Record Cold: So Which is politically correct? Global Warming? or Climate CHANGE?

[ViaCrucis]

Yes, extreme cold.... is global warming.. I don't think so.

You may not think so, but that's what we're seeing happening.

Here's just one example:

You know how the ocean is filled with salt water right? Well the salinity--the amount of salt in the ocean--matters. Too much salt and it's bad, not enough salt, and it's bad. Life in the ocean needs a careful balance of salinity in the ocean.

You know how the ocean has currents right? For example warm water from the Gulf of Mexico flows up the Atlantic toward Greenland and Iceland and the current then goes back down the other side of the Atlantic. So warm water moves up which brings with it, warm temperatures. This is what keeps the Eastern coast of North America, Iceland, and Europe temperate rather than frozen over basically.

Salt water is more dense than fresh water, that's just what happens when you make water salty, salt dissolved in the water effects it chemically. That's why salt water is harder to boil than plain tap water. Well, salt water is also more dense. That means when fresh water drains into the ocean, the fresh water is less dense than the salt water of the ocean. Well ordinarily that's fine, the earth's water cycle tends to balance things out.

But what would happen if too much fresh water, say from melting glaciers, disrupted the normal ways that cycle works?

Well, for one, it can start to disrupt ocean currents.

Well what happens if the current that warms the northern Atlantic were to be disrupted too significantly? That's right, it'd get a whole lot colder as the warmth from the tropics would no longer be tempering the cold from the polar regions.

So how can a rise in global temperature make things colder? That's exactly how. Melting glaciers means more fresh water, which means changes in the ocean's salinity and disruptions to ocean currents.

Every climatological system is deeply interconnected on this planet. The earth is the way it is because of a careful balancing act of nature.

Without trying to sound harsh, neither your opinion nor mine is relevant.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Philip_B]

You may not think so, but that's what we're seeing happening.

Here's just one example:

You know how the ocean is filled with salt water right? Well the salinity--the amount of salt in the ocean--matters. Too much salt and it's bad, not enough salt, and it's bad. Life in the ocean needs a careful balance of salinity in the ocean.

You know how the ocean has currents right? For example warm water from the Gulf of Mexico flows up the Atlantic toward Greenland and Iceland and the current then goes back down the other side of the Atlantic. So warm water moves up which brings with it, warm temperatures. This is what keeps the Eastern coast of North America, Iceland, and Europe temperate rather than frozen over basically.

Salt water is more dense than fresh water, that's just what happens when you make water salty, salt dissolved in the water effects it chemically. That's why salt water is harder to boil than plain tap water. Well, salt water is also more dense. That means when fresh water drains into the ocean, the fresh water is less dense than the salt water of the ocean. Well ordinarily that's fine, the earth's water cycle tends to balance things out.

But what would happen if too much fresh water, say from melting glaciers, disrupted the normal ways that cycle works?

Well, for one, it can start to disrupt ocean currents.

Well what happens if the current that warms the northern Atlantic were to be disrupted too significantly? That's right, it'd get a whole lot colder as the warmth from the tropics would no longer be tempering the cold from the polar regions.

So how can a rise in global temperature make things colder? That's exactly how. Melting glaciers means more fresh water, which means changes in the ocean's salinity and disruptions to ocean currents.

Every climatological system is deeply interconnected on this planet. The earth is the way it is because of a careful balancing act of nature.

Without trying to sound harsh, neither your opinion nor mine is relevant.

-CryptoLutheran

That is partly why I see we need to talk more about ecology, rather than simply environmental science because ultimately we are talking about the relationship we have with everything else on this one blue dot somewhere in the reaches of the universe. We need to reserve and sustain the habitat that it might also sustain and preserve us.

The 5th mark of mission for Anglicans is

 

[Postvieww]

The science is not so settled as some would believe!

 

[JacksBratt]

You may not think so, but that's what we're seeing happening.

Here's just one example:

You know how the ocean is filled with salt water right? Well the salinity--the amount of salt in the ocean--matters. Too much salt and it's bad, not enough salt, and it's bad. Life in the ocean needs a careful balance of salinity in the ocean.

You know how the ocean has currents right? For example warm water from the Gulf of Mexico flows up the Atlantic toward Greenland and Iceland and the current then goes back down the other side of the Atlantic. So warm water moves up which brings with it, warm temperatures. This is what keeps the Eastern coast of North America, Iceland, and Europe temperate rather than frozen over basically.

Salt water is more dense than fresh water, that's just what happens when you make water salty, salt dissolved in the water effects it chemically. That's why salt water is harder to boil than plain tap water. Well, salt water is also more dense. That means when fresh water drains into the ocean, the fresh water is less dense than the salt water of the ocean. Well ordinarily that's fine, the earth's water cycle tends to balance things out.

But what would happen if too much fresh water, say from melting glaciers, disrupted the normal ways that cycle works?

Well, for one, it can start to disrupt ocean currents.

Well what happens if the current that warms the northern Atlantic were to be disrupted too significantly? That's right, it'd get a whole lot colder as the warmth from the tropics would no longer be tempering the cold from the polar regions.

So how can a rise in global temperature make things colder? That's exactly how. Melting glaciers means more fresh water, which means changes in the ocean's salinity and disruptions to ocean currents.

Every climatological system is deeply interconnected on this planet. The earth is the way it is because of a careful balancing act of nature.

Without trying to sound harsh, neither your opinion nor mine is relevant.

-CryptoLutheran

I like your thought process.
However, salt water boils faster.... but to an easily detected amount. The Science of: Why does salt water boil faster?

You are right about the currents traveling on a "conveyor belt" type path. But, the speed of the current is controlled by the winds and the faster the conveyor belt moves... the shorter the stay in the Northern oceans... and the less heat it loses and, on returning... warmer water returns to the south.

The slower the winds... the slower the conveyor.... the longer the stay... the more heat it loses and the cooler the water returns to the south.

In the end... the science arguments can go on until the next new cosmic "panic" comes along.

I understand that there is a lot of meteorology, physics, thermal dynamics, geography, fluid dynamics and a bunch more big scientific factors that affect our overall weather patterns..

But.... the affect of man.... is just one tiny aspect.

It just happens to be the one that people in power can "sell" to the "sheep" that believe everything they are told.

Next, we will have "Meteors", Solar flares, magnetic pole shifts, the core of the earth going solid, spinning or whatever, gravity fluctuations, or maybe even mutating killer chickadee's.... who knows what they will feed the masses and scam them into paying money to save the world.

 

[expos4ever]

The science is not so settled as some would believe!

I am not going to watch a 36 minutes video. But I will point out the person speaking appears to only deviate slightly from the mainstream view. In particular, and as per wikipedia:

Curry's position on climate change have described it as "neo-skepticism", in that her current position includes certain features of denialism; on the one hand, she accepts that the planet is slightly warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide cause warming, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic, but on the other hand she also proposes that the rate of warming is slower than climate models have projected, emphasizes her evaluation of the uncertainty in the climate projection models, and questions whether climate change mitigation is affordable

So she does believe that (a) we are getting warmer; (b) we are the cause; and (c) the consequences might be catastrophic.

 

[JacksBratt]

I am not going to watch a 36 minutes video. But I will point out the person speaking appears to only deviate slightly from the mainstream view. In particular, and as per wikipedia:

Curry's position on climate change have described it as "neo-skepticism", in that her current position includes certain features of denialism; on the one hand, she accepts that the planet is slightly warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide cause warming, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic, but on the other hand she also proposes that the rate of warming is slower than climate models have projected, emphasizes her evaluation of the uncertainty in the climate projection models, and questions whether climate change mitigation is affordable

So she does believe that (a) we are getting warmer; (b) we are the cause; and (c) the consequences might be catastrophic.

Science is never settled. As soon as I here that any argument is wrong because the "Science is settled"... guaranteed that someone doesn't want to hear about changing something.... even if it's truth.

The only constant thing in this world... is that there will always be change.

 

[expos4ever]

Science is never settled. As soon as I here that any argument is wrong because the "Science is settled"... guaranteed that someone doesn't want to hear about changing something.... even if it's truth.

The only constant thing in this world... is that there will always be change.

This is deeply misleading.

Yes, there is a rather obvious sense in which the science is never settled - we should always be diligent to evaluate new evidence and constantly be in the "mode" of trying to critique whatever the status quo has concluded.

But that does not, of course, mean we should not act based on what the science tells us now. No rational person would refuse medical advice to not smoke on the basis that it is conceivable that the science will ultimately tell us that smoking is really not the dangerous activity it is believed to be based on the current scientific consensus.

 

[Bobber]

I just think the whole subject is way to complex for human beings to tackle. So many variations of what could be happening and just when you think you have a problem one way (global warming) a volcano could go off creating dust all throughout the atmosphere dropping the global temperature way down where you want it warmer.

I did a blog once entitled the Shocking Stunning Weather Event of 1816. It was global. A volcano dropped the temperature of the Earth and snow on the ground many places in June and July.

The Shocking Stunning Weather Event of 1816!!

I couldn't believe it! It couldn't be true! I checked other sources and to my great amazement discovered it was! There was snow on ...

bob-richards.blogspot.com

 

[JacksBratt]

This is deeply misleading.

Yes, there is a rather obvious sense in which the science is never settled - we should always be diligent to evaluate new evidence and constantly be in the "mode" of trying to critique whatever the status quo has concluded.

But that does not, of course, mean we should not act based on what the science tells us now. No rational person would refuse medical advice to not smoke on the basis that it is conceivable that the science will ultimately tell us that smoking is really not the dangerous activity it is believed to be based on the current scientific consensus.

I think it is very dangerous to stop thinking for ourselves and asking questions....

I also believe that, on many topics, especially those that have become political hot points... The so called "Peer Review" is no longer valid as part of validation.

Are kids still vaping? That is more dangerous than smoking.
Would people who had their blood leaked out of them have been unwise to say "This just doesn't seem right"?
What about those who had smoke blown up their anus?
Those that were told that there was an ice age coming in the 70's
Those that were told that we were running out of energy in the 70's
Those that were given thalidomide?
Those working with "agent orange"?
Who could forget Y2K?

No... we should not just take the word of the "scientists" based on "current" scientific consensus...

Especially when all it is doing is draining the bank accounts of the middle class and filling the bank accounts of those who are mega rich.

If these mega rich were that worried... They could donate a portion of their billions of dollars.. that they will never spen anyway... and sell the mansions that they have..... that are right where the supposed flood waters are going to arrive in 5 years...

A small collective amount of the billions that these mega rich have... would far out weight the money that they can take from us...And.. they would still have us as their gravy train... and still have more money than brains.

 

[Postvieww]

I am not going to watch a 36 minutes video. But I will point out the person speaking appears to only deviate slightly from the mainstream view. In particular, and as per wikipedia:

Curry's position on climate change have described it as "neo-skepticism", in that her current position includes certain features of denialism; on the one hand, she accepts that the planet is slightly warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide cause warming, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic, but on the other hand she also proposes that the rate of warming is slower than climate models have projected, emphasizes her evaluation of the uncertainty in the climate projection models, and questions whether climate change mitigation is affordable

So she does believe that (a) we are getting warmer; (b) we are the cause; and (c) the consequences might be catastrophic.

You only mention part of the facts. She also disagrees with what she calls a “manufactured consensus” by scientists who are beholden to politicians who push the sky is falling narrative for political gain. She also questions the accuracy of claims that man is the main source of the problem. No problem if you don’t have time to watch the entire video but without doing so your commentary on it is somewhat lacking. She also states that if one is concerned about career advancement and obtaining grants and recognition you will be well served by going with the alarmist position. There is no real consensus on this issue among true scientists it is a “manufactured consensus “ with political agendas behind it. Ah yes Wikipedia that source of all truth!!!

 

[expos4ever]

You only mention part of the facts. She also disagrees with what she calls a “manufactured consensus” by scientists who are beholden to politicians who push the sky is falling narrative for political gain. She also questions the accuracy of claims that man is the main source of the problem.

At what point - please provide the time marker - does she question the accuracy of the claims that man is the source of the problem?

 

[Postvieww]

At what point - please provide the time marker - does she question the accuracy of the claims that man is the source of the problem?

2:22- 4:23. 7:05 - 9:45 . Anyone one with credible interest in this topic really should listen to the whole video. Picking this apart with only hearing snippets cannot produce any kind of a credible response. My words were "main source" not "the source" as you stated. Man has some effect but her position is that it cannot be accurately measured and is negligible.