending healthcare to the elderly) are clear non starters in a capitalist society.

[Telegraph_it 3354]

On 8/15/2018 at 6:20 PM, Dahobbs said:

The important point to notice is that not only are we approaching unprecedented average temperatures within the last 20,000 years, but also that the rate of change is dramatic, and simply not found in the geologic record outside of natural disasters (super volcanoes and large meteors). The trend line is simply terrifying. 

What geologic record would provide the resolution to show this? 

[Pods 7527]

3 hours ago, Telegraph_it said:

What geologic record would provide the resolution to show this? 

There are lots of areas with very complete and thick geologic sections that provide very good timelines for millions of years at a stretch. The Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary is only one example. Tertiary Fort Union Formation overlays the Cretaceous Hell Creek/Lance Creek/Ojo Alamo, etc FM's. 

We are currently in a major mass extinction event, one of only 5-7 worldwide mass extinction events in history. The climate change related extinctions are only getting started. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Humans will probably also go extinct before it gets better. 

[52-80 19086]

the earth used to be a hellish fiery sphere, and it used to be a snowball.

 

you can donate half your income to al gore to offset your carbon footprint, and then a pinatubo or crackertower event happens and changes the climate prediction by like 100x; or a megavolcano event and you all fucking die anyway.

 

its much like watching ants shuffle around worrying about the futility of their antmound in a thunderstorm 

[Fudge Nuggets 19149]

On 8/4/2018 at 8:37 PM, TKthunder2 said:

Then I went back to school, took a course in Chem 101, Physics 101, 102,

Those courses don't teach you if climate change is real or not.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a believer that we're fucking up the planet but let's not think a couple of intro courses are going to provide some sort of grand enlightenment into a very complex topic.

[TKthunder2 4980]

5 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Those courses don't teach you if climate change is real or not.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a believer that we're fucking up the planet but let's not think a couple of intro courses are going to provide some sort of grand enlightenment into a very complex topic.

You missed the joke.

[Dahobbs 17444]

12 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

The population growth of humans and domesticated animals is also unprecedented especially when you factor in the loss of vegetation over the centuries.  That seems like a far more likely cause of warming than how much CO2 our cars and air conditioning are putting out.  But even the most avid environmentalist knows that taking away people’s hamburgers and instituting populations controls (be it limiting children or restricting life extending healthcare to the elderly) are clear non starters in a capitalist society.

The science is pretty much certain that CO2 is the largest contributor to warming since the 1800s. Other factors are relevant, but not as significant. From the previously cited report:

"Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {1.2, 1.3.1]"

The RF from emissions of well-mixed greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, and Halocarbons) for 2011 relative to 1750 is 3.00 [2.22 to 3.78] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.5). The RF from changes in concentrations in these gases is 2.83 [2.26 to 3.40] W m–2. {8.5} • Emissions of CO2 alone have caused an RF of 1.68 [1.33 to 2.03] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.5). Including emissions of other carbon-containing gases, which also contributed to the increase in CO2 concentrations, the RF of CO2 is 1.82 [1.46 to 2.18] W m–2. {8.3, 8.5} 

[Dahobbs 17444]

7 hours ago, 52-80 said:

the earth used to be a hellish fiery sphere, and it used to be a snowball.

 

you can donate half your income to al gore to offset your carbon footprint, and then a pinatubo or crackertower event happens and changes the climate prediction by like 100x; or a megavolcano event and you all fucking die anyway.

 

its much like watching ants shuffle around worrying about the futility of their antmound in a thunderstorm 

 

Ignoring the fact that you're way overestimating in the long term impact of an event like Pinatubo (the sulfate aerosol produced as a result of event temporarily cooled the earth for about 3 years before settling back to earth -- https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/page3.php😞

If there is a .1% chance that one of those events is going to fuck up the earth in the next 100 years, and a 100% chance that increased CO2 emissions will fuck up the earth in the next 100 years, do you still feel in doesn't matter?

[Biff Tannen 45492]

Lots of good science up in this thread.

 

[WhatTheBuck 28710]

On August 17, 2018 at 3:03 AM, 52-80 said:

the earth used to be a hellish fiery sphere, and it used to be a snowball.

 

you can donate half your income to al gore to offset your carbon footprint, and then a pinatubo or crackertower event happens and changes the climate prediction by like 100x; or a megavolcano event and you all fucking die anyway.

 

its much like watching ants shuffle around worrying about the futility of their antmound in a thunderstorm 

If you haven't yet figured out that one <CR> gives you a double space on Surly then the subject of AGW may be a little bit beyond your grasp. Throwing up your hands and declaring that it's pointless to worry about it is a common response by those who don't understand the subject.

Snowballs are frozen all over. That has never described Earth. I suppose you thought your comment about the fireball and snowball was clever. I wonder if you know why  those different environments existed in the past and how they're not really relevant to the current discussion. Interglacial periods -- how do they work?

Did you know that there was a long time when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere? It took the evolution of a microscopic organism with the novel ability to produce oxygen as a waste product, and then a long time while the earth rusted, before there was enough of it in the atmosphere for land animals to evolve. Did you also know that there used to be just one big continent? Do you know about plate tectonics and how the distribution of land on the surface of the Earth affects the climate?

The climate scientists all know the history of world climate far better than you. The understanding of how and why the climate has changed throughout the planet's 4.5 billion year history is all considered. It's really not hard to understand. Unless you're determined not to. 

[Nivek 16857]

On 8/15/2018 at 3:51 PM, Enchubben said:

We should totally use only the last 100 of the total 4.5 billion years to determine what the average temperature should be and define heat waves and global warming cycles. 

Also - 112 degrees must really suck. Electricity usage that day must have been ridiculous.

Well I don't really see the relevance of a non-life supporting earth or the atmosphere in the Devonian/Silurian where all continents were located in the southern hemisphere, in comparison with today.   But hey, we don't know everything so we must know nothing.

 

WTB beat me to it.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2018 by Nivek

[52-80 19086]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

If you haven't yet figured out that one <CR> gives you a double space on Surly then the subject of AGW may be a little bit beyond your grasp. Throwing up your hands and declaring that it's pointless to worry about it is a common response by those who don't understand the subject.

Snowballs are frozen all over. That has never described Earth. I suppose you thought your comment about the fireball and snowball was clever. I wonder if you know why  those different environments existed in the past and how they're not really relevant to the current discussion. Interglacial periods -- how do they work?

Did you know that there was a long time when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere? It took the evolution of a microscopic organism with the novel ability to produce oxygen as a waste product, and then a long time while the earth rusted, before there was enough of it in the atmosphere for land animals to evolve. Did you also know that there used to be just one big continent? Do you know about plate tectonics and how the distribution of land on the surface of the Earth affects the climate?

The climate scientists all know the history of world climate far better than you. The understanding of how and why the climate has changed throughout the planet's 4.5 billion year history is all considered. It's really not hard to understand. Unless you're determined not to. 

You don't see the relevance of 99.9% of species having gone extinct?

And the delusional arrogance of 1, that has existed for 0.01% of Earth's lifespan, trying to exert control over Earth itself?

Or the hilarity of trilobites trying to ward off the breaking up of Gondwanaland? 

Or trying to affect an 0.02* annual swing on a planet that by itself swung 100*.

 

Eat well, Crossfit everyday, Die anyway.  

[David Dennison 18655]

22 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

You don't see the relevance of 99.9% of species having gone extinct?

And the delusional arrogance of 1, that has existed for 0.01% of Earth's lifespan, trying to exert control over Earth itself?

Or the hilarity of trilobites trying to ward off the breaking up of Gondwanaland? 

Or trying to affect an 0.02* annual swing on a planet that by itself swung 100*.

 

Eat well, Crossfit everyday, Die anyway.  

Nihilist.

I like it.

[52-80 19086]

30 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Nihilist.

I like it.

Earth's gonna earth