"New interactive map shows climate change everywhere " Topic

…in world.

"A geography professor has created a new interactive map that allows students or researchers to compare the climates of places anywhere in the world. The map draws on five decades of public meteorological data recorded from 50,000 international weather stations around the Earth. And it uses prediction models to display which parts of the globe will experience the most or least climate change in the next 50 years…."

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

OK clean some room in the DH, there will be visitors soon.

It's all according to plan.

Just keep using the BE-85, and everything will be just fine …

link
link

Dan
PS. And there are other historical records too:
link

ift.tt/2bBLGvV

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Why yes it is happening since Climate Change always is happening.

Which is why the Global Warmers jumped over to Climate Change.

The thing is that what the Global Warmers/Climate Changers think is happening…

Isn't

You mean the Earth is not a static system?

Don't worry. We are in good hands. Keep using the BE-85. It's the solution to all our problems. :)

link

Dan

Pretty telling court case going on in San Francisco. City is suing petroleum companies over global climate change related erosion. What is most telling is the petroleum companies concede *in court* that climate change is happening, and that it is human caused. If climate change science was debatable, they would most certainly be fighting that casual link before all else. That even the deep pocket industries don't try to fight the science is demonstration that it isn't arguable.

They can tell me where there will be areas seriously effected by climate change in 50 years. Yet they can't tell me if it will rain tomorrow with 100% accuracy.

Sorry gladue – many of those petroleum companies have green energy' divisions set up to rake in subsidies and profit from climate change. Their incentive is to play the racket to the max.

'Loose' in court on this and and cry all the way to the bank with the profits from their alternate energy.

They can tell me where there will be areas seriously effected by climate change in 50 years. Yet they can't tell me if it will rain tomorrow with 100% accuracy.

Yes. Weather and climate are two different things. Weather is inherently chaotic (different end states can be archived from identical starting states). However, since climate is weather averaged out over time, it's easier to predict the same way that it's impossible to predict with metaphysical certainty what the next 2d6 roll is, it's very likely that the the most common result of a pair of fair dice after a billion roll is 7.

and since climate is more or less the long term averaging of weather. The larger the sample size, the less it will be influenced by outliers

"Sorry gladue – many of those petroleum companies have green energy' divisions set up to rake in subsidies and profit from climate change. Their incentive is to play the racket to the max.

'Loose' in court on this and and cry all the way to the bank with the profits from their alternate energy."

Hey, that's a brilliant plan! Lose a court case that could make you liable for billions or trillions of dollars in damages worldwide in order to make billions in profits that you would make even if you won the court case! Wow, the staggering willingness to blind oneself to reality boggles never ceases to be a wonderment.

Without climate catastrophe as the incentive a major portion of those subsidies and incentives for alternate energy go away – there is no cash cow for the companies to milk. Company accountants have undoubtedly run the numbers and the results say to take a short term hit on some sort of bogus damage calculations in favor of a long term profit stream.

Nobody is going to get hit for trillions in damages. A Green fantasy – talk about ignoring reality.

goragrad, why are you holding out on humanity? There are a million things to worry about, and I would be happy to stop worrying about climate change.

As I've often stated, my threshold for changing my views is a mechanism for changing the earth's temperature where CO2 isn't the major driver, while still respecting the established historical relationship between CO2 and Temperature. That's the first hurdle. And then I'll examine it against milankovitch cycles, geological evidence and ice extents.

By the way, what evidence would you need to change your mind? Or is it all political and/or theological for you?

I would be happy to stop worrying about climate change.

Then why don't you?

Since whatever is going to happen or not happen will most likely happen long after you are dead.

what evidence would you need to change your mind?

How about real data and not some computer model data that have been created by individuals who only want to show that it is happening.

All we are getting is that the media and many others are pushing only one side of this and claiming everything is due to Climate Change.

We both know that actual Climate Change takes thousands of years to actually change.

Not 20 years
Not 30 years
Not 40 years
Not 50 years

"Without climate catastrophe as the incentive a major portion of those subsidies and incentives for alternate energy go away – there is no cash cow for the companies to milk. Company accountants have undoubtedly run the numbers and the results say to take a short term hit on some sort of bogus damage calculations in favor of a long term profit stream."

No, you really miss the point. They could accept that climate change is happening, while denying that it is human caused. This would have exactly zero effect on people's opinions which create the cash cow they are looking for while simultaneously avoiding the possibility of a major judgement against them. The simple reality is that they don't argue against the basic premises because they are aware that they would lose badly on the facts, and that loss would cripple their whole case.

1. Since climate is measured as the average weather for 30 years, it IS possible to see climate change in 30 years.
2. I am surrounded by climate change, as I have stated in other posts. Yes, I live in one of the worlds climate change hotspots. But snowpack has gone. (It was always marginal, but hasn't existed for the 15 years since I returned home). Fish species have moved south -- 30 years ago the climate was too cold for them. Bird species have moved south – for the same reason. There is real temperature data if anyone wants to look.
3. As a keen fisherman, one of my goals is to fish the great barrier reef. Corals are particularly sensitive to temperature changes, and the impact on the reef is dramatic. Climate change is removing one of the items on my bucket list! I.e., it is, within my lifetime, impacting me. (The percentage of bleaching on the coral reef is high, and it is repeating year after year.) There is real data on the coral impacts if any readers want to go look.
4. I am not a green party supporter -- quite the opposite. I'm for forestry, mining, fish farms, and all those other things green voters hate. When greenpeace door knockers arrive I sit them down and try to change their opinions, pointing out the benefits of GM foods.
5. Just because there are lots of flakes pushing the climate change barrow to further their own cause doesn't mean it isn't happening.
6. This year was a cold and wet La Nina, and still the snow on the local mountains didn't last. I am dreading the next El nino -- a drought and hot weather will really screw up the trout fishing.

Why yes it is happening since Climate Change always is happening.

Half true. It has always been changing but nowhere near as drastically as it has over the last 200 years.

Which is why the Global Warmers jumped over to Climate Change.

No, not at all. Scientists changed from "global warming" to "climate change" because deniers kept pointing out their windows and saying, "OOO look! It's snowing in April. So much for global warming."

Look at the data. Look at the facts. The global climate is/has been warming far more rapidly than if you remove the human factor.

The thing is that what the Global Warmers/Climate Changers think is happening…

Isn't

Mithmee, do you have one, single, iota of scientific data to support this statement, i.e that the climate is not warming?

I doubt it.

I do. Start here:

skepticalscience.com

And if you don't believe what climate scientists and their colleagues are saying, there is always the ExxonMobile research of the late 70s.

YouTube link

link

It is a sick irony that the very entity that first presented scientific evidence supporting global warming theory, is now one of the leading engines of denial.

Mithmee, do you have any links to any sources that scientifically support a hypothesis that the climate is not changing at a human impacted accelerated pace?

Well any link you provide would be from sites/individuals who are pushing an Agenda.

Oh and by the way it is snowing here in April.

True it was up in the mountains but it was so bad that they had to shutdown I-90 for nearly 70+ miles.

They keep on claiming stuff and it keeps on not coming true.

But there are Billions of dollars up for grabs and the group or individual who can be most convincing will reap the benefits of those dollars.

And Stephen Lewandowski nails it on the head:

Science strives for coherence. For example, the findings from climate science form a highly coherent body of knowledge that is supported by many independent lines of evidence: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human economic activities are causing the global climate to warm and unless GHG emissions are drastically reduced in the near future, the risks from climate change will continue to grow and major adverse consequences will become unavoidable. People who oppose this scientific body of knowledge because the implications of cutting GHG emissions—such as regulation or increased taxation—threaten their worldview or livelihood cannot provide an alternative view that is coherent by the standards of conventional scientific thinking. Instead, we suggest that people who reject the fact that the Earth's climate is changing due to greenhouse gas emissions (or any other body of well-established scientific knowledge) oppose whatever inconvenient finding they are confronting in piece-meal fashion, rather than systematically, and without considering the implications of this rejection to the rest of the relevant scientific theory and findings. Hence, claims that the globe "is cooling" can coexist with claims that the "observed warming is natural" and that "the human influence does not matter because warming is good for us." Coherence between these mutually contradictory opinions can only be achieved at a highly abstract level, namely that "something must be wrong" with the scientific evidence in order to justify a political position against climate change mitigation. This high-level coherence accompanied by contradictory subordinate propositions is a known attribute of conspiracist ideation, and conspiracism may be implicated when people reject well-established scientific propositions.

link

More of that 'they're pushing an agenda!' nonsense, eh, Mithmee?

Face it, you refuse to accept the science because it doesn't fit YOUR agenda.

Believe whatever you want. But the raw, undeniable truth is this:

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

There is only Science that is based on data that has been configured to do what they want it to do.

You can keep on believing that the Polar Caps will melt but they won't.

In the end I will be right and you will be wrong.

As to the money do you deny that Al Gore did not make millions from his fake documentary.

link

All a lot of Global Warmers/Climate Changers are only in it for the money.

But sorry I do not drink the Koolaid.

All a lot of Global Warmers/Climate Changers are only in it for the money.

Where's the money???

Large grants? Practically nothing ends up in the PI's pocket. University admin take a large (30-50%) rake off the top for rent/utilities etc. Of the rest, it the vast majority goes to lab supplies, grad student salaries and journal publishing fees. At best the direct benefits to a PI is the opportunity to buy-out teaching load (as to spend more time on research – not time off) and additional conference travel – which is still work.

Those who work on climate models have serious math and modeling chops, and could easily make 10x their salary on Wall street as quants. You have it backward: scientist are leaving large sum of money on the table to work for the public good.

As to the money do you deny that Al Gore did not make millions from his fake documentary.

And your point is??? Isn't making bank the point of the current politico-economic system?

Only for those who want to scam the system and everyone.

Plus Martin you are blind to what the point really is.

But Al Gore has a far bigger Carbon footprint then every other posted in this thread.

To me, he is nothing but a con man who pulled off a very good con and benefited greatly from it.

But Al Gore has a far bigger Carbon footprint then every other posted in this thread.

And that's a great argument for carbon taxes. Those create CO2, pay for that CO2, rather than dumping it on the commons.

Besides, that's a false argument. It's like saying that seeing one oncologist smoking invalidates all of the tobacco-cancer research.

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."-NDT