Climate Change Discussion

[wetcoast91]

You need help.

https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/tempe ... l%20Nelson.

Global temperatures in 2024 were 2.30 degrees Fahrenheit (1.28 degrees Celsius) above the agency’s 20th-century baseline (1951-1980), which tops the record set in 2023. The new record comes after 15 consecutive months (June 2023 through August 2024) of monthly temperature records — an unprecedented heat streak.

[Storm]

https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/tempe ... l%20Nelson.

I am totally with you. Science is Science period.

[Mattman]

You need help.

Someone with Nito’s education should not be ignorant. “Denier” is an equivocation to Holocaust denialism. That’s disgusting. He should know better. I’m not assigning intent. I am at worst assigning willful ignorance and living in a coastal elitist bubble. Secondly, Nito, others, and hopefully not you create straw men to homogenize “deniers” as hick yokels. That shows no desire for discussion. I haven’t seen you, Nito, nor others directly address the following without trying to divert the discussion or throwing in subtle ad hominem barbs:

-what are the cost-benefit analyses of a carbon tax, net zero, carbon credits, EV mandates, vehicle emission mandates? Not modelled benefits, but quantifiable, tangible benefits vs cost.

-Most of the alarmism is of the left, who supposedly care so much for the poor. A lasting key to reducing poverty is abundant reliable energy, which makes energy, transportation, and day-to-day life cheaper. So-called renewables are anything but, as Europe has discovered. What’s the alarmist view on the Cobalt mines for the electrification of everything? Of the limited life of solar panels and wind turbines? What’s your solution for abundant, reliable energy to lift people out of poverty instead of punitive measures that create poverty?

-This is the heart of what us “denialists” what answers from1. Tease out anthropogenic causes from natural variability; 2.Is the delta in climate catastrophic compared to prior climate change? 3. It is arrogance to think that climate is static—that there’s a fixed global temperature that should be static and that the “experts” know what it is—and that punitive measures can change global temperatures.

Besides the gross language of “denier”, the anti-human underbelly is what has me the most hot under the collar. How is Mark Holland’s comment not anti-human? You preferred to give a flippant, ad hominem response instead of a real response. Why not show me otherwise instead of bolstering what I increasingly think of AGW alarmists?

[HarrisonSasquatchWx]

Someone with Nito’s education should not be ignorant. “Denier” is an equivocation to Holocaust denialism. That’s disgusting. He should know better. I’m not assigning intent. I am at worst assigning willful ignorance and living in a coastal elitist bubble. Secondly, Nito, others, and hopefully not you create straw men to homogenize “deniers” as hick yokels. That shows no desire for discussion. I haven’t seen you, Nito, nor others directly address the following without trying to divert the discussion or throwing in subtle ad hominem barbs:

-what are the cost-benefit analyses of a carbon tax, net zero, carbon credits, EV mandates, vehicle emission mandates? Not modelled benefits, but quantifiable, tangible benefits vs cost.

-Most of the alarmism is of the left, who supposedly care so much for the poor. A lasting key to reducing poverty is abundant reliable energy, which makes energy, transportation, and day-to-day life cheaper. So-called renewables are anything but, as Europe has discovered. What’s the alarmist view on the Cobalt mines for the electrification of everything? Of the limited life of solar panels and wind turbines? What’s your solution for abundant, reliable energy to lift people out of poverty instead of punitive measures that create poverty?

-This is the heart of what us “denialists” what answers from1. Tease out anthropogenic causes from natural variability; 2.Is the delta in climate catastrophic compared to prior climate change? 3. It is arrogance to think that climate is static—that there’s a fixed global temperature that should be static and that the “experts” know what it is—and that punitive measures can change global temperatures.

Besides the gross language of “denier”, the anti-human underbelly is what has me the most hot under the collar. How is Mark Holland’s comment not anti-human? You preferred to give a flippant, ad hominem response instead of a real response. Why not show me otherwise instead of bolstering what I increasingly think of AGW alarmists?

It's all good Matterman we won't live long enough to see the destruction of our planet.

[Abby_wx]

-This is the heart of what us “denialists” what answers from1. Tease out anthropogenic causes from natural variability; 2.Is the delta in climate catastrophic compared to prior climate change? 3. It is arrogance to think that climate is static—that there’s a fixed global temperature that should be static and that the “experts” know what it is—and that punitive measures can change global temperatures.

I think those questions have been pretty widely addressed and it's not that hard to find the research. Perhaps you just disagreed with the conclusions?

I think most scientists agree the problem is not so much the amount of change but the rate of change, ie. can we adapt in time. We all know earth has been much hotter at certain times in its history.

[Glacier]

I think those questions have been pretty widely addressed and it's not that hard to find the research. Perhaps you just disagreed with the conclusions?

I think most scientists agree the problem is not so much the amount of change but the rate of change, ie. can we adapt in time. We all know earth has been much hotter at certain times in its history.

I don't actually say any change in rate that correlates with climate change...

rateofchange.png

[Glacier]

How Kamloops' climate has changed...

climatechangekamloops3.png

climatechangekamloops.png

[Typeing3]

I don't actually say any change in rate that correlates with climate change...

rateofchange.png

Do you happen to have the same graph for mean January temp? Or perhaps, mean annual temp?

[Glacier]

Do you happen to have the same graph for mean January temp? Or perhaps, mean annual temp?

Oops, typo... that is the annual graph. January has a much bigger impact than summer months because of more variability in winter.

[tyweather]

ARCTIC OCTOBER 2025 TEMPERATURE- RECORD HIGHEST
The Arctic temperature in October shot up from 1990 due to sea ice loss and warming oceans. Effectively all of the 4.4°C increase in the average temperature has happened since the early 1990s. https://alaskaclimate.substack.com/p/oc ... ka-climate #arctic #climatechange #globalwarming

[tyweather]

The poleward heat transport from the deep tropics of the worlds’ major surface ocean currents, especially western boundary currents, is amplifying in an increasing feedback loop with poleward shift of mid latitude winds and polar jet streams and increasing surface marine eddy activity in both the northern and southern hemispheres - associated with disparate warming of polar regions. This amplification is most evident about this time of year in the northern hemisphere and 6 months later in the southern hemisphere.

Current Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies (SSTAs) for the date of + 7.8 degrees C (+ 14 degrees F) even well north of the Gulf Stream about 500 km south of Newfoundland, + 6.1 C ( + 11 degrees F) in the Kuriosho Current about 1,000 km east of Tokyo, and shockingky even now in the southern hemisphere at + 3.6 C (+ 6.5 F) within the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (not a boundary current but the Earth’s largest ocean current by far) but caused by the heat flux from the Agulhas current to its north - all illustrate these currents’ major and increasing contribution to further increasing disparate warming of polar regions which are now warming at 4 or more times the rate of lower latitudes.

Parts of the Arctic had near surface (2 m height) air temperature anomalies for the date of + 10 to + 15 degrees C (+ 18 to + 27 C) above the average for 3 months running from January 1 - March 31 this past winter.

These trends are contributing to Blue Ocean Events (less than 1 M square km sea ice remaining) in the Antarctic and Arctic Oceans likely coming much sooner than predicted until very recently. A Blue Ocean Event in the Arctic Ocean alone will cause roughly the global warming equivalent of 25 years worth of current anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. If one also occurs in the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica, the compounded impacts will be catastrophic to global climate. Both now look possible within just a few years, maybe as soon as next year.