Jet Stream Crosses Equator, Unprecedented?

13555742_1301482709880297_76607468_o

Unprecedented?  Jet Stream Crosses Equator // Published on Jun 28, 2016

The jet stream in the Northern Hemisphere has crossed the equator and joined up with the jet stream in the Southern Hemisphere. This is new behaviour, and indicates that climate system mayhem is ongoing.

13549024_1301482706546964_110840917_o

Our  climate system behaviour continues to behave in new and scary ways that we have never anticipated, or seen before.

13579964_1301482693213632_429867111_o

Welcome to climate chaos. We must declare a global climate emergency.

13548747_1301482696546965_1677066395_o

Please consider a donation to support my work and videos at my easy to use, Donate Button here, using PayPal.

Advertisements

About paulbeckwith

Well known climate science educator; Part-time Geography professor (climatology, oceanography, environmental issues), University of Ottawa. Physicist. Engineer. Master's Degree in Science in Laser Optics, Bachelors of Engineering, in Engineering Physics. Won Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario gold medal. Also interested in investment and start-ups in climate solutions, renewable energy and energy efficiency. Avid chess player, and likes restoring old homes. Married with children.
This entry was posted in Climate Change, Collapse, New Video and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

215 Responses to Jet Stream Crosses Equator, Unprecedented?

  1. Fred Pickhardt says:

    I don’t think you can call this unprecedented. Perhaps there is some enhance flow due to conditions created by a rapidly weakening El Nino and developing La Nina.

    Liked by 1 person

    • paulbeckwith says:

      I agree Fred. I modified it by adding a question mark: Unprecedented? and will put an explanation for change in the YouTube comments. Never say never…it was late…

      Like

      • Not to be a naysayer to a naysayer, but the question is – has it ever in recorded history happened before? That would be “unprecedented” regardless of explanation.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Fuckyou says:

        Liar. You are not even a real climate scientist! You are just exploiting climate fear for donations!

        “Welcome to climate chaos. We must declare a global climate emergency.”

        This is fearmongering. You are abusing your credentials as an engineer and exploiting fear over climate change to gain personal profit. You are not a real climate scientist and you are not solving real problems. You are just discrediting climate change with this nonsense and worsening the political divide and thus furthering the problem.

        Shameful nonsense, you ignorant piece of human garbage.

        Liked by 1 person

      • tnt666 says:

        For the sake of integrity and transparency, it is preferable to annotate, rather than “edit” stuff like this. Leave the original text, but point out the errors. Thank you.

        Like

    • crocolux says:

      Hi, sorry I don’t know anything about climatology, could you please explain in simple and intelligible terms what would be the repercussions on the planet’s climate.
      Thanks in advance.

      Like

      • soundhill1 says:

        crocolux I am guessing, but I think the northern hemishphere air temperature has been warmer because of a greater land mass than the southern hemisphere. Now some of that heat will transfer to the southern hemisphere, where there is more water surface to evaporate from. Water vapour is a very important greenhouse gas. So we may see global warming begin to accelerate more. The new deep ocean temperature sensor networks in the southern hemisphere have been placed just in time to include that dimension in the calculations.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. paulenelson says:

    Important information here, Paul, thanks. I do love that – as a pointing device – you use a backscratcher.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Pingback: Jet Stream Crosses Equator, Unprecedented? | Sobran palabras

  4. For a Man who has Engineering degrees, you should know that it’s mathematically impossible for one man-kind produced, C02 molecule, that only absorbs 1/8th of the radiated warmth, to warm up the other 62,500 molecules, 2-3C in the next 20-30 years. Man-kind only produces 3-5% of the Annual C02, Mother nature produces the rest. Second have you ever studied why the Earth’s Magnetic force field is rapidly weakening, and that the North Pole has moved a 1000 miles in the last 100 years, and how that is affecting our Weather?

    Like

    • JimTx says:

      @Robert. Your statement is absolutely incorrect. Mankind produces over 30 billion tons of CO2 annually due to combustion of fossil fuels. That is more than 100 times all other natural sources combined, including volcanoes.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Aphan says:

        JimTx

        It’s is basic, common knowledge that natural sources in Earth’s yearly carbon cycle produce roughly 770 billion (770 Gt) of Co2 per year. Humans emit another 30-40 billion tons (35Gt) per year on top of that. Because nature is currently absorbing MORE CO2 than it emits, roughly 60% of the CO2 that humans emit every year gets absorbed into natural sinks, leaving the remaining 40% of human CO2 to cause the yearly increase of 1-2 ppm in the atmosphere.

        Of the 100% of CO2 produced and cycled through Earth’s system every year, the human contribution is approximately 4.5% of the total. (770+35=805 Gt and 4.5% of 805 Gt=36 Gt)

        As of 2013, the rough estimate of how much CO2 is produced by volcanoes was 840 tons per year, with caveats that it is currently impossible to measure, and thus calculate, the total volcanic flux of CO2 and that more research is necessary.
        http://www.minsocam.org/msa/rim/RiMG075/RiMG075_Ch11.pdf

        Like

      • Bakaat Kuthrowisz says:

        Uh, Jim? Uh… Mankind produces 24ppm of the 400+ppm CO², roughly 6% of all CO². Please… oh please… change your sources… they are LYING to you. Was it Hufflepuff News? SkepticalScience.com? Some want to put “deniers” in jail, for telling the truth, but that’s not the problem. The problem is the liars, not deniers. .04% of the atmosphere (CO²)can NOT “warm” anything. .04% of the atmosphere (CO²) can not “block” infrared radiation to the point of “trapping” heat. The physics doesn’t add up. All of this is conjecture and theory, laced with anecdotal observation. Because CO² is going up, that automatically Means MAN is responsible? What if I told you CO² release FOLLOWS temperature rises? Don’t believe me? Ask Dr. Ian Clark. Look him up. Also:

        It’s been warmer in just the last 12,000 years… SEVERAL times.

        If it’s “hot” now with “high” CO² levels, how did it get HOTTER when there
        were LOWER CO² levels before?

        What were the CO² levels during the Oklahoma Dust Bowl?

        What were the CO² levels during the Medieval Warm Period?

        What were the CO² levels during the Roman Warming Period?

        What were the CO² levels during the Minoan Warming Period?

        What were the CO² levels during the Holocene Maximum Warming Period?

        Answer these questions and you’ll prove to yourself that CO² is NOT what drives climate and temperature.

        Like

    • Kathy B Cook says:

      Paul, I’m interested in your response to this.

      Like

    • lee says:

      Do you work for Heartland? Who pays your salary? Where are your reviewed papers on your stance toward Cli,ate Change?

      Like

    • Adam says:

      It’d been a little while since I wanted to understand this point, and I recall that my conclusion was the CO2 acted to disperse energy in the atmosphere and moisture, with a high specific heat capacity absorbed the energy. But I’d have to go back to my studies to double check that; but does it sound more reasonable?

      Like

      • soundhill1 says:

        Adam, confusion propagating in your statement. CO2 has only about 80% of the heat capacity of the main constituent air: nitrogen. Besides there is very little of it, so it is holding pretty much nil heat. The longer wavelength heat rays from planet earth do however get tangled in it and the resulting heat gets transferred to the bulk of air molecules. Some radiate back to the ground and evaporate water and water vapour magnifices the capture effect..

        Liked by 2 people

      • paulbeckwith says:

        Interesting that there is an inverse relation between climate denier rubbish posts and number of unemployed fossil fuel workers. Get a job…

        Liked by 3 people

    • Oh, GOD.

      Denialists don’t understand Science or Mathematics.

      The Carbon Cycle goes on continuously, and it’s meant to be a closed loop.

      So you argument about “Mother Nature” producing CO2 is ridiculous.

      That CO2 is INSIDE the Carbon Cycle and will be re-absorbed by trees and vegetation, including ocean algae.

      The MASSIVE amounts of CO2 that mankind adds to the atmosphere every day is OUTSIDE the Carbon Cycle.

      The CO2 level in the atmosphere has now broken 400 parts per million at the SOUTH POLE.

      CO2 is a greenhouse warming gas. In the atmosphere, it captures and reflects half of the heat it is exposed to.

      So heat reflects off the planet, then hits the CO2, and half of it bounces back down again as if it hit a half-silvered mirror.

      The Magnetic Poles aren’t causing global warming, Mankind is.

      Liked by 2 people

      • VJP says:

        They don’t observe nature either, the simplest and most obvious truth.

        Like

      • pinroot says:

        When the oceans warm, they outgas CO2. That’s part of the carbon cycle too. There’s not some fixed amount, there are different sinks and sources.

        Like

      • Lewis Guignard says:

        Gluten, Do you really believe mankind is causing warming? Have you looked at the 400,000 year record? Do you realize that 20,000 years ago, long before man was producing enough CO2 to matter, that the oceans were 250 feet lower than they are now and the northern continental masses were under thousands of feet of ice?

        Warming is a good thing. More CO2 makes plants grow better. A longer growing season is good for all beings. Why would you want more snow and ice? Do you see people moving north when they retire? No, they move south, where it is warmer. Hopefully it stays warmer.

        Like

      • Aphan says:

        I have no idea what you “are” but you certainly do not speak in scientific ways about Earth’s carbon system or CO2. Earth has a fast carbon cycle and a slow carbon cycle, and neither one is completely closed.

        Planet Earth’s natural processes produce more than 770 Gt of natural Co2 every year. Earth also absorbs roughly 789 Gt of CO2 a year…creating a 19 Gt per year deficit. Natural CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been falling for the past 140, million years-from 2500ppm to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm. This indicates that the Earth’s carbon cycle was absorbing more CO2 than it was producing (or it would have been stable or rising). Humans emit somewhere between 30 and 40 Gt of Co2 into the atmosphere, but the Earth’s carbon cycle absorbs between 50 and 60% of that CO2, due to the “deficit” that was naturally occurring between oceans and atmosphere. That leaves the remaining 40-50% of human emissions “outside of the carbon cycle” if you will, which produces the 1-2 ppm additional CO2 yearly increase.

        Scientists would never state that CO2 “reflects” heat, because reflection is related to the word “albedo” and deals with the amount of visible light that an object reflects away without absorbing it. CO2 is not “reflective” to visible light. CO2 molecules in the atmosphere absorb and re-emit a specific range of infrared, long wave radiation emitted by the Earth’s surfaces as they cool. It then excites and emits that radiation in any random direction it can, or transfers it to other, colder molecules by collision. But Earth’s surfaces cannot heated by the less energetic long wave radiation, only energetic short wave Solar radiation can do that.

        So while the CO2 keeps some energy bouncing around in the atmosphere for a while before it escapes to space, and thus keeps Earth from cooling as fast as it would without an atmosphere to slow it down, it cannot re-heat the Earth. Earth’s atmosphere and surface/cloud/and ice albedo also PREVENT nearly 30% of the Sun’s short wave energy from staying in our system long enough to heat the planet or oceans in the first place.

        Earth’s atmosphere prevents it from getting too hot, and keeps it from cooling off too quickly. The moon-which unlike the Earth has very little atmosphere at all to moderate it’s temperatures, gets very hot where the sun shines on it, and is very cold on the side the sun is not shining on.

        Like

      • soundhill1 says:

        Aphan: “Earth’s atmosphere and surface/cloud/and ice albedo also PREVENT nearly 30% of the Sun’s short wave energy from staying in our system long enough to heat the planet or oceans in the first place.”

        Ice reflects incident radiation back out at wavelengths which CO2/methane/water vapour do not capture. That is why loss of polar ice is a problem.

        “short wave” is a fuzzy term. Indeed the atmosphere filters extremely short waves like ultraviolet C, and the ionosphere reflects “short wave” radio waves. In that case it is not a matter of “staying in,” it never got in.

        “Earth’s atmosphere prevents it from getting too hot, and keeps it from cooling off too quickly.”

        Indeed if you have a cloudy night which stopped heat getting away and the sun comes out next morning then temperature gets to a higher figure during the day since there is less re-heating to do. And CO2 does that with a clear night.

        Like

      • Aphan says:

        “Short wave” is not a fuzzy term. It’s a scientific term.

        Aphan said “Earth’s atmosphere and surface/cloud/and ice albedo also PREVENT nearly 30% of the Sun’s short wave energy from staying in our system long enough to heat the planet or oceans in the first place.”

        soundhill1 said-“short wave” is a fuzzy term. Indeed the atmosphere filters extremely short waves like ultraviolet C, and the ionosphere reflects “short wave” radio waves. In that case it is not a matter of “staying in,” it never got in.”

        The atmosphere cannot filter anything that doesn’t actually enter it. Ultraviolet C can enter Earth’s atmosphere but gets prevented from reaching Earth by the Ozone layer, which occurs in the stratosphere. Short wave radio waves that get “reflected” back down to Earth are IN the Earth’s atmosphere. The ionosphere, which is also “in” Earth’s atmosphere, includes the thermosphere and parts of the mesosphere and exosphere. Radio waves, just like light waves, are a form of electromagnetic radiation, and (wiki under radio propagation) -“are affected by the phenomena of reflection, refraction, diffraction, absorption, polarization, and scattering.[2]”

        “Short wave” is only a fuzzy term on it’s own. When I used it with “the Sun’s” and “energy” it became part of a very specific type of energy.

        As far as albedo-

        http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/
        “Energy goes back to space from the Earth system in two ways: reflection and emission. Part of the solar energy that comes to Earth is reflected back out to space in the same, short wavelengths in which it came to Earth. The fraction of solar energy that is reflected back to space is called the albedo. Different parts of the Earth have different albedos. For example, ocean surfaces and rain forests have low albedos, which means that they reflect only a small portion of the sun’s energy. Deserts, ice, and clouds, however, have high albedos; they reflect a large portion of the sun’s energy. Over the whole surface of the Earth, about 30 percent of incoming solar energy is reflected back to space. Because a cloud usually has a higher albedo than the surface beneath it, the cloud reflects more shortwave radiation back to space than the surface would in the absence of the cloud, thus leaving less solar energy available to heat the surface and atmosphere. Hence, this “cloud albedo forcing,” taken by itself, tends to cause a cooling or “negative forcing” of the Earth’s climate.”

        (So 30% of the solar energy that enters the atmosphere (gets in)-and hits Earth’s deserts, ice, and clouds-is reflected back to space without becoming long wave radiation, and thus does not interact with CO2 in the atmosphere.)

        soundhill1 said “Indeed if you have a cloudy night which stopped heat getting away and the sun comes out next morning then temperature gets to a higher figure during the day since there is less re-heating to do. And CO2 does that with a clear night.”

        It’s not that simple. It depends upon the type of clouds, how thick/thin they are, where in the atmosphere they form and other things. Clouds are one of the least understood parts of Earth’s radiation budget, and models still don’t represent them accurately. CO2 in the atmosphere remains the same on a clear night as it does on a cloudy one, so CO2’s affect doesn’t change.

        Like

      • Emil Junvik says:

        If you like math, could you show the equations for heat transfer in the earth system that gives a clear value of the effect that the atmosphere has on surface temperature?
        I have been looking everywhere for a mathematical description of how an atmosphere that has an average temperature that is way below 0C, can radiate with an intensity of almost 400W/m^2.
        I can only find formulas for a separated transfer of energy that is impossible to combine with the standard chain of transfer that starts with solar irradiative flux at TOA and exits as longwave at the same outer boundary. It is also totally impossible to combine that heat transfer with the optimal heat sink in space, the “backradiation” can only exist if all other transfer of energy is ignored.

        The absurdity in an assumption that an atmosphere at freezing temperature has a heating effect on insolation that has a much much higher density in flux, is beyond crazy.

        The warming fantasy is based on a creation of energy that makes the atmosphere radiate more heat towards the surface than the sun. The energy budgets shows this without any explanation to the numbers given.

        All absorbtion and emission that follows after solar radiation enter earth´s system shows a very clear loss of energy as a result of the planets greybody-properties. Every absorption is a loss of heat and every emission is displaying a loss of heat. The temperature gradient in the troposphere is very steep and when we apply such a steep decline in energy in the heat transfer, we know that it is a sign of cooling in both the earth´s surface and atmosphere. From insolation at TOA to emission from the atmosphere´s boundary as longwaveradiation to the ultimate heat sink in space, there is only loss of heat in every step of absorption and emission. If the system leaks as of it is full of holes and the difference in effect of radiation is from 1370W to something like 220W in the middle of the troposphere and even lower at the tropopause, then we can be sure that there is a total abscense of any heating effect or accumulation of energy beyond earth´s absorption of solar radiation. The emitted surface radiation is weakened rapidly immediately after it leaves the surface. Every point above the surface has a lower temperature than the surface and when energy is decreased in heat transfer along its path, that is always a clear sign of cooling. The warming effect of an icecold gasmixture that is in direct contact with an almost zero temperature vacuum as the ultimate heat sink in space that has no resistance, is not observed in any other system of heat transfer. The only place where such an effect is described is in the threat of co2.
        I have tried for quite some time to find a realistic mathematical description of the inclusion of a warming effect from a massive heat absorption in the cold atmosphere, that fits in the equation that describes the radiative balance of incoming high intensity shortwave thermal radiation and low intensity longwave surface cooling.

        If backradiation heats the surface and the effect is about 350-400W/m^2 then it can´t be combined with incoming radiation that hits the surface with an average of 900-1000W/m^2
        It´s all thermal radiation so there´s no point in tricks that use a model with wavelengths to separate earth radiation and insolation. The near IR is much higher intensity and is pure heating with minimal reflection or loss beyond emissivity of absorbing gasmolecules or mass of surface. 50% of solar radiation is IR.

        So, can you give the math that shows how 1370W/m^2 of insolation at a temperature of about 400K that is absorbed and emitted along its path with clear loss of energy that results in a total emissivity of about 0.5 for the whole system, can produce any increase in energy at any point when absorbing it´s own radiation.

        It is an effect that is very similar to trying to get warm in the winter by peeing your pants. There can be no warming from absorbing the planets own emission, that is equal to warming by cooling. Emitted radiation is the process of radiative cooling and the opposite of warming. The sun heats the earth that is a poor absorber of incoming energy and exhibits massive losses as a radiative body. It is a leaky system that cools off to an optimal heat sink with no resistance through it´s dampening thin sheet of gas that mainly cools the surface under insolation by absorbing part of in and outgoing energy and spread it in the volume over the globe. On top of that only half of the surface absorb the radiation that is emitted from twice that surfacearea resulting in a cutting in half immediately when absorbed.

        I would be grateful if you could show the chain of heat transfer for the systems heating by absorption of its own emission of energy. You claim mathskills that is superior to sceptical argumentation so you must have the skill to give the simple standar formula for the process. Starting with 1370=~395^4*0.0000000567 continuing with =absorbed W/m^2=0.0000000567*T^4@surface/2m^2
        —->=emitted W/m^2=0.0000000567*T^4@surface=absorbed W/m^2 in atmosphere=0.0000000567*T^4@atmosphere—–>=emitted w/m^2 in all directions from atmosphere=0.0000000567*T^4@atmosphere =absorbed W/m^2 from re-emitted radiation@surface=0.0000000567*T^4@surface and so on to the point of radiative cooling to the almost zero degree heat sink of space.

        If you know math there is an obvious problem that arise with backradiation when surface is absorbing and gaining heat from it´s old emissions. It makes the balance between surface temperature and insolation incorrect. When you count the re-absorption of it´s own emissions as a heating in opposite direction, then it will force the sun to raise it´s temperature to maintain balance. About now we can dismiss this description of earth´s radiative balance since we can be absolutely sure that it is a one way transfer and the only energy that delivers heat in the system is the suns thermal radiation. The only observed effect on intensity of radiation in earth heat transfer from the sun, is that it lowers intensity massively by cooling at any point in the flow. That can never result in a warming from absorbing it´s own emissions that is dampened when it returns.

        It´s very much like trying to get warm in the winter by peeing your pants and claiming that the emitted heat in pee is adding to the intensity in radiation by absorption in the skin and re-emission in a retarded feedback loop.

        An explanation of how a gas can heat the surface when it is in contact with a heat sink that has infinite capacity would also be nice. I can´t manage to grasp how a gasvolume can retain its temperature when it can radiate without resistance to a optimal heat sink in vacuum. Imagine a gasmixture like earth´s thin atmosphere with a temperature of 300K that floats in near 0K vacuum without insulation. How long time does it take for the temperature of the gas to reach 0K when there is no limit of the heat sinks absorbing capacity and the radiative cooling operates at maximum efficiency. I would say that it will cool off as fast as it is possible to cool a gas to 0K. Why that wouldn´t apply to the gas surrounding our planet is not explained in climate religion of doom.

        My faith in the supernatural co2-doomsday scenario is too weak I guess. Maybe I need to pray to climate-jesus M. Mann and ask for guidance. Or consult the prophet Trenberth about the magic ways of the co2-molecule that can bypass the thermodynamic limits that makes the addition of energy through a molecule that don´t possess any energy possible by feedback that resembles how jesus fed a mass of people with a handfull of fish and bread. Maybe I can find the light through the mysterious ways preached with childlike drawings of energybudgets with arrows in nice colors and number of terryfying heat radiation from icecold gases. Maybe then I can get humble enough to stop questioning the miracles of climate doom and death that cannot be defined by science or logic. Forgive me for my sins of not accepting the lack of math that describes how supernatural molecules can radiate with intensity that is way beyond it´s energycontent.

        Atmosphere is freezing cold. Show the math.

        Like

      • Aphan says:

        http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cloudiness.htm

        For more on clouds and what we know and do not know.

        Like

    • Graham Dancy says:

      Hi Robert, thank you for your useful input. If you are correct and this man is full of crap, I would invite you to explain the correlation in geological history between raised global temperatures and CO2 content of the atmosphere if it has in fact been included in your youtube conspiracy video.
      Moving on, the changes in earths magnetic field occur due to unseen changes deep down within the planets core, the best hypotheses to date suggest a solid core surrounded by a high temperature, low viscosity liquid. It would no be unreasonable to expect this solid core to act as a marshmallow in a coffee cup after being stirred. It will move (in this case tumble). That’s why the poles ‘wander’, the big magnet moves! This has exactly, nothing, to do with CO2 content in the atmosphere.
      Your figures on mankinds CO2 production might be right, I dont care enough to go that deep into because as with all youtube scientists, you are focusing on the wrong aspect. Mans contribution, millions upon millions upon millions of tons per year for 50-60-70+ years has upset the delicate equilibrium which without man would ebb and flow at its own rate as it has for 3+ billion years (and dont even try to start a fight about the earth being 16,000 years old or some such nonsense!). It doesn’t matter if we only produce a fraction, it doesn’t matter if you dont think its going to be so bad as some have predicted, the key point is that its happening regardless!

      So please, stop watching youtube videos and harassing the educated with mindless, pseudo-scientific drivel and go buy some books already….

      Like

    • Graham Dancy says:

      Hi Robert, thank you for your useful input. If you are correct and this man is full of horlicks, I would invite you to explain the correlation in geological history between raised global temperatures and CO2 content of the atmosphere if it has, in fact, been included in your youtube conspiracy videos.
      Moving on, the changes in earths magnetic field occur due to unseen changes deep down within the planets core, the best hypotheses to date suggest a solid core surrounded by a high temperature, low viscosity liquid. It would no be unreasonable to expect this solid core to act as a marshmallow in a coffee cup after being stirred. It will move (in this case tumble). That’s why the poles ‘wander’, the big magnet moves! This has exactly, nothing, to do with CO2 content in the atmosphere.
      Your figures on mankinds CO2 production might be right, I dont care enough to go that deep into because as with all youtube scientists, you are focusing on the wrong aspect. Mans contribution, millions upon millions upon millions of tons per year for 50-60-70+ years has upset the delicate equilibrium which without man would ebb and flow at its own rate as it has for 3+ billion years (and dont even try to start a fight about the earth being 16,000 years old or some such nonsense!). It doesn’t matter if we only produce a fraction, it doesn’t matter if you dont think its going to be so bad as some have predicted, the key point is that its happening regardless!

      So please, stop watching youtube videos and harassing the educated with mindless, pseudo-scientific drivel and go buy some books already….

      Like

    • michaelthwaite says:

      Robert won’t reply, he’s only paid to post.

      Like

    • David says:

      Actually, i believe methane is a much greater factor in climate change than CO². From my study, modern animal agriculture has a greater effect on climate change than all the automotive/industrial pollution combined.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Joe Neubarth says:

      Robert, that is really stupid. I take it that you posted that to be funny. Nobody could be crazy enough to believe any of the gibberish you wrote. Can you change weather with a magnet? When you figure out how, let me know.

      Like

  5. Barry Epstein says:

    Just what is ‘a global climate emergency’? If we haven’t declared one by now, I don’t think there will be many in power who could be convinced to even after this.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Robert says:

    So I was wondering if what the organization/government(which one?) that is spraying the skies all
    over the world and very active this year alone, would have the impact of which you speak.
    Curious…………

    Like

    • There is no way that “THEY” could spray enough to change anything. If the whole of humanity doesn’t produce enough CO2 to change climate, how can “THEY” hope to change something and for what possible reason could exist for an enorme conspiracy costing $m(b)illions to try to do something that has no reason/utility/benefit?

      Like

    • Jackson says:

      Exactly, well said Robert!
      Weather manipulation/Geoengineering/Solar Radiation Management/Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering, used in conjunction with microwave transmitters including HAARP and stationary and mobile NEXRAD transmitters/receivers, are most likely responsible,

      Like

      • Thor says:

        sounds neato….could you provide any actual evidence for your…er…theory?

        Please dont tell me to look up….cuz when I do I see contrails…basic atmospheric physics at work.

        Can you tell me why clouds persist? or why clouds have gaps and start and stop?

        Can a plane- much less a passenger plane- carry enough material to create a trail 100s of miles long? How do those logistics work?

        Like

  7. Pingback: Le Jet Stream croise l’Équateur, c’est sans précédent? – Bienvenue sur le blog de Ben Garneau – Nibiru , catastrophes naturelles et le déplacement des pôles

  8. VJP says:

    If the circle of wind around the equator becomes elliptical, then what? No one knows? What is the worst case scenario of loss of seasonality? (It almost sounds enjoyable; 1 set of clothes).

    Like

  9. Annie Mond says:

    Please sign and share this petition ~ we only have until July 26 to get 100,000 signatures so that the White House has to respond to it.

    We Request A Declaration of Climate Emergency
    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-request-declaration-climate-emergency

    Like

  10. Hi Paul, does this concur with our observations of a NASA super pressure Helium balloon launched from Wanaka New Zealand (Latitude 44.70South) where I live 44 days ago?. It was anticipated that the balloon would circle the southern hemisphere on the jetstream at its intended altitude of 110,000 feet at high circumpolar latitudes . It has done so once but for the last three weeks it has been wallowing/languishing in the eastern pacific at very low latitudes – at one stage it approached the equator. Here is a link to an image of its track.http://www.csbf.nasa.gov/map/balloon9/balloon9.png Currently it is stationery at 80,000 feet at 11degrees. This is weird.Any comments/enlightenment would be much appreciated.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. AJ says:

    I don’t understand why you think this is new.

    If I pick dates almost at random I see that effect

    e.g. March 3rd 2014

    https://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/03/03/0000Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/equirectangular=-347.24,-0.75,242/loc=-145.222,0.652

    e.g. Sept 16th 2015

    https://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/09/16/0000Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-229.68,8.38,379/loc=-145.421,1.240

    Just change the part of the url after the first “#” to go date hopping.

    Using that tool I’m finding it difficult to find dates where I can’t see there isn’t a clear crossing?

    Perhaps I’m missing something, but this seems like an extremely common occurrence rather than something unprecedented.

    Like

  12. Pingback: 'Global climate emergency' declared after jet stream crosses equator | Inhabitat - Green Design, Innovation, Architecture, Green Building

    • Anders Persson says:

      The statement on the site that “A “jet stream” in the usual sense of the word is caused by the thermal wind, which cannot exist at the equator because there is no Coriolis force.” is not correct. The jet streams and the thermal wind depend on each other. One can cause the other. The wind can easily cross the equator just because there is no Coriolis effect there. The wind itself is, however, generated at higher latitudes. I wrote about this in the British weather journal WEATHER in February 2002

      Like

  13. Bob says:

    To anyone who is arguing that it’s not unprecedented, please provide a precedent.

    Like

  14. Leslie Johnson says:

    You are getting trashed in the blogs and twitter. Even MSM kickING in with Capital Weather Gang calling it “utter nonsense”.

    Must rank up there with your prediction of arctic ice gone by now.

    Ouch.

    Like

    • VJP says:

      Does your question really need to be answered? Because it costs a lot of money to go through college, right or wrong thesis.

      Like

  15. Pingback: Gigantic Gravity Waves to Mix Summer With Winter? Wrecked Jet Stream Now Runs From Pole-to-Pole | robertscribbler

  16. Pingback: Food for thought….. | Damn the Matrix

  17. Here is an example of GOES-13 water vapor imagery which shows an East Pacific psubtropical jet stream from the Northern Hemisphere moving southeastward across the Equator and entering the Southern Hemisphere — this just happened to occur during part of the post-launch Science Test for the GOES-13 satellite back in December 2006, when it was capturing full-disk images every 30 minutes (as opposed to the routine 3-hour interval) during a 2-day period: http://go.wisc.edu/52tkaj

    Like

  18. Reblogged this on Move for Change and the Brooklyn Culture Jam and commented:
    This is a new blogpost from Paul Beckwith, a climate scientist who I’ve mentioned previously. His contention is that jet streams, which formerly moved on an East-West axis, are now crossing the equator. This has profound and dire implications for weather systems all over the planet. Click on the video, follow along.

    Like

  19. martin says:

    climate change is a real threat, we should each strive to be conservationists. its the only way out. very eye opening and informative.

    Like

    • Jay says:

      Doesn’t cow farts and any other large animal produce significant amounts of co 2? Manure plants create are releasing massive amounts of c02.man needs to harness cow farts, energy!

      Like

  20. frank says:

    in new Zealand all could air is moving to the east of new Zealand and we are getting lows of aust snow that is normal for new Zealand has not come because we are not getting the wind from Antarctica

    Like

  21. Pingback: Climate scientists: Jet stream crossing equator not unprecedented | Inhabitat - Green Design, Innovation, Architecture, Green Building

  22. borderglider says:

    Do you think this is connected to the fact that the Sun has now been ‘spotless’ for the longest time in the last 200 years?
    “The sun is as blank as a billiard ball, solar activity dwindling to lows not seen in 200 years”
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/30/the-sun-is-as-blank-as-a-billiard-ball-solar-activity-dwindling-to-lows-not-seen-in-200-years/

    I recall seeing some scents suggest that when sunspots are max, the jet stream stays tight around the the top of the planet; when sunspots disappear, the jet strew becomes wandering and erratic.

    Can you expand on the science of this please?

    Like

    • Nemesis says:

      @borderglider

      Please notice:

      “whatsupwiththat” lost all credibility a million times. Therefore, to refer to “whatsupwiththat” is a complete fail, a joke.

      Like

  23. crocolux says:

    Can someone explain to me what it means in simple and intelligible terms. Sorry but my knowledge of climatology is fairly limited

    Like

    • VJP says:

      No one answered you? To the best of my ability: the climate is warming, causing erratic changes, resulting in more extreme and unpredictable forecasts and results. Paul wrote, “a loss of seasonality”, which might be fine, but without adequate rainfall, that could result in desertification.
      It’s like we have a disease; we know the cause, the fever is a symptom, and we aren’t completely sure how much damage the disease will do.

      Like

      • craig says:

        Oh VJP? Care to identify those ‘…..erratic changes…..’ attributable to global warming? And no, modelling is not allowed, just the empirical evidence please.

        Like

  24. Pingback: No, the Earth's jet streams are not spinning out of control – Ars Technica

  25. Teukka says:

    Just my $.02 worth, but as someone who has a general knowledge in natural sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Maths), I think I have noticed a pattern that for the last decades, if there has been any error in the mainstream climatologists research, it has been in underestimating the timing and scale of the effects of Anthropogenic Climate Change.
    Is it just me, or may we be headed for the climatological fecal matter impacting the rotary air distribution apparatus much sooner than expected, and at a much wider scale than expected?
    Mr. Beckwith, am I correct in my assumption that this change in the Jet Stream caught you climatologists by surprise (at varying degrees)?

    Like

  26. Pingback: No, the Earth’s jet streams are not spinning out of control

  27. Teukka says:

    Is it just me, or has the one error (if any) climatologists have made over the past decades been to underestimate the timing and scale of the changes, i.e. it coming far sooner and being more dramatic than expected?

    Like

  28. James Cook says:

    So you find out something new, that no one has ever seen or reported to your knowledge, wrap it up in a lot of propaganda about “climate change”, and say there is something wrong with people who don’t believe the massive amount of propaganda you are stating in your video.

    And you think something is wrong with them!

    Like

    • Nemesis says:

      @James Cook

      “… who don’t believe…”

      Uhm, don’t you know, that anthropogenic climate change (as well as science in general) isn’t about “believing” or about “propaganda, but about scientific facts?!

      That’s the comfort to be a denier:

      Just bullying without any need to contribute any scientific argument. Sorry, but your comment failed all scientific and behavioral standards. One thing can’t be stressed often enough:

      You and your beloved ones will be affected by anthropgenic climate change too.

      Like

  29. Pingback: No, the Earth’s jet streams are not spinning out of control – Diashmond

  30. Midus says:

    Mr. Beckwith you publish or co-publish a farse of a scientific paper, called out on it by superiors and peers of the science and then choose not to own up to the error as well have the ignorance and gull to throw a low blow to people that are unemployed and suffering due to a oil industry that is flailing. What a great piece of work you are…. Not!

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Pingback: Saturday silliness – warmist blows a gasket | Watts Up With That?

  32. Pingback: 3-Star, Blue-Ribbon, Award-Winning Weather into 4th of July. Really. - PAUL DOUGLAS

  33. davesivyer says:

    “climate science communicator”!!
    Therefore, not a scientist. You get that?

    Like

  34. Pingback: 2016 SkS Weekly Digest #27 – Enjeux énergies et environnement

  35. Dennis Phayre says:

    The unkind and belligerent arrogance of of many commenters is both unpleasant and it tends to stifle the free exchange of ideas that could lead us to better set of explanations. No one has definitely figured out all the mechanisms at play or how they all interact with each other (or fail to), so let’s not ridicule others for sharing new ideas even if it does turn out to be alarmist (potentially). Paul’s intention is not to personally profit from his work but to preserve what is dear to all of us – an environment that can sustain us. Constructive criticism will do more good than destroying the messenger. Independent thought on an interdependen planet.

    Like

    • Nemesis says:

      I second your comment in every aspect. Just one forgotten question mark of Sir Beckwith and the denier trolls get mad, muhahaha.

      Better luck next time, venerable Mr. Beckwith 😉

      Like

      • Nemesis says:

        Stop… I have to consider that one twice:

        ” Independent thought on an interdependen planet.”

        Wow, this strikes deep. Thank you, you made my day.

        Like

      • Aphan says:

        Nemesis-

        “Independent thought on an interdependent planet” is a phrase you seem to like and embrace. But it’s a phrase that allows for others to have thoughts that do not agree with your own.

        Independent- “free from outside control; not depending on another’s authority.”
        “synonyms:freethinking, free, individualistic; unconventional, maverick, bold, unconstrained, unfettered, untrammeled”

        If you value independent thoughts, then you must celebrate and allow for thoughts that don’t depend upon anyone’s authority or the “consensus” of others. You must be tolerant of thoughts that are free from the control of outside forces-government, establishment, peers, or authorities. Even James Cook’s thoughts.

        You also seem confused about how science uses words like theories and facts:
        https://ncse.com/library-resource/theory-fact

        “In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts.”
        “The third misconception is that scientific research provides proof in the sense of attaining the absolute truth. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision should new evidence come to light.”

        AGW is a theory that explains facts. So is (natural) global warming theory.

        Like

      • Nemesis says:

        @Apha

        ” If you value independent thoughts, then you must celebrate and allow for thoughts that don’t depend upon anyone’s authority or the “consensus” of others.”

        Right. I just need my very own brain, to sort out the world I am living in. I don’t need science at all, to sort that out. And I don’t need you, to tell me, how science works, hahaha. I just have to go down the street, to see, to smell, to feel, to think and to know. I just have to look out of the window, to realize, that the winters had gone down the drain within years. The Alps are melting away, we got millions and millions of refugees because of extreme drought over many years in Syria for instance. Want scientific papers about that? Just let me know, I can give you millions of honestly peer reviewed papers about FACTS, no denier bullshit. People are dying because of INJUSTICE, GREED, IGNORANCE, MURDERER, EXPLOITATION, LIES, DENIAL, DISINFORMATION, BRAINWASH and the denial propaganda against anthropogenic caused climate change. I am TIRED of all that sick shit. And I tell you:

        I don’t have anything to lose, no children, no descendants, nothing. So just go ahead, I can’t wait to see that system going down. And it is going down already. Bon voyage and please:

        Dream on.

        Like

    • Aphan says:

      “No one has definitely figured out all the mechanisms at play or how they all interact with each other (or fail to), so let’s not ridicule others for sharing new ideas even if it does turn out to be alarmist (potentially). ”

      This is a very important statement that I believe, in a truly logical world, would apply to all situations in which climate is discussed. Because no has has definitively figured out all the mechanisms at play, and how they act, interact, or fail to act with each other, proclaiming that the “science is settled” decades ago was a foolish and scientifically detrimental thing to do. SOME of the “science” might be, but this planet’s climate has been changing for more than 200 years, or 2,000, or even 20 million years, so trying to calculate what “could” happen to it in the future based on only some of the data from a very small portion of it’s history is the antithesis of science, the scientific formula, and reasonable or logical behavior. Abrupt, extreme changes in Earth’s climate are the norm on it, and only during the past 11,000 years of human civilization has it been relatively stable, and informed Earth’s scientists have known this since 2002-
      http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10136/abrupt-climate-change-inevitable-surprises

      Attempting to declare that someone else is a “denier” or an “alarmist” with nothing more than a few comments on a blog to go on is also illogical and irrational. It is completely arrogant to attempt to label people according to what WE THINK/PERCEIVE/ASSUME they believe, and even if by some magical power we COULD accurately label them, bigotry is defined as- “intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.” Arrogance and bigotry have no place in civil discussions at all, much less scientific ones.

      Like

      • Nemesis says:

        @Aphan

        From your refered link:

        ” Description

        The climate record for the past 100,000 years clearly indicates that the climate system has undergone periodic–and often extreme–shifts, sometimes in as little as a decade or less. The causes of abrupt climate changes have not been clearly established, but the triggering of events is likely to be the result of multiple natural processes.

        http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10136/abrupt-climate-change-inevitable-surprises

        Btw, when I click on one of the author’s name of that book (no, it’s not a scientific paper) you refered to, I get this for example:

        ” Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration (2015)
        Committee on Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation and Discussion of Impacts; Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate; Ocean Studies Board; Division on Earth and Life Studies; National Research Council.”

        http://www.nap.edu/author/OSB/division-on-earth-and-life-studies/ocean-studies-board

        So what’s your point after all? Do you want to deny, that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the main cause of the recent abrupt climate change? That the recent extraordinary spike in CO2 and global temperature are just “the result of multiple natural processes”? Just study the numbers of the last 800 000 years at least and you woun’t find any abrupt spike in CO2 and global temperature in such an extremely short period of time like the one we are experiencing right here and now. Or did I miss your point?

        Like

      • Aphan says:

        Nemesis-
        It’s not a book, it’s a collective report done by experts from major U.S. Scientific Academies and councils.

        “NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.

        This study was supported by Contract/Grant 50-DKNA-7-90052 between the National Academy of Sciences, NOAA’s United States Global Change Research Program, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Additional funds for the impacts workshop were provided by the Yale National Bureau of Economic Research Program on Environmental Economics. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.”

        Jeffrey D Masters PhD- wunderground.com
        “The National Academy of Sciences–the board of scientists established by Congress in 1863 to advise the federal government on scientific matters–compiled a comprehensive report in 2002 entitled, Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises. The 244-page report, which contains over 500 references, was written by a team of 59 of the top researchers in climate, and represents the most authoritative source of information about abrupt climate change available.”

        In the past 100,000 years, there have been at least 20 extreme climate change events where temperatures dropped or rose far more, and more rapidly than they have in the past 100 years. Because CO2 did not fluctuate as quickly, it shows that CO2 is not the main driver of climate changes of the past. Correlation is not causation. Not even perfect correlation.

        My point is you should read the Scientific report.

        Like

      • Nemesis says:

        I will not waste anymore time on you denier bullshit. Bye.

        Like

      • Aphan says:

        Nemesis,

        Nemesis said previously-
        “Uhm, don’t you know, that anthropogenic climate change (as well as science in general) isn’t about “believing” or about “propaganda, but about scientific facts?!
        That’s the comfort to be a denier:
        Just bullying without any need to contribute any scientific argument. Sorry, but your comment failed all scientific and behavioral standards.”

        But you then proceeded to supply zero scientific facts. You say- “I just need my very own brain, to sort out the world I am living in. I don’t need science at all, to sort that out. And I don’t need you, to tell me, how science works, hahaha. I just have to go down the street, to see, to smell, to feel, to think and to know.” YOU doesn’t need science at all but you lectured another that ACC is about scientific facts. You called someone else a denier who was just “bullying without any need to contribute any scientific argument”, and then attempt to bully me when I DO present a scientific argument with over 500 scientific references written by 59 top scientists. You state that you” just need your very own brain to sort out the world”, and of course your “instincts”, while calling a report published by the National Academies of Science “denier bullshit”.

        I’m sorry, but your comments fail all scientific and rational, logical behavioral standards.

        Like

      • Nemesis says:

        @Aphan

        My precious time is much to precious to waste it on deniers. So, just enjoy, like ExxonMobil is now enjoying the consequences of denialism ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-real-victim-in-the-exxonmobil-lawsuit-is-the-first-amendment/2016/06/29/8b09cc24-3d37-11e6-9e16-4cf01a41decb_story.html ). They got wealth, they got children, they got much to lose, while I just enjoy seeing that sick system of denial going down. See, I just got nothing to lose 🙂 Not science, not ExxonMobil bats last, but Mother Nature will. The real battle isn’t fought on any forums, but in the darwinian struggle for survival, out there in the djungle of life. See you there.

        Like

      • Aphan says:

        Nemesis,
        Your time is too precious to waste, so why do you keep responding to someone you’ve already decided is a “denier”?

        The Washington Post letter to the editor you linked to doesn’t say anything about ExxonMobile enjoying any “consequences of denialism” at all. So not sure what you’re telling me to “enjoy”.

        We both seem to agree that Nature will win out. Humans certainly do not now control it, nor do I suspect they ever will. One crustal flex and we’re fleas in the wind. I have zero problem with that. Because like you, death does not scare me. “If you want to live, you gotta die”. Civilizations, just like nature, crash and rebuild all the time. Like lightening sparks and burns off the dead wood, as part of nature, we get no special considerations when shes destructive. I too have nothing to lose, because nothing I have belongs to me. They are all gifts that eventually return to where they originated.

        Like

  36. Pingback: Corrente de Jato Atravessa o Equador - Alterações Climáticas

  37. Matt Janovic says:

    Denialists are not necessarily paid to spread doubt over climate disruption. They may be unemployed oil workers or Christianists yearning for rapture, or just faithful Republicans. They may be brilliant people, like Nobel Prize winner Ivar Gleaver, who appears annoyed at the thought that there may be something happening that his brilliant mind did not notice.

    Whatever their motivation, denialists become enraged by any attempt to interfere with their aggressive self-destructive irrational civilization and way of life.

    Like

    • Aphan says:

      “Denialists are not necessarily paid to spread doubt over climate disruption. They may be unemployed oil workers or Christianists yearning for rapture, or just faithful Republicans. They may be brilliant people, like Nobel Prize winner Ivar Gleaver, who appears annoyed at the thought that there may be something happening that his brilliant mind did not notice.”

      “Whatever their motivation, denialists become enraged by any attempt to interfere with their aggressive self-destructive irrational civilization and way of life.”

      What is a “denialist” as you use the term here? What exactly does one have to “deny” to be included in that category?

      In order to make such declarative statements about these people, surely you must have tons of scientific research available that supports your claims. I’d love to see all the evidence proving/identifying a certain group of people who do indeed live undeniably “aggressive self-destructive irrational lives” exists and that said group automatically and without exception become “enraged by any attempt to interfere with” said group. Can you provide links here?

      Like

      • Nemesis says:

        @Aphan

        ” What is a “denialist”…?”

        After 30 years of research, I can smell a denier from a 1000 miles distance. You can’t?^^

        … and I don’t need to have published any scientific paper at all. I just need instinct, yes, the same instinct you need on any street 🙂

        Have fun 😉

        Like

      • Nemesis says:

        @Aphan

        I know of denialists, who shot in their very own feet, like ExxonMobil for instance^^

        https://www.smokeandfumes.org

        Like it? 🙂

        Like

      • Matt Janovic says:

        Denialists deny that civilization is related to ocean acidification, or changes of ocean currents, or Arctic ice retreat, or oceanic dead zones, or the death of coral reefs, or the catastrophic fires and weather extremes we can observe these days.

        Sixty-five years ago I had my last fistfight, with a boy who enjoyed destroying anthills; after that, I saw no need for further research. Young denialists claim their status as God’s favorite, and their right to torment inferior creatures.

        They grow up to be Vogons, of the Republicans or Democrat persuasion, with a God-given right to receive tax breaks, to build glass towers without windows, to block free high-velocity public transit, and to make war on inferior nations. For kicks, they listen to music while stuck in traffic, they squeeze the poor, they create groups like al-Quaeda, and waste enormous quantities of jet fuel, shipping drugged-and-diapered prisoners to torture centers.

        Like

  38. Pingback: The unthinkable reportedly just happened,”global climate emergency?… – Hutts Green Planet

  39. Ray says:

    Matt Janovic, a denialist is just somebody who doesn’t think humans have caused the earth to heat up. We are all in this together.

    Like

    • Nemesis says:

      Deniers are those, who put their very own responsibility onto some gawd, they often hate jews and black people, they hate minorities in general (despite the fact, that they are a minority themselves http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ ), they are mostly sick reps, who just don’t want to see the truth and try to block any reasonable actions trying to change this SICK world we are living in. Not much longer I swear. Mother Nature will kick asses (yes, “We are all in this together”). These are my last words I WASTE on denialists and trolls here. Have a nice day, please. Maybe go to whattsupwiththat or something and enjoy their funny “conversations”. Or just enjoy the law suit against one of the worst denialists ever, ExxonMobil:

      https://www.smokeandfumes.org

      Bye.

      Like

      • Ray says:

        Nemesis, at this point it doesn’t really matter who’s a denialist or what their reasons are. Nothing would change really if they accepted it. The funny thing about blame is that there is always plenty to go around. One could ask what those who knew better were doing about it.

        At this point accepting global warming means to accept that there’s really not much we can do about it, so what’s really important? Is it important to continue blaming people, or perhaps to find some peace through forgiveness?

        Like

      • Aphan says:

        “Deniers are those, who put their very own responsibility onto some gawd, they often hate jews and black people, they hate minorities in general (despite the fact, that they are a minority themselves http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ ), they are mostly sick reps, who just don’t want to see the truth and try to block any reasonable actions trying to change this SICK world we are living in.”

        Thank you for defining what you view a “denier” as. I am none of those things, nor do I know or associate with anyone who fits that description.

        Like

      • Nemesis says:

        @Ray

        ” Thank you for defining what you view a “denier” as. I am none of those things, nor do I know or associate with anyone who fits that description.

        No problem, I expected that already 😎 Maybe you simply take the time and just study some facts about denial (an it’s deathly consequences) and take the chance, to learn something, make PROGRESS:

        https://www.smokeandfumes.org

        https://www.smokeandfumes.org

        https://www.smokeandfumes.org

        You know, people are dying because of the criminal denial of the fossil industries and their henchmen. And many more people will have to die because of that criminal denial

        Thank you for your honest attention.

        Like

      • Nemesis says:

        @Ray

        Sorry, I confused Aphan with you in my last comment.

        Like

      • Aphan says:

        Nemesis-
        “@Ray
        Sorry, I confused Aphan with you in my last comment.”

        So….does that mean you were replying to me and just put his name on it by mistake, or did you think that Ray was the one who said ” Thank you for defining what you view a “denier” as. I am none of those things, nor do I know or associate with anyone who fits that description.”???

        Like

    • Aphan says:

      Ray, apparently Matt prefers his own, irrational, illogical conclusions to your simple definition.

      Since you appear to be more logical, may I ask you what label would you give to someone who thinks it’s entirely possible that human emissions have caused the earth to heat up, but would like to see conclusive evidence in which all other possible, natural sources have been eliminated using the scientific method? What label would you give to someone who actually reads scientific climate research papers of all kinds and understands what it is that scientists actually say that they KNOW, fully understand, and can provide empirical evidence for, and what they say they do not yet KNOW, fully understand, and cannot provide empirical evidence for?

      Like

      • Ray says:

        Hi Aphan, how would I describe such a person? Well, objective, smart enough to get an informed opinion, but perhaps a bit overly cautious. One must realize that science will likely never know everything about anything. If we wait until we do we will run out of time, and so it’s important not to get lost in the paralysis of analysis.

        The lines have been blurred by both the disinformation campaign, and the fact that nature is now doing it to itself. Yes, nature has always released greenhouse gases. If it were not so we wouldn’t be here, but we also know that our activities have caused nature to release much more than would otherwise be released i.e. melting methane, dying forests, eroding limestone, etc. We know that greenhouse gases heat the earth and thereby trigger positive feedback loops, so what’s there really left to debate?

        Like

      • Aphan says:

        Ray
        If science will never likely know everything about anything, how do you “know” we’re running out of time?

        Nature’s entire history is one of change. High greenhouse gases, low greenhouse gases. Cold glacial periods, warm interglacial periods. Wild volcanic upheavals, and slow, steady venting. If there is one consistent thing about Earth’s climate, it’s change.

        Permafrost has melted before, forest have died, burned, been buried under glaciers and ground and oceans. Limestone erodes, and other rock gets pushed from the Earth into mountains that grow higher and higher every year. Other rock gets pulled underground, crushed and then melted only to cycle back up to the surface again. Droughts, cyclones, tornadoes, earthquakes, landslides, etc. And humans had nothing to do with it happening in the past. But it still happened.

        If the Sun stopped shining tomorrow, it would take roughly a week for Earth’s surface temperature to drop below 0 F degrees. If greenhouse gases “heated” the Earth…that wouldn’t happen. Greenhouse gases do not heat the Earth. The solar energy from the Sun heats the Earth. Period. Greenhouse gases absorb and re-emit the long wave energy that the Earth releases as it cools after being heated by short wave radiation. Greenhouse gasses absorbing and releasing radiation slows down the rate at which that heat energy leaves our atmosphere-thus slowing the rate of cooling….not increasing the rate of heating.

        What is left to debate?
        1.The effect of clouds, and the fact that climate models cannot replicate them accurately. 2.Exploration of the ocean floors (the oceans cover 70% of the Earth’s surface and we have explored and mapped a mere 10% of the ocean floors) and the amount of volcanic venting going on down there that we never assumed there could be.
        3.Submarine volcano explosions-once thought impossible at depth, new evidence proves that submarine volcanoes under pressure CAN actually violently erupt, and often do. 4.Cosmic rays and how they affect the levels of C14 in the atmosphere.
        5. Actual measurements of how much heat/long wave radiation is really escaping to space.
        6.The new OCO2 satellite’s images proving the CO2 is not the “well mixed gas” it was supposed to be.
        7.Solar cycles
        8.Milankovitch cycles
        9.Constantly changing estimates of Earth’s sensitivity to CO2.
        10.The fact that warming rates have slowed in the past 18 years while CO2 levels have increased.
        11.The logarithmic affect of CO2.
        12. The fact while experts estimate that 770 Gt of carbon dioxide cycle through Earth’s “fast carbon cycle” every year, the error margins on that estimate are so large that “human emissions” of CO2 can fit within them several times.

        All of these things are either new areas of research, ongoing research, or simply things we do not fully understand yet, and they are not even ALL of the areas in question. So claiming to KNOW somehow, without being able to account for and eliminate all of the other factors, that CO2 is the driving force behind global temperatures is just illogical, unscientific, and while plausible, remains unproven. Those who rushed to declare it so, could have used a little more caution.

        Like

      • Ray says:

        Aphan, that’s kind of what I meant about not waiting to find out every last thing before we act. Historically, greenhouse gases have been the primary mechanism the Earth has used to warm itself. It has played a major roll in all 6 major extinctions that we know of including the current one.

        How powerful are greenhouse gases? Well, concider this. 650 million years ago when the Earth was mostly covered in ice and most solar radiation was reflected back into space it was the large scale release of greenhouse gases that lead to global warming. What other natural mechanism on Earth could have done that?

        What’s happening on the ocean floor? Greenhouse gases are being released. Why do volcanos lead to rising temperatures after the particulates fall out of the atmosphere? Because of greenhouse gases. Why was the Earth so much hotter when the dinosaurs were around? Because of greenhouse gases.

        We know that the Earth has been heating up ever since the start of the industrial revolution, we know that we have released massive quantities of greenhouse gases, and we know that the Earth is heating up faster now since the clathrate gun fired in 2007. The so called “pause” in global warming has been disproven as we now know that the heat went into the ocean.

        Considering the consequences to life on Earth there comes a time, and unfortunately we may have already passed it, when enough research has been done and action is required. That doesn’t mean we stop studying it, it just means that we act on the available evidence.

        Like

      • Aphan says:

        Ray,
        I appreciate your responses.
        First, I’m not saying that we have to debate every single issue before we act at all. I’m saying, that the Scientific Method requires the elimination of every other possibility BEFORE one puts forth a declarative theory saying “This happens because of this”, the reverse of what happened when CO2 was hypothesized to drive Earth’s climate. And how exactly do we “act” correctly, if we do not correctly understand the system we mean to act upon?

        “Historically, greenhouse gases have been the primary mechanism the Earth has used to warm itself. It has played a major roll in all 6 major extinctions that we know of including the current one.”

        I hope to keep this discussion as scientifically correct as possible, so first:The Sun is the primary, in fact, sole mechanism that warms the Earth. Period. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere prevent Earth from daily wild temperature swings between extremely hot, and extremely cold like the Moon experiences (because it has no atmosphere). Earth’s atmosphere is a buffer…that keeps massive amounts of the Sun’s energy from cooking us during the day, as well as slowing down the rate that the Earth cools off, at night. But the Sun is the sole source of Earth’s daily heat except for a very small amount of heat that radiates outward from Earth’s inner core. If the Sun went out tomorrow, greenhouse gases would not even be able to “maintain” today’s current warmth for 24 hours, and temps would rapidly drop to far below zero.

        Yes, the Earth has experienced major extinctions before, and greenhouse gases certainly change during them. But science has a principle that states “Correlation is not causation”. Simply because two things occur at once, or nearly at once, does not mean that they share a causal or cause–> effect relationship. Sediment and ice core records show temperatures moving before CO2 levels do. Changes in temp have always preceded changes in CO2.

        One of the worst extinctions occurred at the end of the Permian Era. Scientists are STILL researching what caused it, but as of today, the most likely explanation is that an asteroid, of magnitudes larger than Chicxulub, hit the Wilkes Land region of Antarctica, causing an impact crater 500 kilometers wide now buried more than a mile beneath the ice. The impact was so catastrophic, it could very well be what caused Godwana to break up.
        http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/08/antarctica-site-of-the-biggest-impact-crater-on-earth-revealed.html

        Something that massive WOULD eject incredible amounts of heat, CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, including carbon monoxide a deadly gas that kills. Between the heat of the asteroid, the cracking of Earth’s crust across the entire globe, the electric storms, fire, ash, and other resulting impact factors, things died…big time. But major catastrophic events cause major disruptions of all of Earth’s systems, not just its levels of CO2. You have to examine ALL the evidence and how things happened together, not separately.

        “How powerful are greenhouse gases? Well, concider this. 650 million years ago when the Earth was mostly covered in ice and most solar radiation was reflected back into space it was the large scale release of greenhouse gases that lead to global warming. What other natural mechanism on Earth could have done that?

        First, snowball earth is a hypothesis. Second, if greenhouse gases are so powerful, how did the Earth become covered with ice in the first place??? And why have Ice Ages started and advanced with levels of Co2 in the atmosphere in the thousands of ppm???? Ice and cooling appear to be more powerful than CO2 because they can overwhelm it’s effects. Third-asteroid impact.

        “We know that the Earth has been heating up ever since the start of the industrial revolution, we know that we have released massive quantities of greenhouse gases, and we know that the Earth is heating up faster now since the clathrate gun fired in 2007. The so called “pause” in global warming has been disproven as we now know that the heat went into the ocean.”

        Correction, Earth has been heating up since the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago, and long, LONG time before human emissions could have been the cause of the geological long term warming trend. And a good thing for us that it has. But we have ZERO evidence that this planet has calmed down to a point where none of those violent, climate changing, natural events cannot or will not ever happen again. To postulate that human emissions are controlling anything at this point, is simply a weak argument at best.

        Like

      • Matt Janovic says:

        Denialists are not necessarily as malevolent as Nemesis suspects them to be. My denialist neighbors are nice, but they say that burning garbage does not harm anyone. In the winter they burn it in the wood stove; in the summer they burn it outside.

        My basic problem is my irrationality: I do not particularly care to “fully understand” how cancer develops. Illogically, I refuse to “provide empirical evidence” showing that living downwind from garbage burners is a cause of cancer.

        Like

      • Aphan says:

        I don’t know, and never have known, anyone as malevolent as Nemesis describes some people to be. I have known a few as stupid and oblivious as you describe, but I have no interest in what they accept or deny. Stereotyping and judging people based upon our own impressions of them, or because we “think we know” who or what they are, is arrogant, illogical, and a really sad and small way to live life. The human race is far more beautiful and complex than mere labels .

        Like

      • Ray says:

        “Aphan wrote:
        Ray,
        I appreciate your responses.
        First, I’m not saying that we have to debate every single issue before we act at all. I’m saying, that the Scientific Method requires the elimination of every other possibility BEFORE one puts forth a declarative theory saying “This happens because of this”, the reverse of what happened when CO2 was hypothesized to drive Earth’s climate. And how exactly do we “act” correctly, if we do not correctly understand the system we mean to act upon?”

        Positive statements in the world of science generally don’t hold up well. In order to eliminate every possibility we would need to know everything about it. That’s why science has only theories and considers data to be evidence and not proof.

        “Aphan wrote:
        I hope to keep this discussion as scientifically correct as possible, so first:The Sun is the primary, in fact, sole mechanism that warms the Earth. Period. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere prevent Earth from daily wild temperature swings between extremely hot, and extremely cold like the Moon experiences (because it has no atmosphere). Earth’s atmosphere is a buffer…that keeps massive amounts of the Sun’s energy from cooking us during the day, as well as slowing down the rate that the Earth cools off, at night. But the Sun is the sole source of Earth’s daily heat except for a very small amount of heat that radiates outward from Earth’s inner core. If the Sun went out tomorrow, greenhouse gases would not even be able to “maintain” today’s current warmth for 24 hours, and temps would rapidly drop to far below zero.”

        Of course the heat comes from the sun, but that doesn’t change the fact that the main way the Earth heats itself is by releasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) to capture more of the suns radiation. I think we can both agree the Earth does not cause the sun to get hotter right?

        “Aphan wrote:
        Yes, the Earth has experienced major extinctions before, and greenhouse gases certainly change during them. But science has a principle that states “Correlation is not causation”. Simply because two things occur at once, or nearly at once, does not mean that they share a causal or cause–> effect relationship. Sediment and ice core records show temperatures moving before CO2 levels do. Changes in temp have always preceded changes in CO2.”

        Again that positive statement makes it untrue. Words like “always” and “every” are dangerous. In many cases a spike in GHGs precedes a spike in temperature:

        http://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915.epdf?referrer_access_token=bQZoVNSKLS4iwqOhQTIak9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Np5ubGZZNBAsXWOqI-1XaGyiAM7P3LFYnA4vdpzw2bD8uXEMcx27dae22dTcMvdXy9GqKj_eLhUFzLm7qCxfzs_YMdjfstCBPVKm-Ky9Ea-Erb1uxUFadWJxYhcmPECYsQs8YI9zYzddkroANWkM6BtpXco0ubPvlTTyrngEdJMXtp-AfvsnVRpdish-q7n33ZmqZeK8e6Gr0eYQlOLtoc4AvGTIPK4o4QTn-8AoHv-g%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=thinkprogress.org

        It’s well established that GHGs such as CO2 cause the Earth’s temperature to rise. Sometimes correlation is because of causation. You have to understand that it only takes a very slight increase in the Earth’s average temperature for greenhouse gases to be released. Whenever the sun gets slightly hotter, or the Earth’s orbit shifts a little, or some other cosmic event happens that causes a slight warming of the Earth, the temperature will rise first and thereby release the GHGs which cause a further rise in temperature.

        “Aphan wrote:
        One of the worst extinctions occurred at the end of the Permian Era. Scientists are STILL researching what caused it, but as of today, the most likely explanation is that an asteroid, of magnitudes larger than Chicxulub, hit the Wilkes Land region of Antarctica, causing an impact crater 500 kilometers wide now buried more than a mile beneath the ice. The impact was so catastrophic, it could very well be what caused Godwana to break up.

        http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/08/antarctica-site-of-the-biggest-impact-crater-on-earth-revealed.html

        There are still many questions that need to be answered. Such an impact should have destroyed everything in a matter of days if not sooner, and we know that the Permian extinction lasted at least a few hundred thousand years if not tens of millions of years. There is nowhere near as much evidence for it as there is for the Chicxulub impact.

        “Aphan wrote:
        Something that massive WOULD eject incredible amounts of heat, CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, including carbon monoxide a deadly gas that kills. Between the heat of the asteroid, the cracking of Earth’s crust across the entire globe, the electric storms, fire, ash, and other resulting impact factors, things died…big time. But major catastrophic events cause major disruptions of all of Earth’s systems, not just its levels of CO2. You have to examine ALL the evidence and how things happened together, not separately.”

        Well, I think we can both agree we have not been hit by a large space object in recent times, and yet here we are in the middle of the 6th great extinction. That rules a lot out.

        “Aphan wrote:
        First, snowball earth is a hypothesis. Second, if greenhouse gases are so powerful, how did the Earth become covered with ice in the first place??? And why have Ice Ages started and advanced with levels of Co2 in the atmosphere in the thousands of ppm???? Ice and cooling appear to be more powerful than CO2 because they can overwhelm it’s effects.

        There are many possible causes of snowball Earth. Last I checked we know little about it. Possibly some cosmic event. Possibly some reduction in GHGs. I’d like to see your evidence about the ice ages starting when there is that much CO2 in the atmosphere. That last sentence is not necessarily true. For example our own GHG emissions have warmed the Arctic enough to trigger the clathrate gun.

        “Aphan wrote:
        Correction, Earth has been heating up since the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago, and long, LONG time before human emissions could have been the cause of the geological long term warming trend. And a good thing for us that it has. But we have ZERO evidence that this planet has calmed down to a point where none of those violent, climate changing, natural events cannot or will not ever happen again. To postulate that human emissions are controlling anything at this point, is simply a weak argument at best.

        Of course I beg to differ. The evidence is overwhelming. We have not been hit by any cosmic event to heat the Earth up in recent times. That rules out everything that we’ve identified so far except GHGs. Also, there have been times in the past 20,000 years when the Earth has cooled for example The Little Ice Age.

        Like

      • Ray says:

        Part I

        “Aphan wrote:
        Ray,
        I appreciate your responses.
        First, I’m not saying that we have to debate every single issue before we act at all. I’m saying, that the Scientific Method requires the elimination of every other possibility BEFORE one puts forth a declarative theory saying “This happens because of this”, the reverse of what happened when CO2 was hypothesized to drive Earth’s climate. And how exactly do we “act” correctly, if we do not correctly understand the system we mean to act upon?”

        Positive statements in the world of science generally don’t hold up well. In order to eliminate every possibility we would need to know everything about it. That’s why science has only theories and considers data to be evidence and not proof.

        “Aphan wrote:
        I hope to keep this discussion as scientifically correct as possible, so first:The Sun is the primary, in fact, sole mechanism that warms the Earth. Period. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere prevent Earth from daily wild temperature swings between extremely hot, and extremely cold like the Moon experiences (because it has no atmosphere). Earth’s atmosphere is a buffer…that keeps massive amounts of the Sun’s energy from cooking us during the day, as well as slowing down the rate that the Earth cools off, at night. But the Sun is the sole source of Earth’s daily heat except for a very small amount of heat that radiates outward from Earth’s inner core. If the Sun went out tomorrow, greenhouse gases would not even be able to “maintain” today’s current warmth for 24 hours, and temps would rapidly drop to far below zero.”

        Of course the heat comes from the sun, but that doesn’t change the fact that the main way the Earth heats itself is by releasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) to capture more of the suns radiation. I think we can both agree the Earth does not cause the sun to get hotter right?

        “Aphan wrote:
        Yes, the Earth has experienced major extinctions before, and greenhouse gases certainly change during them. But science has a principle that states “Correlation is not causation”. Simply because two things occur at once, or nearly at once, does not mean that they share a causal or cause–> effect relationship. Sediment and ice core records show temperatures moving before CO2 levels do. Changes in temp have always preceded changes in CO2.”

        Again that positive statement makes it untrue. Words like “always” and “every” are dangerous. In many cases a spike in GHGs precedes a spike in temperature:

        http://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915.epdf?referrer_access_token=bQZoVNSKLS4iwqOhQTIak9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Np5ubGZZNBAsXWOqI-1XaGyiAM7P3LFYnA4vdpzw2bD8uXEMcx27dae22dTcMvdXy9GqKj_eLhUFzLm7qCxfzs_YMdjfstCBPVKm-Ky9Ea-Erb1uxUFadWJxYhcmPECYsQs8YI9zYzddkroANWkM6BtpXco0ubPvlTTyrngEdJMXtp-AfvsnVRpdish-q7n33ZmqZeK8e6Gr0eYQlOLtoc4AvGTIPK4o4QTn-8AoHv-g%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=thinkprogress.org

        It’s well established that GHGs such as CO2 cause the Earth’s temperature to rise. Sometimes correlation is because of causation. You have to understand that it only takes a very slight increase in the Earth’s average temperature for greenhouse gases to be released. Whenever the sun gets slightly hotter, or the Earth’s orbit shifts a little, or some other cosmic event happens that causes a slight warming of the Earth, the temperature will rise first and thereby release the GHGs which cause a further rise in temperature.

        “Aphan wrote:
        One of the worst extinctions occurred at the end of the Permian Era. Scientists are STILL researching what caused it, but as of today, the most likely explanation is that an asteroid, of magnitudes larger than Chicxulub, hit the Wilkes Land region of Antarctica, causing an impact crater 500 kilometers wide now buried more than a mile beneath the ice. The impact was so catastrophic, it could very well be what caused Godwana to break up.

        http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/08/antarctica-site-of-the-biggest-impact-crater-on-earth-revealed.html

        Like

      • Ray says:

        This will be a 2 part response.

        “Aphan wrote:
        Ray,
        I appreciate your responses.
        First, I’m not saying that we have to debate every single issue before we act at all. I’m saying, that the Scientific Method requires the elimination of every other possibility BEFORE one puts forth a declarative theory saying “This happens because of this”, the reverse of what happened when CO2 was hypothesized to drive Earth’s climate. And how exactly do we “act” correctly, if we do not correctly understand the system we mean to act upon?”

        Positive statements in the world of science generally don’t hold up well. In order to eliminate every possibility we would need to know everything about it. That’s why science has only theories and considers data to be evidence and not proof.

        “Aphan wrote:
        I hope to keep this discussion as scientifically correct as possible, so first:The Sun is the primary, in fact, sole mechanism that warms the Earth. Period. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere prevent Earth from daily wild temperature swings between extremely hot, and extremely cold like the Moon experiences (because it has no atmosphere). Earth’s atmosphere is a buffer…that keeps massive amounts of the Sun’s energy from cooking us during the day, as well as slowing down the rate that the Earth cools off, at night. But the Sun is the sole source of Earth’s daily heat except for a very small amount of heat that radiates outward from Earth’s inner core. If the Sun went out tomorrow, greenhouse gases would not even be able to “maintain” today’s current warmth for 24 hours, and temps would rapidly drop to far below zero.”

        Of course the heat comes from the sun, but that doesn’t change the fact that the main way the Earth heats itself is by releasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) to capture more of the suns radiation. I think we can both agree the Earth does not cause the sun to get hotter right?

        “Aphan wrote:
        Yes, the Earth has experienced major extinctions before, and greenhouse gases certainly change during them. But science has a principle that states “Correlation is not causation”. Simply because two things occur at once, or nearly at once, does not mean that they share a causal or cause–> effect relationship. Sediment and ice core records show temperatures moving before CO2 levels do. Changes in temp have always preceded changes in CO2.”

        Again that positive statement makes it untrue. Words like “always” and “every” are dangerous. In many cases a spike in GHGs precedes a spike in temperature:

        http://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915.epdf?referrer_access_token=bQZoVNSKLS4iwqOhQTIak9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Np5ubGZZNBAsXWOqI-1XaGyiAM7P3LFYnA4vdpzw2bD8uXEMcx27dae22dTcMvdXy9GqKj_eLhUFzLm7qCxfzs_YMdjfstCBPVKm-Ky9Ea-Erb1uxUFadWJxYhcmPECYsQs8YI9zYzddkroANWkM6BtpXco0ubPvlTTyrngEdJMXtp-AfvsnVRpdish-q7n33ZmqZeK8e6Gr0eYQlOLtoc4AvGTIPK4o4QTn-8AoHv-g%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=thinkprogress.org

        It’s well established that GHGs such as CO2 cause the Earth’s temperature to rise. Sometimes correlation is because of causation. You have to understand that it only takes a very slight increase in the Earth’s average temperature for greenhouse gases to be released. Whenever the sun gets slightly hotter, or the Earth’s orbit shifts a little, or some other cosmic event happens that causes a slight warming of the Earth, the temperature will rise first and thereby release the GHGs which cause a further rise in temperature.

        “Aphan wrote:
        One of the worst extinctions occurred at the end of the Permian Era. Scientists are STILL researching what caused it, but as of today, the most likely explanation is that an asteroid, of magnitudes larger than Chicxulub, hit the Wilkes Land region of Antarctica, causing an impact crater 500 kilometers wide now buried more than a mile beneath the ice. The impact was so catastrophic, it could very well be what caused Godwana to break up.

        http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/08/antarctica-site-of-the-biggest-impact-crater-on-earth-revealed.html

        There are still many questions that need to be answered. Such an impact should have destroyed everything in a matter of days if not sooner, and we know that the Permian extinction lasted at least a few hundred thousand years if not tens of millions of years. There is nowhere near as much evidence for it as there is for the Chicxulub impact.

        Like

      • Aphan says:

        Indeed there are many questions that need to be answered. Many scientists believe that the extinction took place in phases…with more than one event punctuating the climate system causing both the extinction and recovery to happen very slowly.

        The Earth is constantly changing, moving, shifting, and all of the things on it do too. It is impossible and insane to argue as if there was a specific point in time in which one could say: “Right there….that’s when the Earth’s climate was PERFECT in every way, and if NOTHING had changed (based on an irrational assumption that without humans the Earth would have halted in that “perfect” spot forever) it would have remained right there forever. But those darn humans had to come in and release a lot of CO2 and now everything is changing (just like always) but it’s all going to get ruined.” It’s giving some kind of magical and unscientific power to CO2 molecules that doesn’t exist in reality.

        Like

      • Ray says:

        Mods, why doesn’t my reply to Aphan get posted?

        Like

      • Ray says:

        “Aphan wrote:
        Ray,
        I appreciate your responses.
        First, I’m not saying that we have to debate every single issue before we act at all. I’m saying, that the Scientific Method requires the elimination of every other possibility BEFORE one puts forth a declarative theory saying “This happens because of this”, the reverse of what happened when CO2 was hypothesized to drive Earth’s climate. And how exactly do we “act” correctly, if we do not correctly understand the system we mean to act upon?”

        Positive statements in the world of science generally don’t hold up well. In order to eliminate every possibility we would need to know everything about it. That’s why science has only theories and considers data to be evidence and not proof.

        “Aphan wrote:
        I hope to keep this discussion as scientifically correct as possible, so first:The Sun is the primary, in fact, sole mechanism that warms the Earth. Period. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere prevent Earth from daily wild temperature swings between extremely hot, and extremely cold like the Moon experiences (because it has no atmosphere). Earth’s atmosphere is a buffer…that keeps massive amounts of the Sun’s energy from cooking us during the day, as well as slowing down the rate that the Earth cools off, at night. But the Sun is the sole source of Earth’s daily heat except for a very small amount of heat that radiates outward from Earth’s inner core. If the Sun went out tomorrow, greenhouse gases would not even be able to “maintain” today’s current warmth for 24 hours, and temps would rapidly drop to far below zero.”

        Of course the heat comes from the sun, but that doesn’t change the fact that the main way the Earth heats itself is by releasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) to capture more of the suns radiation. I think we can both agree the Earth does not cause the sun to get hotter right?

        Like

      • Ray says:

        “Aphan wrote:
        Yes, the Earth has experienced major extinctions before, and greenhouse gases certainly change during them. But science has a principle that states “Correlation is not causation”. Simply because two things occur at once, or nearly at once, does not mean that they share a causal or cause–> effect relationship. Sediment and ice core records show temperatures moving before CO2 levels do. Changes in temp have always preceded changes in CO2.”

        Again that positive statement makes it untrue. Words like “always” and “every” are dangerous. In many cases a spike in GHGs precedes a spike in temperature:

        http://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915.epdf?referrer_access_token=bQZoVNSKLS4iwqOhQTIak9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Np5ubGZZNBAsXWOqI-1XaGyiAM7P3LFYnA4vdpzw2bD8uXEMcx27dae22dTcMvdXy9GqKj_eLhUFzLm7qCxfzs_YMdjfstCBPVKm-Ky9Ea-Erb1uxUFadWJxYhcmPECYsQs8YI9zYzddkroANWkM6BtpXco0ubPvlTTyrngEdJMXtp-AfvsnVRpdish-q7n33ZmqZeK8e6Gr0eYQlOLtoc4AvGTIPK4o4QTn-8AoHv-g%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=thinkprogress.org

        It’s well established that GHGs such as CO2 cause the Earth’s temperature to rise. Sometimes correlation is because of causation. You have to understand that it only takes a very slight increase in the Earth’s average temperature for greenhouse gases to be released. Whenever the sun gets slightly hotter, or the Earth’s orbit shifts a little, or some other cosmic event happens that causes a slight warming of the Earth, the temperature will rise first and thereby release the GHGs which cause a further rise in temperature.

        Like

      • Ray says:

        “Aphan wrote:
        One of the worst extinctions occurred at the end of the Permian Era. Scientists are STILL researching what caused it, but as of today, the most likely explanation is that an asteroid, of magnitudes larger than Chicxulub, hit the Wilkes Land region of Antarctica, causing an impact crater 500 kilometers wide now buried more than a mile beneath the ice. The impact was so catastrophic, it could very well be what caused Godwana to break up.

        http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/08/antarctica-site-of-the-biggest-impact-crater-on-earth-revealed.html

        There are still many questions that need to be answered. Such an impact should have destroyed everything in a matter of days if not sooner, and we know that the Permian extinction lasted at least a few hundred thousand years if not tens of millions of years. There is nowhere near as much evidence for it as there is for the Chicxulub impact.

        “Aphan wrote:
        Something that massive WOULD eject incredible amounts of heat, CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, including carbon monoxide a deadly gas that kills. Between the heat of the asteroid, the cracking of Earth’s crust across the entire globe, the electric storms, fire, ash, and other resulting impact factors, things died…big time. But major catastrophic events cause major disruptions of all of Earth’s systems, not just its levels of CO2. You have to examine ALL the evidence and how things happened together, not separately.”

        Well, I think we can both agree we have not been hit by a large space object in recent times, and yet here we are in the middle of the 6th great extinction. That rules a lot out.

        Like

      • Ray says:

        “Aphan wrote:
        First, snowball earth is a hypothesis. Second, if greenhouse gases are so powerful, how did the Earth become covered with ice in the first place??? And why have Ice Ages started and advanced with levels of Co2 in the atmosphere in the thousands of ppm???? Ice and cooling appear to be more powerful than CO2 because they can overwhelm it’s effects.

        There are many possible causes of snowball Earth. Last I checked we know little about it. Possibly some cosmic event. Possibly some reduction in GHGs. I’d like to see your evidence about the ice ages starting when there is that much CO2 in the atmosphere. That last sentence is not necessarily true. For example our own GHG emissions have warmed the Arctic enough to trigger the clathrate gun.

        “Aphan wrote:
        Correction, Earth has been heating up since the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago, and long, LONG time before human emissions could have been the cause of the geological long term warming trend. And a good thing for us that it has. But we have ZERO evidence that this planet has calmed down to a point where none of those violent, climate changing, natural events cannot or will not ever happen again. To postulate that human emissions are controlling anything at this point, is simply a weak argument at best.

        Of course I beg to differ. The evidence is overwhelming. We have not been hit by any cosmic event to heat the Earth up in recent times. That rules out everything that we’ve identified so far except GHGs. Also, there have been times in the past 20,000 years when the Earth has cooled for example The Little Ice Age.

        Like

      • Ray says:

        My apologies for breaking that up into 4 posts, but apparently that was the only way it would get posted.

        Like

      • Ray says:

        Aphan, do you dispute that GHGs lead to a warming of the planet? Do you dispute that the Earth is now warming up to rapidly for species to adapt?

        Like

      • Aphan says:

        Ray,
        “Aphan, do you dispute that GHGs lead to a warming of the planet? Do you dispute that the Earth is now warming up to rapidly for species to adapt?”

        0.007 C per year is too rapid for species to adapt? Which species? How long do you think most creatures live??? Name ONE animal or species on this planet that does NOT experience a range of temperatures every single day that is hundreds of times that much, if not thousands? ALL of the species where I live experience a range of temps every single day, right now, that ranges from 60 F at night to 100 F during the day. And in the winter, it’s between 5 F and 30 F. That’s a 55 F difference between low temps just in 6 months! Species adapt all the time, or die. The Earth is not warming up too rapidly for any of them.

        Green house gases SLOW the rate at which the Earth can cool itself. That is a totally different scientific process than saying that GHG’s “warm the earth”. If you put a thin blanket over a dead/cold body laying on the ground, would that blanket be able to “heat” it? NO. Now put a heat lamp over that body simulating “day”. That body would warm up a little, but the blanket would actually STOP some of the warmth from the lamp from reaching the body. It would act like “shade” in a sense. Now, turn the lamp off to simulate “night”, the body will instantly begin to cool again, and the blanket will slow down that rate, but no one in their right mind would say that the blanket “leads to a warming of the body”.

        Comparing the atmosphere to putting on a blanket or jacket as a human is idiotic at best, because the human body GENERATES heat, and the blanket or jacket then “traps” that heat and keeps it closer to the body. But a blanket or jacket does not CREATE heat. They don’t generate heat that wasn’t already there in the first place. And the Earth’s “body temperature” is roughly -20 C without the Sun. So putting a blanket around something that cold would not lead to it becoming “warm” would it?

        Like

      • Ray says:

        Well, it looks like this forum malfunctioned. On the 7th I tried several times to post a reply and it didn’t show up, so finally I broke the reply up into 4 pieces and then it posted to the forum. Now, on the 9th, it appears all of my previous attempts finally got posted … go figure …

        Anyway, forgive the flood, it was unintentional. Hopefully it will not happen again. Peace

        Like

    • Nemesis says:

      @Ray

      ” Nemesis, at this point it doesn’t really matter who’s a denialist or what their reasons are.”

      Go and tell that to those, who got children or who are children right now, because they will have to live with the ugly consequences of criminal denail for the rest of their lifes, as the coming generations will have to for the next few thousand years at least. So, please explain such a viewpoint of yours to the children of this world.

      ” The funny thing about blame is that there is always plenty to go around.”

      Exactly, there are countless ccases of criminal denial and eco crimes. To give you just one classic example of denial:

      ExxonMobil had their very own scientific studies DECADES ago, they found out without any doubt, that human CO2 emissions are the main cause, that the climate is heating up, but denied that for many decades and financed denier campagnes for many decades, only because of their very own profitinterest (proverd by their very own documents):

      https://www.smokeandfumes.org

      You don’t want to defend such CRIMINAL acts of denial, do you? They will have to explain these criminal acts, especially to the kids of this planet (they don’t need to explain anything to me me personally anymore at all, I am done with that criminal, suicidal denial). You know, I don’t have kids, because I have seen through all the lies and denial the system is build on from a very early age on, that’s really easy, when you have been born in the ghetto, like I have (so, I am thankful to be born there), so I did not procreate. I am very happy, that I did not procreate, I’d go mad, if my children would have to live with the consequences of lies and perfidious denial because of other people’s greed for profit.

      ” Is it important to continue blaming people, or perhaps to find some peace through forgiveness?”

      Yes, it IS important to blame those, who did such crimes and still go on to commit such crimes. These kind of people must be prosecuted for their crimes and they will be prosecuted (or what is JUSTICE good for after all?!):

      http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/05/18/lawsuit-against-exxonmobil-ties-climate-policy-local-oil-hazard

      Forgiveness? Me, personally, I don’t have to forgive anything at all, bercause I just don’t have anything to lose, no children, who will have to live with the consequences of these crimes, no wealth, nothing. In fact, I am extremely thankful, that this system has beaten me up all my life, because the beating saved me from becoming a neat and sober part of the consumerherd, the beating I experienced from the system enlightened me once and for all, so there is no need for me, to forgive them anything at all. As I said, I am thankful for the brutal enlightenment. But the children and other victims of the system might not be that ready for forgiveness like I am.

      You talked about progress in another comment of yours:

      JUSTICE and the end of denial is on top of the list. And there will be Justice and the end of denial absolutely for sure, the Universe does not forget anything, nothing gets lost within the Universe, nobody can escape from his very own Karma, nobody can ever escape from his very own shadow. Nor from the consequences of his very own crimes in the long run and I like that, because otherwise, injustice and denial would go on forever.

      Like

      • Nemesis says:

        Btw:

        Nature does not forgive anything. In the djungle, denial is deathly. Always. The darwinian struggle for survival does not forgive any denial. I learned about the darwinian struggle for survival in the school of the system (so, thanks again here^^), I learned that in the ghetto, I learned that in the djungle of life.

        Like

      • Ray says:

        Nemesis, the point I was trying to make is simply that if we blame them we must blame ourselves as well. At this point there probably is not much we can do to stop what’s to come. Even if we deliberately collapse our society it would spike temperatures and cause our nuclear power plants to meltdown. Should we teach our children hate and vengeance, or should we teach them love and forgiveness?

        The rich elite will suffer along with the rest of us when collapse happens, and technically, we have all contributed to the problem by living in this society. Do we want to spend our last few hours at each others throats like we’ve always done, or do we want to forgive ourselves and each other and finally learn the lesson that would have prevented all this from happening in the first place? For me, I choose the latter.

        Like

      • Nemesis says:

        @Ray

        Sure, I have to blame myself for living in a ghetto my whole life, driving a bycicle my whole life, living from existential minimum my whole life, being beaten by the system my whole life and, last but not least, I have to blame myself especially for the crimes of Exxon Mobil et al and the destruction of the planet in general. No problem: I am guilty. But I am not quite convinced, if this confession of mine will save Exxon Mobil from prosecution, the planet from further destruction or the system from final brakedown^^

        I just go back to my guitar now, enjoying some few more years I might have as an old man, just letting go, practicing love and forgiveness and preparing for inevitable death (yes, death is inevitable for everyone anyway), my friend, not wasting any more time on a dead horse. This funny shell game will go on until the final, ugly end, without me.

        ….. gnahahahajahajahaha, I am beginning to understand Doctor Guy McPherson’s message better and better every single day.

        http://tinyurl.com/hw978wa

        @Matt Janovic

        I feel sorry for the anthills- be sure, they will be retaliated.

        Like

    • Nemesis says:

      @Moderation

      Please delete my last comment (still in moderation!) adressed to Ray, because I confused Aphan with him. Thank you.

      Like

  40. Nemesis says:

    If you want to live, you got do die. That’s a cosmic law, down to the ants, up to the stars and galaxies. This system strives to live forever, to conserve exploitation and injustice forever in evolution. For those in power, It’s all about control, blocking the free flow of life, of evolution. But the more they control, the more they will lose control. Building dams, like Faust, higher and higher? Nature will crash them down. Nature doesn’t allow too much control, Nature wants to flow freely, Nature just does not obey. And I like that. Nature is anarchic through and through, it’s real power doesn’t go from top to bottom, but from all directions in all directions. I like that about Nature. To me, death is just another part of life, from a cosmic point of view, death is always nothing but transformation. Transformation happens all the time, not just within our small, individual death, it happens to every single cell of our bodies every second. But this system of control and power through money (nothing but fiddling funny numbers) wants to stop evolutionary transformation and control it forever. That’s childish, greedy and ignorant. The more they try to control it, the more they will lose it.

    Like

    • Ray says:

      Makes one wonder what progress truly is.

      Like

      • Nemesis says:

        Something like the free flow of evolution, like Music or something… Western philosophie got the notion, that progress is like going from A to B and in the middle of it saying “Well, now I got so and so far”, muahaha… To me, progress is just like breathing in, breathing out or like the rain or the wind or the tide of the ocean, just wandering without any goal.

        Like

      • Nemesis says:

        When I think about the western style of progress, Hakuin comes to my mind:

        “ The monkey is reaching
        For the moon in the water.
        Until death overtakes him
        He’ll never give up.
        If he’d let go the branch and
        Disappear in the deep pool,
        The whole world would shine
        With dazzling pureness.“

        – Hakuin

        Like

      • Ray says:

        Hi Nemesis, I can tell you’re something of a philosopher. It seems to me that one of the main causes behind the predicament we are in is that we have never really learned to get along with each other i.e. the war effort, the disparity in wealth and resources, the infinite growth paradigm, etc. I sometimes wonder if the reason why we are here is to learn how to get along with one another. In such a sense the progress I make could be a measure of how connected I am to other people.

        Like

      • Nemesis says:

        Am I a philosopher, just because I quoted Hakuin one time? Hakuin himself wasn’t a philopher, but a very practical man. No, I am no philosopher for sure, I was born in the ghetto and still live there. The ghetto is no place for philosophers, haha. I am a musician, no philosopher. Connected? How do you want to connect to these guys?:

        These guys protect the wealth and power of the 1% at all costs, until the bitter end. No, muhahaha, there is no place for philosophy in this world. I am a realist without any illusions, I gave up all illusions a long, long time ago. And I freed myself from all optimistical brainwash. I have seen it all comin some decades ago and now I am just observing the outcome of centuries of ignorance. To me, it’s all about cause and effect, causality without mercy. The indigenous people had warned for centuries and now it’s time for taking the consequences. And I am at total peace with that. In fact, I love to see the system of lies and brainwash going down.

        Like

      • Ray says:

        Heh, well, the idea of discussing progress without some sort of goal seems deeply philosophical to me. I mean, it’s hard for me to think of progress in terms of no real improvement being made just whatever happens happens.

        On a personal level I tend to think of progress in terms of peace of mind. I mean what’s more important in terms of quality of life? On a societal level perhaps how well we all get along. Considering the social problems we continue to have perhaps more progess is needed. That picture of the swat guys is further evidence of how disconnected we are from each other i.e. violent crime, corrupt 1% etc.

        Illusions come in many forms. The lies and hypocrisy of the political structure for sure, but also the ones we have about ourselves. Living as though we are not all connected is a big one that most cling to fervently.

        Like

      • Nemesis says:

        Ok, maybe I should have said, wandering without any final goal. That’s just how I feel. I don’t need any final goals. Peace of mind? I am at complete peace within my mind. Right, peace of mind is one of the most important achievements. I see reality from two perspectives: Time and space and beyond time and space. From a perspective of time and space, we have goals every second: We got the goal to breathe in, to breathe out, to eat, to drink, to go to the toilet, to make this world a better place ect. But from a time- and spaceless perspective, everything just is, no need to improve anything, like Hakuin said: “Everything shines with dazzling pureness.” Thatagata ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tath%C4%81gata ). No, I am no buddhist.

        ” Considering the social problems we continue to have perhaps more progess is needed.”

        Sure, I second that, from a historical (time & space) perspective. But there is that modern, western, materialistic notion of progress to get higher, bigger, fasster, to just get more and more of everything. Death teached me a different kind of thinking. Death teaches to let go, not to cling to progress in terms of just getting more and ever more of material stuff and control over Nature. Does evolution have any final goal at all? I don’t think so. Evolution to me is more some sort of a playground, not a ladder we have to climb to get just higher and higher. To me, less is more.

        ” That picture of the swat guys is further evidence of how disconnected we are from each other i.e. violent crime, corrupt 1% etc. ”

        Exactly. From a cosmic or natural perspective, everything is interconnected all the time. The 1% will learn that soon, no doubt. They are the ones, that try to disconnect from the rest of us and from Nature in general. It’s up to them, I can not change their Karma or anyone elses Karma, I can only change my very own Karma. They need to adapt or they will finally land on the garbage dump of history. That simple.

        ” Living as though we are not all connected is a big one that most cling to fervently.”

        Exactly. As I said, everything is interconnected, no matter, if anyone realizes it or not. Interconnectedness can never be eliminated, no matter what. That’s what the 1% and modern, materialistic man needs to learn, if he does not want to go extinct. After all, extinction is part of evolution as well and I’d have no problem with that.

        Like

  41. Aphan says:

    Ray,
    One of my all time favorites-
    http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm
    The Gods of the Copybook Headings-Rudyard Kipling.1919

    Like

  42. Yves says:

    Dear Beckwith,
    you are certainly not a scientist. And if you are, then, go back to studies. You never respect a scientific approach. Where are historical data ? Anomalies data ? long term series bases on model reanalysis ? Verification ? At least you should have aggregate data for 2 weeks to highlight the jet pattern modification. Point out only ONE event is pure meteorology, not climatology. There is so many climate warming evidence, you don’t need to claim new ones without enough skills. Arguing like that, it’s a godsend to the climate scepticisms.

    Like

    • Ray says:

      Paul is right about a lot of stuff. I enjoy watching his videos that he freely gives us. Every scientist makes a mistake sooner or later. If this turns out to be one he has still done much to alert people to what’s going on. If you’re reading this Paul thanks for all you do.

      Like

  43. Henry Holt says:

    Go forth Sir Nemisis
    Play a tune for me on your geetar and for Mr Beckwith, who seeks and lives his truth also.Like Elvin Jones said about John Coltrane,if you want to play with trane you’ve got to be willing to die for the motherfucker

    Like

    • Nemesis says:

      Good to see you here, venerable Sir Henry Holt, yeah. You are the kind of person I feel connected to indeed. Trane, Elvin Jones et al will never die, Music will never die. We are walking the ancient songpath, we are nourished and enlightened by Music, we don’t need a bunch of money and funny “power”, we flow freely through groovin infinity. To paraphrase your beautiful Elvin Jones quote:

      ” The price for freedom is death.”

      Malcolm X

      Respect and Love to you.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s