Your Fault: The Climate Is Changing So Fast It’s A New World Every Day

I heard you took a long shower, drove your fossil fueled vehicle to work, than had a horrible cheeseburger delivered to work with a big sugary drink, then drove home and cracked open a carbon pollution infused beer, which is causing the climate to change every day

How Fast Is the Climate Changing?: It’s a New World, Each and Every Day

The struggle over climate change is necessarily political and economic and noisy—if we’re going to get anything done, we’ll have to do it in parliaments and stock exchanges, and quickly.

But, every once in a while, it’s worth stepping back and reminding ourselves what’s actually going on, silently, every hour of every day. And what’s going on is that we’re radically remaking our planet, in the course of a human lifetime. Hell, in the course of a human adolescence.

We get a sense of what that feels like when we have a week like the one we just came through. Hurricane Laura detonated in intensity in a few hours before it made landfall—that escalation was one of the most rapid that has ever been observed in the Gulf of Mexico, and it’s because of the extra heat that’s available. That sudden burst of fury is becoming more likely, the experts explain, precisely because there’s more energy stored in the ever-warmer ocean, ready to be converted into howling wind and surging tide. As the Washington Post reported, some experts say that “it is almost as if as the maximum ‘speed limit’ for storms increases, the storms themselves, like drivers, are adjusting by speeding up.” Sometimes we get comparatively lucky, as we did with Laura—it poured most of its power into the wildlife refuges and the marshes along the Louisiana-Texas border. Only about three per cent of the planet’s land surface, after all, is urbanized, so the odds are with you most of the time. And physics, of course, is agnostic—a storm goes where it goes.

See, strong hurricanes never happened till you decided to buy a $21,000 Civic instead of a $135,000 Tesla.

Floods and fires are obvious and dramatic. But this extra energy is expressing itself every second of every hour, usually quietly; you may not notice it, but eventually an ice shelf collapses or a heavy downpour turns into a monster flood. It’s relentless, and it means that we live in a new world, newer all the time. For almost all of human history, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide stuck at about two hundred and seventy-five parts per million, meaning that the planet’s energy balance was essentially unchanged.

I’d mention that multiple Holocene warm periods were actually warmer than today while that “energy balance was essentially unchanged”, but, hey, why start with facts now? I’m just going to demonize you for washing and drying your clothes with machines and keeping your air conditioning at a cool 72. Heretic! You must comply!

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

31 Responses to “Your Fault: The Climate Is Changing So Fast It’s A New World Every Day”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Teach types this repeatedly: multiple Holocene warm periods were actually warmer than today

    but doesn’t accompany the claim with evidence.

  2. alanstorm says:

    “For almost all of human history, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide stuck at about two hundred and seventy-five parts per million…”

    A prime example of the liberals’ favorite tactic, “True but Meaningless”. (I am giving the author the benefit of the doubt re: the stability, ’cause I don’t want to go check right now.) Even if she’s correct, HUMAN history is a microscopic slice of history, and an even smaller chunk represents the time in which we have been able to take measurements.

    IOW, the author really thought she had a point. She didn’t.

    But it impresses those who know believe in SCIENCE! rather than knowing anything about it, like Jeffty.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Lil Stormy,

      Actually the CO2 levels and temperature that are most important for humankind are those during all of human biological and social evolution, don’t you agree?

      Nearly all of human civilization, agriculture, towns, cities, writing and governance occurred the last 12,000 years or so! Why is that, you suppose? Is that when god put Adam and Eve in the Middle East? Or could it be a period of climate stability coincident with a human population large enough to support cooperative association?

      And today human civilization is a bit more complex than in 1000CE. Now we see oceanside cities with 10s of millions of residents and massive edifices to support them. We have populations living in regions borderline for human existence. We have regions only livable with air conditioning. Sustainable arable lands are shifting.

      • alanstorm says:

        “Actually the CO2 levels and temperature that are most important for humankind are those during all of human biological and social evolution, don’t you agree?”

        Immaterial and off topic. The statement was “For almost all of human history, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide stuck at about two hundred and seventy-five parts per million…”.

        No argument was made about whether that was optimal, too high or too low. The subject of the other 99.99% of the planet’s history was not addressed.

        “Nearly all of human civilization, agriculture, towns, cities, writing and governance occurred the last 12,000 years or so!”

        Is your argument that civilization was caused by the climate*, or that civilization created the climate? Obviously, a climate that humans can’t survive would mean I was not here lecturing to someone incapable of understanding, but mammals (humans are mammals, in case you weren’t aware) have been around for several climatic upheavals.

        *Also according to you, the Roman climate optimum and Medieval warm period wiped out civilization. Or do you have an “argument” for that, as well?

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          270 may or may not be optimal, but human civilizations developed when atmospheric CO2 was about 270 ppm. That’s just a fact. In fact, CO2 itself is largely inconsequential other than it’s impact of temperature and ocean pH. The rapid increase in CO2 (to over 400 ppm and rising) and temperature with the effects noted above are likely to affect humans today.

          The claim that global warming will have significant effects on human society does not imply that the species will become extinct, even at a 3.0º C increase.

          One theory is that the stable climate of the Holocene allowed/enabled the development of human civilizations which resulted in where we all today. Would human civilization have been the same today if the ice age had continued? If instead of CO2 of 270 ppm it had been 600 ppm and had been 3.0º C warmer overall than today would human civilization have evolved as it today? Clearly it would have been different. Water levels would have been hundreds of feet higher at the coasts, and some areas uninhabitable because of heat.

          The exaggerated Roman and Medieval warm periods were not global and certainly did have significant effects on human societies. Why would you think these warm periods would cause human extinction or would wipe out civilization?

          No doubt mammals have persevered. But have any mammalian species become extinct? Try over 1,000 identified species. Why did so many ice age mammal species disappea atr the end of the last glacial period? Mastodon, wooly mammoth, sabre tooth cat, wooly rhino, cave lion, glyptodon, megaceros and 100 others.

          • david7134 says:

            Man/ child,
            Back to your favorite subject and you are lying, using obfuscation, taking out of context, and using your correlation and trying to come to conclusion which real scientist know is inappropriate. You are so pathetic that it is sad.

  3. Dana says:

    According to Bloomberg, if we take no action at all, the climate will be 3.0º C warmer in 2100, and just 2.8º C warmer under currently pledged actions.

    Now, if it’s a whopping 3.0º C warmer eighty years from now, just how much can the climate have changed over the last ten years — or 3½ years that the evil Donald Trump has been in office — for anyone to say that global warming climate change has made it a new world, each and every day?

    Assuming an arithmetic rather than geometric progression of temperatures — and most scientists project geometric, not arithmetic — the climate should be 0.0375º C (0.0675ºF) warmer this year than last, a number that is not only negligible, but immeasurable save in the most tightly controlled circumstances.

    This is part of the problem with the warmunists: in their hysteria — and yes, that’s precisely the right word — to do something, they wind up with exaggerated silliness all the time.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      The estimable Mr. Dana mocks the impact of a future 3.0º C increase in global mean surface temperature on human societies, ignoring the troubles in the world today. Does he really believe that 11-12 billion humans will do better with an even warmer Earth? Shouldn’t we be more responsible to the generations ahead?

      As is well known, even by denialists, the accumulated total increase in heat content (land + atmosphere + oceans) is increasing steadily, with much of the heat content in the vast oceans (which explains the impact of El Ninos and La Ninas on surface temperature variability).

      The Earth continues to warm with no reason to expect it to stop. Major changes in the climate and environment hardly bode well for human societies, but we have made our choices and will do little to stop it. Our descendants will be force to.

      • Kye says:

        Maybe “Mr. Dana mocks the impact of a future 3.0º C increase in global mean surface temperature on human societies, ignoring the troubles in the world today.” whilst you ignore the advancement of humans in controlling the environment. Do you believe if the climate actually began a radical life-ending spiral all the scientists, inventors and Elon Musks of the world wouldn’t rise to the obvious profitable occasion? The fact they aren’t doing so en masse now shows ain’t no big deal.

        Scientific denialists like Elwood always conveniently forget the human factor because they think in terms of socialist government power rather than capitalist individual opportunity. The entire idea of human progress alludes them in their quest for domination.

        Our descendants just might be forced to correct horrible, climate and human destroying progroms instituted by communists today to cement their power and subjugate Free Americans.

        Indeed, most of the leftist science deniers change their script as often as Fauci did with his moronic handling of a fukin’ flu. You should (and will) all rot in hell.

        Trump 2020 Let’s get the phonies out of our politics and institutions.

        https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pkDfnzrHSZQ/XyjKumJEgJI/AAAAAAACYQ8/-Yh1afGQN7cV8v_xof_Q66iCfnvu7mt0gCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1mb90m_90d4b31c93203ea278b04eed02e3f0f0_6af0618c_1280.png

      • Dana says:

        Where, Mr Dowd, did you see me “(mocks)the impact of a future 3.0º C increase in global mean surface temperature on human societies, ignoring the troubles in the world today?

        What you actually saw, if you had read it, was that I mocked the idea that global warming climate change could have had the effects the warmunists say it has, to “(make) it a new world, each and every day” now, when the aggregate rise has been negligible so far.

        The “settled science” has to be wrong. If global warming climate change is having such serious effects now, then the 3.0º C increase by 2100 has to be dramatically wrong, and if the 3.0º C projection is correct, then global warming climate change cannot yet have had the effects that the warmunists claim.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          My apology. I thought your “whopping 3.0º C increase” was being sarcastic. We agree that a 3.0º C increase would indeed be whopping.

          The aggregate rise so far has been about 1.0º C, which is not negligible. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets Arctic sea ice are diminished. Record highs are being recorded worldwide. The ocean pH is dropping.

          Your conclusion that no effects have been seen yet with the current increase is faulty.

          Your “settled science” final paragraph is non sequitur.

      • Jl says:

        “Hardly bode well…”. As CO2 Levels have gone up. human longevity has gone up, human poverty has gone down, food production has gone up, etc..stop me when you find the bad part. Through human history, cold has killed about 20 times what heat does. Warm is good. Again, stop when we get to the bad part…

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          We’ve already agreed that the Holocene has been good for humankind.

          You’re not claiming that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has increased longevity, cut poverty, increased food production, are you? You left out the stock market, the invention of the computer, the internet, the use of the scientific method, and my favorite invention, the rechargeable reversible variable speed drill.

          Fossil fuels and CO2 are not evil, and have permitted the development of the modern world. But now, the long-term effects, i.e., CO2 pollution and global warming, are a concern.

          Many physical impacts of global warming are already visible, including extreme weather events, glacier retreat, changes in the timing of seasonal events (e.g., earlier flowering of plants), sea level rise, and declines in Arctic sea ice extent. The future impact of global warming depends on the extent to which nations implement prevention efforts and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ocean acidification is not a consequence of global warming, but instead has the same cause: increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

          • formwiz says:

            You’re not claiming that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has increased longevity, cut poverty, increased food production, are you? You left out the stock market, the invention of the computer, the internet, the use of the scientific method, and my favorite invention, the rechargeable reversible variable speed drill.

            You don’t know how to read, do you?

            Fossil fuels and CO2 are not evil, and have permitted the development of the modern world. But now, the long-term effects, i.e., CO2 pollution and global warming, are a concern.

            Fake data never hurt anybody, but why take a chance?

            Many physical impacts of global warming are already visible, including extreme weather events, glacier retreat, changes in the timing of seasonal events (e.g., earlier flowering of plants), sea level rise, and declines in Arctic sea ice extent. The future impact of global warming depends on the extent to which nations implement prevention efforts and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ocean acidification is not a consequence of global warming, but instead has the same cause: increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

            Actually, the reverse is true, but you can’t argue with a fool.

          • Jl says:

            “The physical impacts are visible…”. Too funny-extreme weather isn’t getting any worse, and if it was, there would be no proof of the cause. Glacier retreat has happened before, notably early last century. ‘“We agree the Holocene was good for humankind”. Good to know, because during the warmest part of the Holocene no doubt glaciers retreated. Seal levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age. “Declines in Arctic sea ice extent.”. Which again happened early last century. “Ocean acidification”, while maybe technically true, is misleading to the general public (no doubt on purpose), because the oceans are still alkaline in the 8.0-8.3 range

  4. George_Banner says:

    “Don’t bother to examine a folly—ask yourself only what it accomplishes.”
    Ellsworth Toohey to Peter Keating,
    The Fountainhead,
    Ayn Rand, 1943

  5. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Do you dig into the papers that Pierre Gosselin cites or do you take his interpretations as true?

    Zhang et al 2020 (unclear if it was published) concluded: Furthermore, soil air temperature was non-linearly affected by soil CO2 concentration with the highest value under 7500 ppm CO2. This study indicates that the soil and soil CO2, together with atmospheric CO2, play indispensable roles in fueling the greenhouse effect. Gosselin seized on their observation that at the highest CO2 concentration tested in their test bottles (over 16,000 ppm) the temperature was slightly lower than with 7,500 ppm, but didn’t note that both concentrations yielded temperatures above 300, 450 etc ppm.

    The Drotos et al 2020 paper used computer modeling to show that levels of thousands of ppm of CO2 would cause so much warming and so much water evaporation that clouds would form that would cut incoming solar irradiation.

  6. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    …would cut incoming solar irradiation.

    One of the dumbest posts yet from Pvt. Rimjob (besides the “propensity of the evidence”).

    What a dumbass!

    BWAHA! Lolgfy https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  7. formwiz says:

    USA
    185,092
    TOTAL DEATHS
    CDC | Updated: Sep 3 2020 12:16PM

    Nope. 6% of 170,000 is 10,200. 1/5 of 1% (the real figure) 340.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9858 access attempts in the last 7 days.