3
0

West coast spring 2018 pretty cold so far


 invite response                
2018 Apr 17, 7:24am   8,146 views  42 comments

by mell   ➕follow (9)   💰tip   ignore  

We could need some global warming soon here. This is one of the coldest bay area springs in many years so far. We'll see how 2018 will fare in the grips of manbearpig.

Comments 1 - 40 of 42       Last »     Search these comments

1   WookieMan   2018 Apr 17, 7:47am  

Weather seems to be shitty everywhere. Not a big baseball guy, but easily on pace to beat the record for most postponed MLB games in April. https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/51sbaseball/mlb-weather-postponements-near-all-time-record/

Cubs almost for certain won't get their game in tomorrow. White Sox had 3 straight canceled at the Twins up in MN. Why the fuck didn't they build a dome up there? Outside of maybe an early hurricane, not sure I've heard of an entire series being cancelled too often if ever. Weather has been bad across most the country this April so far.
2   mell   2018 Apr 17, 7:49am  

It hailed and snowed here the other day. People were sledding in the Oakland hills.
3   NuttBoxer   2018 Apr 17, 11:44am  

Was super hot in SD for the past week or so, but cooled down a lot yesterday and today.

Been saying this for years, global warming makes big promises, but doesn't deliver
4   MisdemeanorRebel   2018 Apr 17, 1:26pm  

No Sunspots 61% of the days in 2018. I think today is the 10th consecutive no-sunspot day.

But, we all know solar output has no impact on the weather or climate.
5   Evan F.   2018 Apr 17, 1:30pm  

Glad this whole climate change issue is being settled by all the climate scientists who are contributing to this message thread.
6   Ceffer   2018 Apr 17, 1:33pm  

"Glad this whole climate change issue is being settled by all the chicken little political football grant whores who are contributing to this message thread."

There, fixed it.

The weather panic industrial complex is alive and well, and holding hands with Big Brother.
7   Evan F.   2018 Apr 17, 1:49pm  

So you're calling me a 'chicken little political football grant whore?' Wow, not even sure WTF that means, LOL. But I'll assume it's just another word-salad ad hominem because you in fact a) are not a climate scientist and b) are unsure how to actually explain how climate change isn't happening. In any case, you could try to a least be a little more civil.
8   lostand confused   2018 Apr 17, 2:41pm  

Oh and we have snow here. Yesterday all the trees were iced out and my car got stuck in snow, because I foolishly misjudged snow level on ground. Luckily ha dmy shovel-but forgot my gloves-Brrrr. Spring indeed -LOL!
9   Automan Empire   2018 Apr 17, 2:53pm  

I always read global warming skeptics, whose premise is something ignorant like "The weather at my house today disproves climate change," in the most hillbilly voice possible.

It's not colder everywhere, fools! It's colder than normal at your place because it's waaaay warmer than normal in other places. Resources like this map are available.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/global-maps/201802?products[]=map-blended-mntp#global-maps-select
10   Onvacation   2018 Apr 17, 3:20pm  

Evan F. says
explain how climate change isn't happening.

Climate change is happening. The climate is always changing as it is the history of the weather and the weather always changes.
So many peiple don't get the relationship between weather and climate. Neither can be predicted with accuracy in the short run much less over the period of years or decades. Too many variables.
The climate is changing and it is not getting hotter in spite of all our co2 release and all of our pollution.

The next decade should prove to all but the most gullible that it is not co2 that warms the earth but the low output of the sun that cools the earth.

I, for one, think a tropical planet is more hospitable than an ice ball.
11   Evan F.   2018 Apr 17, 3:24pm  

Onvacation says
The climate is changing and it is not getting hotter in spite of all our co2 release and all of our pollution.

This is factually incorrect.
12   Onvacation   2018 Apr 17, 3:24pm  

Automan Empire says
because it's waaaay warmer than normal in other places.

Where?
There is record cold and snow all over the world. Please tell us where these places with recordheat are?

Fewer and fewer are falling for the CAGW scam as the alarmist's climate models are proving that they have no relationship with reality.
13   Evan F.   2018 Apr 17, 3:29pm  

Onvacation says
Fewer and fewer are falling for the CAGW scam as the alarmist's climate models are proving that they have no relationship with reality.

Also incorrect. More and more people are actually 'believing' that climate change is indeed happening and that it is human-created.
http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-american-mind-may-2017/
I put the word 'believing' in quotes to merely highlight that it's comical that this should be something people 'believe'. It's an observable fact, it doesn't require someone's belief to be true.
14   Onvacation   2018 Apr 17, 3:38pm  

Evan F. says
actually 'believing' that climate change is indeed happening and that it is human-created.

Never claimed the climate wasn't changing or that humans might have a big effect on climate.

I am arguing against the co2 CAGW BS.

Co2 is NOT a poison. It is an essential part of the cycle of life on earth. Stop brainwashing kids with pseudoscience.
15   Evan F.   2018 Apr 17, 3:50pm  

Onvacation says
Never claimed the climate wasn't changing or that humans might have a big effect on climate.

I am arguing against the co2 CAGW BS.

Co2 is NOT a poison. It is an essential part of the cycle of life on earth. Stop brainwashing kids with pseudoscience.

Okay, fair enough, I guess? I'm not entirely familiar with the 'CAGW scam' you're referring to, but you did state unequivocally that the earth not getting hotter as a result of increased CO2. That's.. simply.. wrong.

And CO2 is absolutely a poison to animal life at elevated concentrations. Go hang out in a sealed volume of 6% CO2 and see how that works out for you.
16   Goran_K   2018 Apr 17, 3:52pm  

I'm enjoying the cool weather. BBQ'ing outside with a hoodie on. Love it.
17   mell   2018 Apr 17, 3:58pm  

Automan Empire says
I always read global warming skeptics, whose premise is something ignorant like "The weather at my house today disproves climate change," in the most hillbilly voice possible.

It's not colder everywhere, fools! It's colder than normal at your place because it's waaaay warmer than normal in other places. Resources like this map are available.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/global-maps/201802?products[]=map-blended-mntp#global-maps-select


The global warming trend has stopped as well in recent years. No more records. 2018 will be cooler globally.
18   Onvacation   2018 Apr 17, 4:34pm  

Co2 caused Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scam. The failed predictions of the pseudoscientists models should be enough proof but the indoctrination of a generation of students on CAGW lets them dismiss the fact that Manhattan is not under water. The new line is that another 2 degrees by 2100 will be the end of the earth as we know it.

Evan F. says
Go hang out in a sealed volume of 6% CO2 and see how that works out for you.

You first. : )
19   theoakman   2018 Apr 17, 4:53pm  

Evan F. says
Onvacation says
Never claimed the climate wasn't changing or that humans might have a big effect on climate.

I am arguing against the co2 CAGW BS.

Co2 is NOT a poison. It is an essential part of the cycle of life on earth. Stop brainwashing kids with pseudoscience.

Okay, fair enough, I guess? I'm not entirely familiar with the 'CAGW scam' you're referring to, but you did state unequivocally that the earth not getting hotter as a result of increased CO2. That's.. simply.. wrong.

And CO2 is absolutely a poison to animal life at elevated concentrations. Go hang out in a sealed volume of 6% CO2 and see how that works out for you.


Everything is fatal to life forms in large quantities including water. That is entirely different than the idea that a substance is negatively affecting an environment as a whole.
20   Evan F.   2018 Apr 17, 5:19pm  

theoakman says
Everything is fatal to life forms in large quantities including water. That is entirely different than the idea that a substance is negatively affecting an environment as a whole.

I was being a bit snarky, I'll admit, but it seems like you're only considering humans as the benchmark for CO2 toxicity. The presence of added CO2, and the resulting increase in temperature, is already having adverse effects globally on plenty of other organisms. Just look at the Great Barrier Reef... that's a die-off of catastrophic proportions, caused by a mere .6C elevation in temperature. Additional elevation in temperatures will only exacerbate the loss of biodiversity globally.

mell says
The global warming trend has stopped as well in recent years. No more records. 2018 will be cooler globally.

This is incorrect. Let's just take 'recent years' as, say, the past decade. 8 of the 10 hottest years on record have happened in the last decade. Any 'trend' you might deduce that suggests otherwise would be far too granular to provide useful. Because that's not how climate change models work. Just because 2018 MIGHT be a cooler globally (and how you're able to predict this not even halfway through the year, I'm at a loss) has no bearing on the larger-scale trend that's been happening over the past century.
21   MisdemeanorRebel   2018 Apr 17, 5:25pm  

Evan F. says
And CO2 is absolutely a poison to animal life at elevated concentrations. Go hang out in a sealed volume of 6% CO2 and see how that works out for you.


6% CO2 in the atmosphere would be massively, exponentially higher than today. We're currently at 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere.

There's a helluva distance between 400ppm and 60,000 ppm. Consider it took about about 75 years to go from around 300 to 400ppm.

CO2 is absolutely necessary for life on this planet, calling it a pollutant is the kind of ignorant fearmongering one now expects from AGW extremists.
22   Booger   2018 Apr 17, 5:30pm  

I just got done mowing my lawn, and I was dressed the same as when I am shoveling snow.
23   mell   2018 Apr 17, 5:31pm  

Evan F. says
mell says
The global warming trend has stopped as well in recent years. No more records. 2018 will be cooler globally.

This is incorrect. Let's just take 'recent years' as, say, the past decade. 8 of the 10 hottest years on record have happened in the last decade. Any 'trend' you might deduce that suggests otherwise would be far too granular to provide useful. Because that's not how climate change models work. Just because 2018 MIGHT be a cooler globally (and how you're able to predict this not even halfway through the year, I'm at a loss) has no bearing on the larger-scale trend that's been happening over the past century.


This argument renders itself worthless quickly. Because if you go back long enough you will find periods with much higher temperatures , in general and also with much lower CO2 concentration and you will find periods with much higher CO2 that were much colder with increasing glaciers. 2018 so far has been cooler globally, esp. in the US:
"During March, the average contiguous U.S. temperature was 42.6°F, 1.1°F above the 20th century average. This ranked near the median value in the 124-year period of record. The year-to-date (January–March) average contiguous U.S. temperature was 36.8°F, 1.6°F above average, ranking among the warmest third of the record. This was the coldest start to a year since 2014 for the nation."
24   theoakman   2018 Apr 17, 5:31pm  

Evan F. says
theoakman says
Everything is fatal to life forms in large quantities including water. That is entirely different than the idea that a substance is negatively affecting an environment as a whole.

I was being a bit snarky, I'll admit, but it seems like you're only considering humans as the benchmark for CO2 toxicity. The presence of added CO2, and the resulting increase in temperature, is already having adverse effects globally on plenty of other organisms. Just look at the Great Barrier Reef... that's a die-off of catastrophic proportions, caused by a mere .6C elevation in temperature. Additional elevation in temperatures will only exacerbate the loss of biodiversity globally.

mell says
The global warming trend has stopped as well in recent years. No more records. 2018 will be cooler globally.

This is in...


I'm not considering anything. I only stated a fact.
25   Evan F.   2018 Apr 17, 5:55pm  

mell says
This argument renders itself worthless quickly. Because if you go back long enough you will find periods with much higher temperatures , in general and also with much lower CO2 concentration and you will find periods with much higher CO2 that were much colder with increasing glaciers.

Ah, the Ordovician argument. Yes, 400 million years ago CO2 concentrations were thought to be in the 5600ppm range, but there is literally only one data point suggesting this so it's statistically inconclusive. But solar activity was also 4% weaker (the sun's radiation is increasing), which meant the balance between CO2 and glacial ice allowed for a much higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (theoretically, about 3000ppm). 3 million years ago was the last time CO2 levels were even close to the current levels (~400ppm), and the sun was comparably active to today's standards. And wouldn't you know it, arctic temperatures were 16°C warmer, global temperatures were 3 to 4°C warmer, and sea levels were around 25 yards higher than current levels.

mell says
2018 so far had been cooler globally, esp. in the US:
"During March, the average contiguous U.S. temperature was 42.6°F, 1.1°F above the 20th century average. This ranked near the median value in the 124-year period of record. The year-to-date (January–March) average contiguous U.S. temperature was 36.8°F, 1.6°F above average, ranking among the warmest third of the record. This was the coldest start to a year since 2014 for the nation."

Dude, you're talking about arguments rendering themselves worthless and then citing climate data across a 4-year period. That's pointless. 4 years means nothing. That being said, one additional interesting point is that historically, fluctuations in CO2 levels between like 150-350ppm have indeed occurred... but these fluctuations have spanned thousands- sometimes tens of thousands of years. Industrial activity has managed to drive up CO2 levels by a comparable amount in about 100 years, an order of magnitude faster than ever measured before. This is not a natural fluctuation.
26   Evan F.   2018 Apr 17, 6:02pm  

TwoScoopsPlissken says
Consider it took about about 75 years to go from around 300 to 400ppm.

That is stratospherically fast, compared to historical data. A 75ppm change has normally taken thousands of years.

I never said CO2 isn't necessary for life on earth. Obviously it is (all my Biochem classes in college drilled that into my head). But the rate at which we're seeing an increase is unprecedented and potentially dangerous for a ton of ecosystems around the planet. It's going to change the face of the earth as we know it, which is kind of a bummer... I like how things are, I would rather try to conserve our resources and natural systems.
27   Onvacation   2018 Apr 17, 6:04pm  

Evan F. says
Industrial activity has managed to drive up CO2 levels by a comparable amount in about 100 years, an order of magnitude faster than ever measured before. This is not a natural fluctuation.

So why has the temp not gone up an order of magnitude? Can you point me to the formula that relates co2 level to global temperatures?

You can't because co2s effect on the climate is trivial compared to the sun.
28   MisdemeanorRebel   2018 Apr 17, 6:12pm  

Evan F. says
That is stratospherically fast, compared to historical data. A 75ppm change has normally taken thousands of years.



We only have regular direct measurements since the 1950s, everything else is an averaged proxy. Long term measurements are greatly smoothed proxies, we don't know how for certain in the past if short term swings occurred and how severe they were.

In any case, Even if it goes up 150ppm per century, we've a long way to go, and can solve the problem slowly. The CO2 levels went up by 25-30% and there was barely any movement, maybe a degree C at worst. The previous models from the 80s and 90s, the average of IPCC models had us 3-4C hotter with sea levels rising several feet, neither of which happened. The magic date keeps getting postponed. We aren't even close to understanding the Earth's climate, much less what influence a single factor has on the whole thing.

What other supercomplex modelling by human beings has turned out to be accurate in the past few decades?
29   MisdemeanorRebel   2018 Apr 17, 6:17pm  

Just another quick word, to mention the false comparison of some magical "1880-1900" ideal period. The Earth has been a snowball, it's been a hot hell, it's been covered in decaying anaerobic bacterium, it's been 2/3 covered with glaciers, and had times (with higher lifeforms inc. Mammals) when the poles were ice-free year round for millions of years.

There is no reason out of 5B years, why 1900AD should be some kind of "Ideal Period we need to get back to." The 19th Century was actually damned cold.
30   Evan F.   2018 Apr 17, 6:20pm  

Onvacation says
So why has the temp not gone up an order of magnitude? Can you point me to the formula that relates co2 level to global temperatures?
You can't because co2s effect on the climate is trivial compared to the sun.


CO2 is obviously not the only factor contributing to the increase in temperature. But it is a huge component.

I'm afraid you've misread my writing. I didn't say the the concentration of CO2 was an order of magnitude greater, I said the the RATE of CO2 increase was an order of magnitude greater. Those two data points are obviously very different. So, of course, the temperature is not an order of magnitude higher.

If you want formulas, well, I'm going to refer to some smart guys who study this crap a lot more than me: dT = λ*dF is a formula for climate sensitivity, where 'dT' is the change in the Earth's average surface temperature, 'λ' is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter (°C/[W/m2]), and 'dF' is the radiative forcing. CO2's radiative forcing coefficient is known at 5.35 ln(C/Co)... without going into too many details, this formula suggests that CO2 is responsible for about half of the elevation in temperatures over the past 100-150 years.

I wouldn't call that 'trivial'. I'd call it 'half'.
31   Onvacation   2018 Apr 17, 6:27pm  

Evan F. says
this formula suggests

Suggests? Seems to be missing a few variables.

Evan F. says
I wouldn't call that 'trivial'. I'd call it 'half'.

All that data manipulation and the alarmists could only get one degree of warming over the last century.
32   Evan F.   2018 Apr 17, 6:30pm  

TwoScoopsPlissken says
Even if it goes up 150ppm per century, we've a long way to go, and can solve the problem slowly. The CO2 levels went up by 25-30% and there was barely any movement, maybe a degree C at worst.


If we ceased all industrial activity immediately, the earth's temperature would continue to rise about .6-.7C until we reached a new equilibrium state. That still represents a significant temperature change. I would say 'solving our problem slowly' is a sure way to not solve it at all.

Whenever I have a problem that I know doesn't need to be attended to immediately, I put it off. And put it off. And put it off some more. It's human nature. Being proactive about this problem is a necessity.
33   Evan F.   2018 Apr 17, 6:36pm  

Onvacation says
Suggests? Seems to be missing a few variables.

What variables is it missing?
Onvacation says
All that data manipulation and the alarmists could only get one degree of warming over the last century.

Aaaaaand this, this right here, is the problem with your counterargument. 1 degree C change in only 100 years is fucking colossal, and incredibly fast. A 1 degree change in global temps normally happens over geological time periods, thousands of years at the QUICKEST. We're talking epochs.

Instead, we seem to only be able to notice that it's chilly when we're mowing our lawn, or bring a snowball into Congress, as evidence that everything's just fine outside.

News flash- it's not.
34   Onvacation   2018 Apr 17, 7:00pm  

Evan F. says
. 1 degree C change in only 100 years is fucking colossal, and incredibly fast. A 1 degree change in global temps normally happens over geological time periods, thousands of years at the QUICKEST. We're talking epochs.

Would you change your mind if the temperature went down a degree in the next decade? No predictions but the coming solar cycle looks pretty dismal.
The sun warms the earth. Co2 blanket keeps us from freezing. All alarmists models have overestimated the warming be several magnitudes .
A little hyperbole humor for you alarmist lovers of anomalies.
35   Onvacation   2018 Apr 17, 7:03pm  

Evan F. says
A 1 degree change in global temps

First you have to believe that worldwide average temperatures can be calculated with a bucket and a thermometer from a whaling ship.
36   HeadSet   2018 Apr 17, 7:24pm  

Just because 2018 MIGHT be a cooler globally (and how you're able to predict this not even halfway through the year, I'm at a loss)

Do you hear yourself? You claim it is impossible to predict global temperatures 6 mouth in advance but are an avid fan of those who predict global temperatures decades away.
37   HeadSet   2018 Apr 17, 7:39pm  

If you want formulas, well, I'm going to refer to some smart guys who study this crap a lot more than me: dT = λ*dF is a formula for climate sensitivity, where 'dT' is the change in the Earth's average surface temperature, 'λ' is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter (°C/[W/m2]), and 'dF' is the radiative forcing. CO2's radiative forcing coefficient is known at 5.35 ln(C/Co)... without going into too many details, this formula suggests that CO2 is responsible for about half of the elevation in temperatures over the past 100-150 years.

Well, the people "who study this crap" left out a critical variable - water vapor. Water vapor is said to be a bigger factor that CO2 in climate warming, and the burning of any hydrocarbon adds water vapor as well as CO2 to the air. The people "who study this crap" never mention a "hydro footprint."
38   mell   2018 Apr 17, 7:41pm  

HeadSet says
Just because 2018 MIGHT be a cooler globally (and how you're able to predict this not even halfway through the year, I'm at a loss)

Do you hear yourself? You claim it is impossible to predict global temperatures 6 mouth in advance but are an avid fan of those who predict global temperatures decades away.


Yeah. Didn't want to continue here, let's just see how it plays out. My bet is on a stopping/cooling trend that will continue.
39   HeadSet   2018 Apr 17, 7:44pm  

And CO2 is absolutely a poison to animal life at elevated concentrations. Go hang out in a sealed volume of 6% CO2 and see how that works out for you.

Would that sealed volume have the normal air concentration of about 80% nitrogen? Since CO2 is not a poison, the only danger of a high concentration of CO2 is if it displaces the oxygen you need. One would do fine in a sealed volume of 6% CO2 as long as enough O2 was around.
40   HeadSet   2018 Apr 17, 8:07pm  

I would rather try to conserve our resources and natural systems.

Now here is where I think we can agree. One need not be a climate change cultist to see the need to conserve resources and maintain clean water and air.

So, what is the action? Real action, not the penance of espousing a belief in AGW and voting Democrat for absolution of past climate transgressions.

Since 1st worlders use 100 times the resources of 3rd worlders, why not enforce strict immigration laws while encouraging the trend of smaller 1st world populations? "Sustainable birthrates" means a constantly growing population using more resources. The USA was prosperous at a pop of 200 million, it need not grow to 400 million to stay that way. We should also get rid of any child care credits or welfare that pays people to breed. In fact, a tax on offspring may be better.

How about a $2.00 per gallon added federal gas tax? High fuel taxes have certainly encouraged the Europeans to build efficient cars and transit systems.

Another method would be to close shop at night. Think of all the lighting and traveling that would be saved. And as the world progresses naturally to solar power as the tech improves, we would have more reason to get most work done while the sun shines, and keep minimal work powered by batteries/capacitors at night.

Comments 1 - 40 of 42       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions