Thermal Does Climate Change

I think the phrase 'climate change' is redundant...any understanding of earth's climate should tell us that it has not and never will be stagnant.

The anthropomorphic component is the hard part. On a micro-climate scale it's easily demonstrated by city heat islands...especially on overnight temps as all that non-foliage/grass/ground retains heat much longer than what nature puts down.

First problem...measurement. What, where, and how are we measuring temperature. How do we interpret measurements pre-satellite era? How do we compare those measurements? How many locations were once well outside developments and are now within the urban setting. How were the measurement devices calibrated and maintained over those decades of longer? Understand that ALL biases in thermal energy measurement are on the warm side, not the other way. Cold doesn't exist and thus we can't measure it...we only measure the amount of heat. Nothing in nature will bias a reading below the actual temperature beyond an error in the device itself.

So how do you interpret those readings against time? It's a very poorly run experiment as it were because there are almost no controls on it. In a lab class we would get a failing grade.....

We actually have lost a lot of 'official' surface weather stations worldwide with the dissolution of the USSR.

So we shift to using satellite data to measure the overall energy of the planet's surface.....and again we have a problem with the time scale.

Removing any orbital cycles, tilt changes, galaxtic plane wobbles, etc., the vast majority of the earths heat sink is the water then land then air. The world's oceans drive our weather. What is the 'normal' temperature of the oceans? I quoted the word 'normal' because, IMO, it really has no place in a discussion of the weather or climate. Only the word 'average' should be used, and understanding the time frame over which that average is obtained is important. The problem with measuring the oceans overall heat content is that we can't and never will be able to. All we can do is use satellite for surface temps.....and yes we do use ship data, some at depths, but of course, that is just a drop in the ocean (groan) when it comes to trying to represent the overall heat content. Yearly and decadal ocean circulation and upwelling cycles we know are being observed and their effect on our short-term seasonal weather is guessed at using analogs, but though the physics of circulation and unwilling (thermoclines, surface winds, water temperature, water salinity) might be understood, the mechanism for the change over time is not.

The satellite era for weather began in earnest only 40-50 year's ago (debatable as to the useful starting point). What and how are we comparing this very short-term data to?

The climate models that we use to measure earth's current climate cannot even reproduce what is currently happening, much less what will happen in the near future or beyond. They also have not shown an ability to reproduce the past climate. I'm not surprised. We have enough trouble getting a few days into the future for our sensible weather forecasts though I have no complaint. We sort of get month long or seasonal forecasts better than 50%, but we all know there isn't much demonstrable skill there. Why? The size of the earth's surface and atmosphere is just too big and non-homogeneous. We don't have the number of measurement input or computing power (though I'd say the former will always be the biggest issue) to get it much better. Because of this the models do not have enough resolution....they oversimplify the atmosphere because of this. They predict atmospheric temps that are not observed. Their prediction of the climate over the past 20-30 years have not come close to being met. So lots of issues here. Reading a conclusion on anything scientific that was not written by the actual scientists doing the work should always raise a red flag (this had become common in much of the scientific world as the funders are much more involved in the interpretation and reporting of scientific results than in the past. Anyone who works in the scientific field or has contacts in it might understand what I am speaking of). Even if the researchers are the people being quoted, understanding and following the scientific process is important. It's a series of study, experimennt, report, review, repeat, and be proved wrong (in some portion) by future studies.

Is the earth's climate warming? Yes....but we already knew that...we are in an interglacial era between the larger glaciation in this ice ages (yes we are still in an ice age as I mentioned in a previous post). So if you remove our impact and ability, or not, to change our portion of that warming, nothing we encounter should come as a surprise. The ice is melting overall...as it has been for the past 10-12,000 years and is likely to until there is no ice left (whenever that happens) before the next build up of ice. The sea level will rise several hundred feet based on the geological record of previous ice-free eras.

We build houses in an area where fire cycles are the natural mechanism for the ecosystem, then suppress the fires for years and are surprised when a bigger fire takes place (often caused my man BTW) with all the growth that wasn't kept in check by naturally occurring fires..... and we blame it on climate change. A warmer day doesn't cause a fire....it's not spontaneous combustion. You can say it makes for a drier environment, but that environment is already dry. Those fires are already a natural part of nature..... we just added more fuel by suppressing it because we chose to live there.

We'll complain of a rising sea when even if the sea level was static, the land we are on is sinking....so it's something we'd have to deal with eventually anyway ( south Louisiana).

Insert your natural disaster here....flooding on a flood plain, tropical weather on a coast..... earthquakes in an area prone to earthquakes, landslides in areas that obviously were created by erosion by landslides in the first place....etc, etc.

Let's assume humankind is a measurable player in the warming. What can we actually do to change that? Can we? How much of the worlds population would need to change their habits to do so? Assuming they would cooperate? Do we understand the climate enough to know what change will make a difference? We may complain about the environment or resources or big business, yet our everyday lives are completely filled with the products created by what we are complaining about. Complete hypocrites...but it makes us feel better about ourselves somehow. We are paying ourselves our own lip service.

Is changing the part we may play in an already warming earth enough to move things in our favor? And what is 'in our favor'? What is the ideal temperature of earth?

I fear a colder world more than a warmer one.

So perhaps the problem is our lack of foresight.....we all resist change....a change that affects our here and now. We put things off. We want stability in a world full of change. It's an emotional reaction to a very large issue that may well be beyond our control anyway. I think we'd be better served to plan for long term inevitabilities instead of thinking putting on bandaids in the here-and-now is a solution. Of course no one living today is vested in changing the way they live today for the benefit of someone living a few hundred years in the future...a future they will never see themselves. There is no true altruism.

Ok I'm empty. I love science and the scientific process....I understand that my 'gut feelings' about our climate and our part in it means nothing in light of the reality. The scientific process is the only way to reach a true understanding of the world we live in....and it is a never ending process....

This sounds like confirmation bias.....you'd be a fun person to have a drink with.....I am very interested in the subject of cognitive science....

I'm working on a long response on my computer to your original.

Spoilers: I think we end up in a similar spot concerning the sources of uncertainty, but I'm clearly a bit more convinced by the data we got currently.

There's an interesting discussion to be had on what to do, especially with you having an engineering background.

Nice responses Therm......complicated issue with no clear answers for sure. I don't discount the information being put out there from the science world....but honestly it's difficult to actually get a hold of and read through the actual data.....I'd love to have a long convo with a climate scientist outside of any other influence to better understand what they do and how it's done.

Overall I may give the impression that I am discounting what we are hearing from the scientific community about warming and it's causes and our part in it....but I am really not. I simply don't make a hard stand on anything I don't understand or haven't researched. In order to do so for this topic is most probably outside my ability.

Ok the change side......let's say we have a handful of slam-dunk actions we can take as a species to make things more livable for the future.....I absolutely don't see it happening in any short term (decades) fashion....will it be enough soon enough to mitigate? We can't even get folks to get a vaccine......it will take either a monetary incentive or a no-choice situation to change behavior. I am hoping for more environmentally friendly energy sources to replace one's that aren't clean. Price point....availability....I don't see us easily freeing ourselves soon from fossil fuels. I am happy that electric transportation is making some headway....but in the short term that doesn't make much difference. The amount of resources and carbon produced just to manufacture that new electric car probably doesn't overcome the amount put out by the car you already own if you were to simple not buy a new one again......but that isn't how we handle cars here (how we consume in general)...

World problems (first, second, and third....)

You have to look out for red flags like when people say or imply things that don't exist, like "its settled science." Science is never settled. Science never knows how much it doesn't know. Its  never settled. If it was, we'd have no elements, atomic particles or the idea of quantum physics. So when people say global warming is "settled science," I cringe.