Typeing3 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 10:46 am
Would also be interesting to see how much the UHI effect has had on average temps over the period of record. Likely the main driver of overnight temps warming at a faster rate when compared to daytime temps.
Actually, with warming due to GHGs, you would expect more than 100% of the warming to occur at night. On the moon you get temperatures of like 100 in the day and -100 at night. On earth you get temperatures of 20 in the day and 0 at night because of our greenhouse gasses.
As you add more GHGs, the night will go to 2 degrees and the day to 19...
Mattman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 6:37 am
Interesting. If anthropogenic CO2 emissions were the independent variable, rhetorically, wouldn't warming be more uniform over the months? This lends to disproving anthropogenic contributions as needing a "climate emergency." Well, we are flirting with criminalizing dissent--wink, wink, Charlie Angus.
I think the climate is too chaotic for the warming to be uniform. Even if it started out uniform, something could happen like an ice sheet starts melting and throws an ocean current out of whack. Suddenly you're getting different SST temps (much like ENSO patterns) which would influence atmospheric temperature and moisture patterns on a seasonal basis.
Typeing3 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 10:46 am
Would also be interesting to see how much the UHI effect has had on average temps over the period of record. Likely the main driver of overnight temps warming at a faster rate when compared to daytime temps.
I think it plays a small role, based on the studies I've read. They compared urban and rural stations and saw the warming signal was similar, except for a few outliers where UHI played an outsized effect.
Cliff Mass had a blog years ago where he covered this, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
It is hard to imagine how humans could be impacting the climate through use of fossil fuels but the cumulative impact is huge with greater and greater amounts used each year. This graphic from Visual Capitalist paints a pretty good picture at the staggering scale of annual production of fossil fuels, which when burned produces vast amounts of CO2, which warms the atmosphere, along with other pollutants as well which affect health. Basically large mountains of pollutants goes up into the atmosphere each year. The volume shown would be the equivalent volume of 5,190 Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption volumes each year.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Why not try cycling to work, grocery store, anywhere!
According to scientists, Penticton will be hotter than Tucson, AZ in just 26 years. I don't mean to sound like a climate change denier, but I am highly skeptical of such a claim. I also dispute any claims about less water. The Okanagan valley has been getting wetter over time, and the river flows have shown this...
Why do we even have a discussion about this? You don't need to believe in climate change; it doesn't change the fact that it's true—objective truth. Deny it all you want, but it is happening whether you want to lie to yourself or not.
If 97 engineers told you not to cross that bridge, but three random people said to do it because it's safe, whom are you going to believe? The people who built the bridge and have all the factual information about it, or the three random people who just don't believe in engineering?
The fact that scientists who study this and have been doing this their whole lives say climate change is real, then I'm not sure what else there is for people to argue about. Science will always prevail.
Weather101 wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 1:18 pm
Why do we even have a discussion about this? You don't need to believe in climate change; it doesn't change the fact that it's true—objective truth. Deny it all you want, but it is happening whether you want to lie to yourself or not.
Climate change is real. Always has been -- nature is just like ridges and troughs in the jet stream, always in a state of flux.
The point of contention/discussion regarding climate change in the modern era that is most certainly up for debate, however, is to what extent it is influenced by anthropogenic activities -- is it 10%? 25%? 50%? 90%?
Typeing3 wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 11:22 am
Climate change is real. Always has been -- nature is just like ridges and troughs in the jet stream, always in a state of flux.
The point of contention/discussion regarding climate change in the modern era that is most certainly up for debate, however, is to what extent it is influenced by anthropogenic activities -- is it 10%? 25%? 50%? 90%?
You literally have members here saying it's a hoax and fake. But yes, I agree with you 100%.
