Global Warming & Climate Change: The Phenomenon

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
5,577
Reaction score
8,735
Points
279
Location
Phone
Climate crisis: Last remaining glaciers in Pacific ‘will melt away in less than a decade,’ study says

Source: independent.co.uk
Date: 10 December, 2019

The world’s last remaining tropical glaciers, which exist high in mountain ranges between the Andes and the Himalayas, are on course to melt completely in less than a decade due to the climate crisis, a new study has found.

The glaciers in Papua, Indonesia, are “the canaries in the coal mine” for other mountaintop glaciers around the world, said Professor Lonnie Thompson, one of the senior authors of the study.

“These will be the first to disappear; the others will certainly follow,” said Professor Thompson, a senior research scientist at the Byrd Polar and Climate Research Centre at the Ohio State University.

https://www-independent-co-uk.cdn.a...a-melt-sea-level-global-warming-a9240666.html
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
5,577
Reaction score
8,735
Points
279
Location
Phone
Climate change: Greenland ice melt 'is accelerating'

Source: BBC news online
Date: 10 December, 2019

Greenland is losing ice seven times faster than it was in the 1990s.

The assessment comes from an international team of polar scientists who've reviewed all the satellite observations over a 26-year period.

They say Greenland's contribution to sea-level rise is currently tracking what had been regarded as a pessimistic projection of the future.

It means an additional 7cm of ocean rise could now be expected by the end of the century from Greenland alone.

This threatens to put many millions more people in low-lying coastal regions at risk of flooding.

It's estimated roughly a billion live today less than 10m above current high-tide lines, including 250 million below 1m.

"Storms, if they happen against a baseline of higher seas - they will break flood defences," said Prof Andy Shepherd, of Leeds University.

"The simple formula is that around the planet, six million people are brought into a flooding situation for every centimetre of sea-level rise. So, when you hear about a centimetre rise, it does have impacts," he told BBC News.

https://www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampprojec...errer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
6,438
Reaction score
12,796
Points
309
Climate change: Greenland ice melt 'is accelerating'

Source: BBC news online
Date: 10 December, 2019

Greenland is losing ice seven times faster than it was in the 1990s.

The assessment comes from an international team of polar scientists who've reviewed all the satellite observations over a 26-year period.

They say Greenland's contribution to sea-level rise is currently tracking what had been regarded as a pessimistic projection of the future.

It means an additional 7cm of ocean rise could now be expected by the end of the century from Greenland alone.

This threatens to put many millions more people in low-lying coastal regions at risk of flooding.

It's estimated roughly a billion live today less than 10m above current high-tide lines, including 250 million below 1m.

"Storms, if they happen against a baseline of higher seas - they will break flood defences," said Prof Andy Shepherd, of Leeds University.

"The simple formula is that around the planet, six million people are brought into a flooding situation for every centimetre of sea-level rise. So, when you hear about a centimetre rise, it does have impacts," he told BBC News.

https://www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/science-environment-48387030?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s
“There’s no doubt that the average global sea level has been increasing ever since the world started to warm after the Little Ice Age ended around 1850. But there’s no reliable scientific evidence that the rate of rise is accelerating, or that the rise is associated with any human contribution to global warming.

...globally averaged sea level fluctuates considerably over time. This is illustrated in the IPCC’s figure below, which shows estimates from tide gauge data of the rate of rise from 1900 to 1993:



It’s clear that the rate of rise was much higher than its 20th century average during the 30 years from 1920 to 1950, and much lower than the average from 1910 to 1920 and again from 1955 to 1980.

Strong regional differences exist too. Actual rates of sea level rise range from negative in Stockholm, corresponding to a falling sea level, as that region continues to rebound after melting of the last ice age’s heavy ice sheet, to positive rates three times higher than average in the western Pacific Ocean.”

https://www.scienceunderattack.com/...mate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise-35

maximus otter
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,557
Reaction score
1,617
Points
169
I really should state my case here. I believe global warming, whether or not it has a significant human component, is inevitable in the long run. I'm talking millennia there. We are still on an interstice on the way out of the last ice age and there is no guarantee the last kick of said ice age is past. But if the geological record is to believed, the planet's normal state, when not in an ice age, is both warmer than now and with a substantially higher percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.
From a very long term viewpoint, CO2 levels are gradually decreasing over a timescale of hundreds of millions of years. About 500 million years from now, in the deep future, CO2 levels are expected to go so low that most plants will die out. There's no guarantee that our planet would naturally return to high CO2 levels if there were no anthropogenic effects.

I believe the planet will restore itself to that normal state whatever we puny humans do, as it did after disastrous asteroid impacts and other disruptive events in the past. Therefore we adapt or die. Trying to preserve the status quo is beyond our powers.
The first statement is probably wrong, since it would go against the long-term trend. The second statement is probably true at present, but it hopefully will not remain so. In the long term we will need to engineer the Earth's climate one way or another.

And if the human race is to survive we really must resume our push to the stars.
I agree with this, but don't expect to find any better planets out there. If we are going to live on any extrasolar planets at all, we'll have to learn the technology for climate engineering somehow. Every earth-like planet out there will have some sort of climate issue- different rotation period, different obliquity, different magnetic field strength, different water content, different atmospheric content, different temperature ranges, different frequency range of illuminance, different tidal characteristics, different gravity regime- and that's just for starters.

Even after the expected climate disasters of the next few hundred years, Earth will remain the most Earth-like planet for many thousands of light-years, if my estimates are correct.
 

Cochise

Never give up, never surrender
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
5,930
Reaction score
7,014
Points
284
From a very long term viewpoint, CO2 levels are gradually decreasing over a timescale of hundreds of millions of years. About 500 million years from now, in the deep future, CO2 levels are expected to go so low that most plants will die out. There's no guarantee that our planet would naturally return to high CO2 levels if there were no anthropogenic effects.

The first statement is probably wrong, since it would go against the long-term trend. The second statement is probably true at present, but it hopefully will not remain so. In the long term we will need to engineer the Earth's climate one way or another.

I agree with this, but don't expect to find any better planets out there. If we are going to live on any extrasolar planets at all, we'll have to learn the technology for climate engineering somehow. Every earth-like planet out there will have some sort of climate issue- different rotation period, different obliquity, different magnetic field strength, different water content, different atmospheric content, different temperature ranges, different frequency range of illuminance, different tidal characteristics, different gravity regime- and that's just for starters.

Even after the expected climate disasters of the next few hundred years, Earth will remain the most Earth-like planet for many thousands of light-years, if my estimates are correct.
Very thoughtful replies. Thank you. I am, of course, an optimist and that no doubt contributes to my belief the planet will self-heal.
 

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
50,383
Reaction score
23,970
Points
284
Location
Eblana
An upside on the uplands.

Vegetation is expanding at high altitudes in the Himalayas, including in the Everest region, new research has shown.

The researchers found plant life in areas where vegetation was not previously known to grow. A team used satellite data from 1993 to 2018 to measure the extent of plant cover between the tree-line and the snow-line. The results are published in the journal Global Change Biology.

The study focused on the subnival region - the area between the tree-line (the edge of the habitat at which trees are capable of growing) and the snow line (the boundary between snow-covered land and snow-free land). Subnival plants are mainly small grasses and shrubs.

"The strongest trend in increased vegetation cover was between 5,000 metres and 5,500 metres altitude," said Dr Karen Anderson, from Exeter University, lead author of the report. "At higher elevations, the expansion was strong on flatter areas while at lower levels that has been observed on steeper slopes."

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51050456
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
1,843
Reaction score
4,293
Points
169
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
It does make me bristle a little angrily when (usually on BBC news) they talk about the warming (or climate or whatever they decide to call it today) being 'above average'.
The average they refer to is the average of observed temperatures during an arbitrary period, 1950 - 1980 (IIRC).
Which begs two questions IMO.
Firstly, who observed these temperatures and where? Were they qualified meteorologists using the same equipment throughout, properly calibrated, in the same precise locations, at the same times of day, eliminating as many variable factors as possible, or was it temperatures observed by some staff in some institute somewhere, possibly a bit slack with their records. And was the increase in temperatures on the outskirts of expanding cities accounted for as urban sprawl increased the size of the area affected by the natural tendency towards a city holding onto it's heat? I mean, in 1950 Edgware to the north of London was almost bordering on countryside but it became quite built up during the 50s and 60s and these days, driving north up the A5 out of London, the buildings don't stop until you reach the bottom of Brockley Hill, which is where the traditional 'green belt' begins.
Secondly, why pick 1950-1980 as the timeframe over which to base your average? Why not all of the 1900s? Or 1995-2010? Or look back and deduce an average temperature from records relating to the 1700's? Or an average temperature during the last Ice Age. Or an average from when the planet last went through a much warmer period?
Additionally, if we were to go with a rolling average of the last (lets say) 20 years temperatures, then obviously that average will change as we go forward each year. If we go into 2 or 3 years where the temperatures are lower than expected that'll make the average start dropping and suddenly we'd get worried about that!
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
40,258
Reaction score
29,537
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
It does make me bristle a little angrily when (usually on BBC news) they talk about the warming (or climate or whatever they decide to call it today) being 'above average'.
The average they refer to is the average of observed temperatures during an arbitrary period, 1950 - 1980 (IIRC).
Which begs two questions IMO.
Firstly, who observed these temperatures and where? Were they qualified meteorologists using the same equipment throughout, properly calibrated, in the same precise locations, at the same times of day, eliminating as many variable factors as possible, or was it temperatures observed by some staff in some institute somewhere, possibly a bit slack with their records. And was the increase in temperatures on the outskirts of expanding cities accounted for as urban sprawl increased the size of the area affected by the natural tendency towards a city holding onto it's heat? I mean, in 1950 Edgware to the north of London was almost bordering on countryside but it became quite built up during the 50s and 60s and these days, driving north up the A5 out of London, the buildings don't stop until you reach the bottom of Brockley Hill, which is where the traditional 'green belt' begins.
Secondly, why pick 1950-1980 as the timeframe over which to base your average? Why not all of the 1900s? Or 1995-2010? Or look back and deduce an average temperature from records relating to the 1700's? Or an average temperature during the last Ice Age. Or an average from when the planet last went through a much warmer period?
Additionally, if we were to go with a rolling average of the last (lets say) 20 years temperatures, then obviously that average will change as we go forward each year. If we go into 2 or 3 years where the temperatures are lower than expected that'll make the average start dropping and suddenly we'd get worried about that!
All excellent points, never covered or considered by the mainstream media.
 

gordonrutter

There must be a set character limit to this opt...
Staff member
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
3,239
Reaction score
4,376
Points
184
It does make me bristle a little angrily when (usually on BBC news) they talk about the warming (or climate or whatever they decide to call it today) being 'above average'.
The average they refer to is the average of observed temperatures during an arbitrary period, 1950 - 1980 (IIRC).
Which begs two questions IMO.
Firstly, who observed these temperatures and where? Were they qualified meteorologists using the same equipment throughout, properly calibrated, in the same precise locations, at the same times of day, eliminating as many variable factors as possible, or was it temperatures observed by some staff in some institute somewhere, possibly a bit slack with their records. And was the increase in temperatures on the outskirts of expanding cities accounted for as urban sprawl increased the size of the area affected by the natural tendency towards a city holding onto it's heat? I mean, in 1950 Edgware to the north of London was almost bordering on countryside but it became quite built up during the 50s and 60s and these days, driving north up the A5 out of London, the buildings don't stop until you reach the bottom of Brockley Hill, which is where the traditional 'green belt' begins.
Secondly, why pick 1950-1980 as the timeframe over which to base your average? Why not all of the 1900s? Or 1995-2010? Or look back and deduce an average temperature from records relating to the 1700's? Or an average temperature during the last Ice Age. Or an average from when the planet last went through a much warmer period?
Additionally, if we were to go with a rolling average of the last (lets say) 20 years temperatures, then obviously that average will change as we go forward each year. If we go into 2 or 3 years where the temperatures are lower than expected that'll make the average start dropping and suddenly we'd get worried about that!
Nowadays there are 270 automatic weather stations across the U.K. reporting hourly. The remaining weather stations are read once every 24 hours manually. I’ve worked in two locations that have these and the accuracy and reliability boils down to how conscientious the appropriate staff member is. One of the locations I was at I am happy the results are trustworthy they other one I would guess about 50% of the results were ok but not as reliable as they could have been.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-synoptic-and-climate-stations
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
40,258
Reaction score
29,537
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Nowadays there are 270 automatic weather stations across the U.K. reporting hourly. The remaining weather stations are read once every 24 hours manually. I’ve worked in two locations that have these and the accuracy and reliability boils down to how conscientious the appropriate staff member is. One of the locations I was at I am happy the results are trustworthy they other one I would guess about 50% of the results were ok but not as reliable as they could have been.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-synoptic-and-climate-stations
I wonder how many of those stations have the 50% reliability rating. That would cast some doubt on their use, if it was found to be widespread.
 

gordonrutter

There must be a set character limit to this opt...
Staff member
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
3,239
Reaction score
4,376
Points
184
I wonder how many of those stations have the 50% reliability rating. That would cast some doubt on their use, if it was found to be widespread.
That’s just a guesstimate based on occasions I know of such as certain members of staff not really giving a shit about their job.
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
1,843
Reaction score
4,293
Points
169
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
That’s just a guesstimate based on occasions I know of such as certain members of staff not really giving a shit about their job.
I've worked in places like that. In fact I'm working in a place like that right now.
 

Schrodinger's Zebra

My joints go out more than I do
Joined
Mar 8, 2018
Messages
2,760
Reaction score
5,589
Points
204
Location
Ute inte på landet.
It does make me bristle a little angrily when (usually on BBC news) they talk about the warming (or climate or whatever they decide to call it today) being 'above average'.
The average they refer to is the average of observed temperatures during an arbitrary period, 1950 - 1980 (IIRC).
Which begs two questions IMO.
Firstly, who observed these temperatures and where? Were they qualified meteorologists using the same equipment throughout, properly calibrated, in the same precise locations, at the same times of day, eliminating as many variable factors as possible, or was it temperatures observed by some staff in some institute somewhere, possibly a bit slack with their records. And was the increase in temperatures on the outskirts of expanding cities accounted for as urban sprawl increased the size of the area affected by the natural tendency towards a city holding onto it's heat? I mean, in 1950 Edgware to the north of London was almost bordering on countryside but it became quite built up during the 50s and 60s and these days, driving north up the A5 out of London, the buildings don't stop until you reach the bottom of Brockley Hill, which is where the traditional 'green belt' begins.
Secondly, why pick 1950-1980 as the timeframe over which to base your average? Why not all of the 1900s? Or 1995-2010? Or look back and deduce an average temperature from records relating to the 1700's? Or an average temperature during the last Ice Age. Or an average from when the planet last went through a much warmer period?
Additionally, if we were to go with a rolling average of the last (lets say) 20 years temperatures, then obviously that average will change as we go forward each year. If we go into 2 or 3 years where the temperatures are lower than expected that'll make the average start dropping and suddenly we'd get worried about that!
Good points indeed, well said. :nods:
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
5,577
Reaction score
8,735
Points
279
Location
Phone
Sea level rise could reshape the United States, trigger migration inland

AI shows climate change-driven sea-level rise could trigger mass migration to cities inland

Source: University of California/sciencedaily.com
Date: 22 January, 2020

A new study uses machine learning to project migration patterns resulting from sea-level rise. Researchers found the impact of rising oceans will ripple across the country, beyond coastal areas at risk of flooding, as affected people move inland. Popular relocation choices will include land-locked cities such as Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Denver and Las Vegas. The model also predicts suburban and rural areas in the Midwest will experience disproportionately large influx of people relative to their smaller local populations.

When Hurricane Harvey slammed into the Texas coast in 2017, displaced residents flocked inland, trying to rebuild their lives in the disaster's aftermath. Within decades, the same thing could happen at a much larger scale due to rising sea levels, says a new study led by USC Computer Science Assistant Professor Bistra Dilkina.

Sea level rise could reshape the United States, trigger migration inland

AI shows climate change-driven sea-level rise could trigger mass migration to cities inland

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200122150021.htm
 

tastyintestines

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
1,650
Reaction score
155
Points
94
Wasn't it the Houston residents that were displaced during Harvey? Hmm. Ha
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
5,577
Reaction score
8,735
Points
279
Location
Phone
Rapid Permafrost Collapse Is Underway, Disintegrating Landscapes And Our Predictions

Source: sciencealert.com
Date: 5 February, 2020

Permafrost in Canada, Alaska and Siberia is abruptly crumbling in ways that could release large stores of greenhouse gases more quickly than anticipated, researchers have warned.

Scientists have long fretted that climate change - which has heated Arctic and subarctic regions at double the global rate - will release planet-warming CO2 and methane that has remained safely locked inside Earth's frozen landscapes for millennia.

It was assumed this process would be gradual, leaving humanity time to draw down carbon emissions enough to prevent permafrost thaw from tipping into a self-perpetuating vicious circle of ice melt and global warming.

But a study published on Monday in Nature Geoscience says projections of how much carbon would be released by this kind of slow-and-steady thawing overlook a less well-known process whereby certain types of icy terrain disintegrate suddenly - sometimes within days.

"Although abrupt permafrost thawing will occur in less than 20 percent of frozen land, it increases permafrost carbon release projections by about 50 percent," said lead author Merritt Turetsky, head of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research in Boulder, Colorado.

"Under all future warming scenarios, abrupt thaw leads to net carbon losses into the atmosphere," she told AFP.

https://www-sciencealert-com.cdn.am...eding-climate-change-according-to-a-new-study
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
5,577
Reaction score
8,735
Points
279
Location
Phone
Scientists Warn Multiple Overlapping Crises Could Trigger 'Global Systemic Collapse'

Source: sciencealert.com
Date: 5 February, 2020

Overlapping environmental crises could tip the planet into "global systemic collapse," more than 200 top scientists warned Wednesday.

Climate change, extreme weather events from hurricanes to heatwaves, the decline of life-sustaining ecosystems, food security and dwindling stores of fresh water – each poses a monumental challenge to humanity in the 21st century.

Out of 30 global-scale risks, these five topped the list both in terms of likelihood and impact, according to scientists surveyed by Future Earth, an international research organisation.

In combination, they "have the potential to impact and amplify one another in ways that might cascade to create global systemic collapse," a team led by Maria Ivanova, a professor at the Center for Governance and Sustainability at the University of Massachusetts, said in a 50-page report.

Extreme heat waves, for example, speed global warming by releasing planet-warming gases from natural sources, even as they intensify water crises and food scarcity.

Biodiversity loss, meanwhile, weakens the capacity of natural and agricultural systems to cope with climate extremes, also putting food supplies at risk.

Scientists worry especially that rising temperatures could tip the planet's climate system into a self-perpetuating spiral of global warming.

https://www-sciencealert-com.cdn.am...vironmental-crises-will-cause-global-collapse
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
6,438
Reaction score
12,796
Points
309
Last edited:

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
6,438
Reaction score
12,796
Points
309
Or even 18.3C in Antarctica - hotter than England today, though I know it's their summer. I find the fact that it can reach that temperature in Antarctica genuinely scary.
I've just viewed this video which puts things into perspective:


Mr. Heller points out that the current noise about "record high temperature in Antarctica" isn't even true, as Wikipedia's page on the place points out:

"A higher temperature of 19.8 °C (67.6 °F) at Signy Research Station on 30 January 1982 is the record for the Antarctic region..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Antarctica#Temperature

He also reminds us that the spot where the recent "record high" was recorded is 2,000 miles from the South Pole, the same distance as Oslo is from the North Pole, and that we wouldn't bat an eyelid at a temperature of 18.3ºC being experienced in Oslo.

maximus otter
 

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
50,383
Reaction score
23,970
Points
284
Location
Eblana
A whine about no wine.

Germany's harvest of ice wine - a dessert wine produced from grapes that have frozen while still on the vine - has failed for the first time because the winter has been too warm.

None of Germany's 13 wine-growing regions had the necessary temperatures of -7C to produce the wine in 2019. 2019 was the second-warmest year on record globally, according to the US National Oceans and Air Administration. The amount of ice wine produced has been dropping in recent years.

"The 2019 vintage will go down in history here in Germany as the first year in which the ice harvest has failed nationwide," the German Wine Institute (DWI) said in a statement. "If the warm winters continue in the next few years, ice wines from German wine regions will soon become even more of a rarity than they already are," said Ernst Büscher from the DWI.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51695464
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
5,577
Reaction score
8,735
Points
279
Location
Phone
Climate change: Australian summers 'twice as long as winters'

Source: BBC News
Date: 1 March, 2020

Australia's summers have become twice as long as its winters amid increasing temperatures driven by climate change, according to new weather data analysis.

The Australia Institute found that summer across most of the country over the past 20 years was about a month longer than in the mid-20th century, while winters had become shorter.

Between 2014 and 2018, summers were found to be about 50% longer.

The findings followed Australia's warmest and driest year on record.

"Our findings are not a projection of what we may see in the future. Its happening right now," the Australia Institute's Richie Merzian said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-51697803
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
5,577
Reaction score
8,735
Points
279
Location
Phone
Climate concerns grow amid wettest February on record

Source: BBC News
Date: 3 March, 2020

Last month was the wettest February in the UK since records began in 1862, according to the Met Office.

The UK received an average of 209.1mm of rainfall, 237% above the average for the month between 1981 and 2010.

Elsewhere, a survey suggested that almost a quarter of people felt that climate change was the "most pressing issue facing the UK".

The representative sample of 1,401 people also suggested that "climate concern" had doubled since 2016.

During February, storms Ciara, Dennis and Jorge all delivered a vast volume of rainfall over parts of the UK.

Storm Dennis also delivered the second highest UK average daily total in a dataset that dates back to 1891.

Ciara and Jorge also dropped enough rain to feature in the top 0.5% of days for UK average rainfall.

"Having three such widespread extreme rainfall events in the same calendar month is exceptionally rare," said Dr Mark McCarthy, head of the National Climate information Centre.

"Met Office ground-breaking research has contributed to a growing body of evidence that [suggests] extreme rainfall is a significant risk factor for the UK, and that climate change has increased the likelihood of extreme rainfall events."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51713172
 

Ermintruder

Delineated by a professional cryptozoologist
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
5,730
Reaction score
8,206
Points
284
^^^ this (the appallingly-bad weather in the northern hemisphere, obviously including North America, the British Isles and northern Europe) is all to do with the North Atlantic Oscillation. I pointed this out, nearly five years ago, here on the forum. I'm intrigued (in a multivalent Fortean way) that the mainstream media are NOT reminding the muggles, proles & normies about this....

https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/weird-weather.16462/page-33#post-1523705_north_atlantic_oscillation

The North Atlantic Oscillation Index appears currently-consistent with possessing a large index value (ie the pressure differential between the 'permanent' Icelandic low, and Azores high. And what kind of weather do you think that gives us, north of the 'roaring forties'?

(Think of these systems as being eternal invisible rotating cogs of wind/weather (& partly oceanic waters), the word 'gyre' (yes, as in The Jabberwocky) is associated with these global gearwheels).

Yes....
Wikipedia- NAO said:
Westerly winds blowing across the Atlantic bring moist air into Europe. In years when westerlies are strong, summers are cool, winters are mild and rain is frequent
This, dispassionately, describes our northern hemisphere weather patterns all-too-accurately, at present.

There is also the closely-related Arctic Oscillation, again discussed upthread:
https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/global-warming-climate-change-the-phenomenon.951/page-8#post-659873_arctic_oscilation

I suspect this 'AO' is now running in a more prolapsed/ unconstrained mode, drooping below 60deg North.....

I'm going to do something that I may subsequently regret, and that is join-up some dots on a oblate spheroid.... we're all only too well-aware of the appaling bush fires in Australia over the last few months.

My simplistic understanding of basal global climate systems is that the southern hemisphere can be considered to be the, well, polar opposite of the north. Our northern winter is the antipodean summer, due primarily to the Earth's axial tilt.

I assumed that there would be an equivalent of the Arctic Oscillation, and not-too-challengingly guessed what its name would be, in advance of searching for it: and hey presto: the AAO
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_oscillation

Now: I became too confident in my mirror-image guesswork, and presumed there might be such a thing as a South Atlantic Oscillation (and indeed there may well be such a thing, albeit unremarked/named or discovered).

The equivalent predominant influencers in the southern hemisphere seem actually to be the Pacific_decadal_oscillation
(or PDO) and also the South Pacific Oscillation.

I wonder if there is a similar set of affective Oscillation Indices in the southern hemisphere, matching & mirroring those here in the north? If so, I've also not heard any mention of this within news reports of the hot pyrogenic weather in Australia (so: if you're an Australasian, please comment as to whether or not there's been any mention of such a correlation being identified).

A further aspect of all of this semi-informed supposition: and although I'm sociologically-forbidden from saying this, I'm going to say it anyway....


It cannot be said with absolute certainty whether the root cause of global climate change is JUST man-made, or that there are OTHER forces majeure in constant influential play such as solar (eg coronal mass ejections/ extended sunspot effects) and/or geogenic factors (including volcanic particulate and gaseous atmospheric transfer).


(viz...sunspots in the context of The Solar Cycle : and I do accept that the increase from 1700 could mainly represent the emergence of observational data)


But irrespective of what the actual main causitive effect is (ie man-made, natural, or...the most-likely situation in my opinion, which is >both<).....have I half-wittingly crystallised what the 'global climate emergency' actually is?

Or have I simply put into some flawed sentences a fractured summary of what must already be known by the climate scientists of the world?
 
Last edited:

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
6,438
Reaction score
12,796
Points
309
Top