Ocean Heat Has Shattered Records for More Than a Year. What’s Happening?

Ideologues insist that they can poop into the heavens with impunity, and refuse to admit that there are consequences.

 

Well..... this thread is about Climate Change. So I fail to see any relevance.

BTW, The Papers of the Peabody Museum is an archive. Not a peer-reviewed publication. Just for clarification. Don't bother twisting yourself in knots trying to argue this point. Not interested....

 

The moment you use that term, you admit that you are engaged in propaganda, not honest scientific or public policy discussion. Who has denied that climate changes?

The discussions in this forum indicate that the scientifically illiterate are the ones pushing the CO2 climate narrative. I, Jack, 557, and others on the realist side have consistently demonstrated greater familiarity with both the scientific method generally and climate science specifically than those on the CO2 climate narrative side. Watch:

No it isn't. It is a chaotic system that is constantly in flux in response to changes in both natural and man-made factors, and is characterized by a huge variety of responses to and feedbacks from those factors. It is relatively stable because of its predominant negative feedbacks, but that doesn't mean it is in equilibrium.

See? Guess who just demonstrated scientific illiteracy, and who demonstrated scientific literacy?

No, it is not a delicate balance at all. While there are positive feedbacks that tend to destabilize it, there are also negative feedbacks that tend to stabilize it, and the long-term history of climate shows the negative feedbacks are almost always stronger.

Garbage.

Nope. The climate system will just respond with its negative feedbacks. The climate system is only "balanced" in the same sense that a marble is balanced on a plate: it seems to be delicately resting on a tiny point, but if you give it a push, it will just roll to another place on the plate, and be just as balanced there.

 

Is there anything I could say or do that would make you willing to know the fact that I agree with all the above?

 

Mostly beneficial ones. Yes. That is why periods of warm global climate were called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically unacceptable.

Which is mostly natural, has happened many times over many millions of years, and is nothing to worry about.

Or did someone appoint you Minister of Keeping Everything Exactly the Same?

Because the oceans have far greater thermal inertia than land, and the arctic is almost surrounded by land.

​

<sigh> Because the past few decades were the up-phase of the ~60-year oceanic circulation cycle, whose down-phase ended in the 1970s. Any comparison period that does not cover an integral number of those cycles is going to show a spurious trend one way or the other because the up- and down-phases won't be equal.

 

Alarmist tub-thumping.

 

I accept that deniers will cling to their dogma, no matter how much empirical evidence of anthropogenic climate change is presented to them by the world's climatologists.

I also recognize that the world's political leaders have accepted the reality, and have expressed the intent of mitigating the crisis.

I hope they do.

 

The discussion was about Crichton.
It's odd that you would claim Harvard published without peer review.

 

There's no evidence to accept or refute. And political leaders act on politics, not science.

 

A president can't ban abortions. That power belongs to the state legislatures. Even Trump said that.

 

No, 121.3°F was unexpected at the fiftieth parallel. Is it proof of anything? No, of course not, but it is shocking.

If you're pushing a narrative we don't have global warming caused in part by burning fossil fuels, you'll have to be more convincing than talking about the like of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period.

I'm a big fan of studying the problem, not listening to morons gluing their arm to the road they're blocking or industry types like the ones who wanted to keep using freon. Maybe we should go with hydrogen generated by power from a new generation of nuclear reactors. Maybe we should stop self-interested "green" producers from stampeding us into buying whatever they're marketing. Maybe we should do more research and not jump into using technology before it's ready.

I figure there's enough evidence we may have a problem that we should take a serious look. The a-holes who glue themselves to the road and toss vegetable dyes on paintings should be ignored--well, except for locking them up and thereby providing them with the martyrdom they seem to be seeking.

 

Sure he can if he signs a national abortion ban passed by Congress. The power today belongs to the states because the only national ban in the partial birth abortion legislation from 2003. The Supremacy clause in the Constitution means the feds can ban abortion.

 

Congress doesn't have the power to ban abortion in all the states. The Supreme Court gave that power to the states.

 

No why should I?

Interesting opinion without any explanation or data. What temperature extremes? Why is the snow cover and sea ice reasonably stable overall? They go up in some areas and down in others as always. What is a much faster rate? Parts of hundredths of a degree? If ocean water causes average air temperature, then what is all this greenhouse talk about? No data. No explanation. Politics makes it a crisis. Science, however, says it is trivial. I will ignore the politics and stick with the facts. The politics is hurting us while thinking it is saving the planet. The planet will do just fine. Hang in there.​

 

That ban would be unconstitutional. You know that. The SC says it belongs in the states. Actually most of what federal government does belongs in the states.

 

If you won't accept the scientific reality, then you won't.

Virtually all nations recognize the dire consequences of anthropogenic climate change concerning which virtually all climatologists agree based upon the empirical data, so I doubt that your refusal to accept it will have any discernible consequences.

 

No it wasn't. Have you ever been to Lytton? I have, several times. It's a very -- even unbearably -- hot place in the summer, and has been for many decades.

That said, it is located right at the confluence of the Thompson and Fraser rivers, and a fairly trivial investment in water supply infrastructure could easily have prevented the fire. There just wasn't considered to be enough population or real estate improvement value there to justify it.

Climate realists do not dispute the ACTUAL scientific consensus: that human CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels have contributed, in some unknown but potentially substantial measure, to global warming since the end of the Little Ice Age.

I understand your desire to evade the historical facts that prove recent changes in global surface temperature remain within the limits of known natural variability.

We have lots of problems that merit serious looks and pursuit of genuine solutions. AFAICT, the CO2 climate narrative propaganda campaign is intended to divert our attention from them and focus it on a non-problem that consequently cannot have a solution.

 

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

Nations are political entities subject to political control.

No, that is false. They merely know they have to genuflect to the CO2 climate narrative in order to have careers.

 

Not even a student of recent history? Trump was terrible. So, too, George W. Bush. Obama, Clinton were a little better. I liked George H.W. Bush, but Republicans unwisely voted for whiny billionaire Ross Perot and we got Slick Willie.

The economy grew the same amount in Obama's first three years at the same rate as Obama's last three years.



We had a recession in 2020, but we shouldn't blame Trump. Likewise, saving the economy from a recession required Old Joe to have some inflation and he should only get blame for a portion of it.

 

Bidens America is crushing all those old records, and not in a good way!

 

I've lived part of the year in British Columbia since 1968 and been through Lytton many times. I emphasize "through" because it is fairly warm and unpleasant.

The 121.3°F is just short of the highest temperature ever in Phoenix of 122°F, higher than the highest in Bakersfield, CA of 118°F, higher than the 115°F for Dallas, TX. It was a surprise. Lytton three days in a row recorded the highest temperature ever in Canada. It was a surprise.

They were wrong to think it couldn't have been avoided and dishonest in pretending prevention didn't need doing and in claiming they couldn't have afforded preventative measures. The leftwing BC government has been tripping all over itself giving money to aboriginals, setting aside forests as parkland, etc.

Fine. As I said, I would hope the powers-that-be would take a rational look and see what the best judgment is on what we should do.

You didn't read very carefully what I wrote. I'm only going to be moved by an actual argument around the earlier periods. I'm well aware, for example, of the centuries of drought in the American Southwest.

We may or may not agree on these other matters. I think going from 2b to 8b people in a century is a huge problem. I think people investing in large homes instead of businesses is another problem. I think we have a coming employment crisis as AI, high-speed wireless and quantum computing put millions out of work permanently. BTW, I taught economics and am familiar with the arguments that there will be new jobs created and we won't have widespread unemployment. But I also taught computer science and programmed computers in assembly language and see employment through that lens as well.

 

Yep. Sky Daddy has all the answers we need.

 

Most of southern BC was under a "heat dome" at the time, an unusual weather phenomenon associated with extreme high temperatures. I was living in Vancouver, which also reached its highest temperature since records began: 40C.

I don't know enough about the cost of the relevant water supply infrastructure to comment on that, though I suspect there is a bias in favor of bemoaning CO2 emissions rather than taking measures to become more resilient to natural climate variations, whether cooling, warming, flood, or drought.

Not sure what you mean by "an actual argument." I consider identification of relevant facts and their logical implications an actual argument.

Are you at all aware of what happened to global temperatures in the Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, Holocene Optimum, and Younger Dryas? How about the Pleistocene cycle of glacial and interglacial periods?

Well, birth rates are crashing, so that may not be a problem much longer.

If you do much flying, you will know that most of the world is still remarkably empty. I have lived in Tokyo, the largest city in history, and it works really well, so I am not going to accept that it is the sheer number of people that constitutes the problem. I have seen no persuasive evidence of overpopulation. Under-honesty, under-liberty, under-wisdom, under-education, under-justice, under-intelligence, under-courage, under-skepticism, under-tolerance, under-diligence, and under-honesty, yes. Overpopulation, no.

They are "investing" in landowner privilege, which yields higher -- and typically tax-free or tax-favored -- returns at lower risk than businesses, not in large homes. They are just responding to the incentives, so it is the incentive structure that is the problem.

The big factor is AI, especially superhuman AI (SAI).

Uh-oh... I have too. If you want to go there, check out my forum handle.

You won't get that argument from me. All labor consists of three steps: obtaining information, making a decision, and implementing the decision. Since the earliest stone hand axe and sharpened stick, our tools have helped us implement our decisions. Later tools like written language, mathematics, the scientific method, lenses, and more recently, electronic communications and data processing technology have helped us obtain information. But now our tools can also make decisions, and increasingly, they will be better decisions than any human worker can make. That will leave no part of labor for human workers to perform. This time it really is different. Ironically, it may be the high-paying, high-status intellectual jobs that require learning large amounts of arcane information -- law, medicine, accounting -- that are most under threat by AI in the short term. It takes ~20 years of costly education to train someone to be a competent doctor, lawyer, or accountant. But once the first good AI doctor, lawyer, or accountant is trained, it can be duplicated indefinitely in seconds, at essentially zero cost. The professions that are most refractory to automation may be the ones that require a deceitful human touch: salesman, politician, and prostitute.

My son is a software engineer at Microsoft who has experimented with ChatGPT. He says it looks intelligent enough to laymen to pass the Turing test, but does not actually understand what it is doing. For example, he asked it to write a program that would remove all the even numbers from a list of the first 100 integers, and then remove all the numbers that were not divisible by 6. It wrote the program just fine, but when he asked it to estimate how many numbers would be left, it said 8. It didn't realize that when it removed all the even numbers, it would also be removing all the numbers divisible by 6.

 

Personally I never argue about "climate change" because the earth's climate has been changing ever since the orb was a ball of molten rock 4 billion years ago and it will continue to change.

My issue is w/ whether human kind has caused weather/climate problems. Some say that because people have burnt petroleum products that they've supposedly caused a greenhouse effect that has raised the temperatures a degree C in the past century or so. Like you said above, it sounds like you believe humankind has "increased Earth’s global average temperature by about 1 degree Celsius" since "the pre-industrial period" --a date that many say was 1880. I have found that the greenhouse does not provide that much heat. The quote is not correct the way it's presented.

Do you believe that the man-made greenhouse has "increased Earth’s global average temperature by about 1 degree Celsius" since "the pre-industrial period"? We can look at the number of calories coming from the sun and see how that amount of warming is impossible if you want.

 

Funny. During the winter, people say global warming is a myth because it's cold outside. What do those same people say now that is is 120 degrees outside?