The big news in Europe is the heat. They’re experiencing record-breaking heat all across Europe with many areas seeing temperatures over 100°F (38°C). Here in Chicago we’ve already had a protracted period with temperatures that high—a bit unseasonable for us but not a disaster.
In Europe it’s a disaster. They’re accustomed to much milder temperatures than we are. Air conditioning is rare; many homes don’t have central heating. That means when it gets very hot in the summer or very cold in the winter they suffer more than we probably would.
Why is Europe experiencing a heatwave? The explanations I’ve read aren’t particularly satisfying, things like “the jetstream has split in two”. Okay, why has the jetstream split in two?
Quite a few people are attributing the heat to global warming. Maybe. Unlike several regular readers here I actually think that anthropogenic global warming is a thing. Unlike others I think that localized climate change is a much more pressing problem. Plus I would not be a bit surprised if localized climate change didn’t have effects that spread far beyond those local areas. For example, what effect does dumping millions of gallons of hot water into the Western Pacific have? Can that affect the La Niña/El Niño cycle?
So here’s an opportunity to give your explanation for Europe’s extremely hot weather.
Current temperatures are about where they were in the 1930’s and the High Middle Ages, ca. 900 AD. We are still recovering from the Little Ice Age of about 1300 AD to about 1850 AD.
The proof that AGW is a fraud, and its proponents are criminals, is that they all deny the existence of the Little Ice Age and Climatic Optimum of the High Middle Ages, both well documented in history. The hoaxers are so committed to their lies that they are willing to destroy Western Civilization and its economy.
Climate scientists have written extensively on the Little Ice Age and the Holocene warm period. Just google it. Skeptical Science lists at least 24 peer reviewed papers on the optimum alone. (Too many to bother counting on the Little Ice Age.) Of course people also forget the Roman Warm Period (ca. 100-300 AD) and the Dark Ages Cold Period (ca.400-800). Climate scientists write about those also. (Shooting fish in a barrel.)
Steve
Yes, Steve. They write about lots of things. But they uniformly conveniently write about a timy sliver in time (very tiny) when co2 and temp move in sympathy and declare causality despite overwhelmingly large amounts of time when the two variables wander in complete disconnect.
My vote on Europe is natural variability.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html
Biden is being encouraged to call for a “climate emergency,†substituting climate for pandemic in order to rationalize continuing with more overarching emergency powers to enforce control over the people. To say there is not a covert agenda behind the Biden governance is akin to wearing blinders.
I guess when you only read the comics book version of climate science that is what you see Drew but if the read the actual climate science literature they write a lot about past eras.
Steve
@steve
Some of us actually understand thermodynamics and magnetism. Nonsense is still nonsense, no matter how many statistical regressions are performed.
Steve = wearing blinders.
@jan
He believes in numbers and has faith in statistics. In physics, there are very few numbers and no faith. (Actually, there is faith, but that is for a philosophical discussion.)
The speed of light in a vacuum is number, and the speed of light in a specific medium is another number. You cannot get a representative sample size of all the different numbers per medium and do a statistical regression to determine the constant we use as the speed of light. c.
Well, you could, but it would be nonsense.
Tasty, I think numbers and statistics are not fail proof in proving someone’s position. There are so many ways stats can be subjectively obtained or deliberately distorted and manipulated, especially ones put out by the government. However, I was impressed by your intellectually seasoned post above mine!
Have I not written about “How to Lie With Statistics”? A classic.
Numbers are important but not dispositive. In particular the lack of numbers can be taken as dispositive.
TastyBits: Some of us actually understand thermodynamics and magnetism.
Great! Then you know that energy doesn’t just magically appear. The Earth’s surface is warming while the stratosphere is cooling. This is consistent with and predicted by the physics of greenhouse warming, a phenomenon which has been known for over a century. Indeed, without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s oceans would be largely frozen.
Drew: They write about lots of things.
There are entire scientific journals dedicated to the study of paleoclimatology. Turns out you can’t explain Earth’s past climate without accounting for feedbacks, such as changes in albedo and greenhouse gases.
@Zachriel
Again, some of us actually understand thermodynamics and magnetism. Therefore, I understand thermal energy storage and why there is an atmosphere. I also understand energy transfers and magnetic fields.
Thermal energy does not just hang out in the atmosphere, and the atmosphere does not just hang out around the planet. Thermal energy storage requires a medium, and the atmosphere requires a magnetic field. These are just the rudimentary concepts.
TastyBits: These are just the rudimentary concepts.
You bragged about your knowledge, but didn’t deign to share it. Nor did you answer the point. You do understand that the greenhouse effect is a real phenomenon? Why is the surface warming?
@Zachriel
I am not bragging about anything. To understand the “greenhouse effect”, you need to understand thermodynamics and magnetism, but one does not need a PhD. You are not an idiot, but to understand the concepts, you will need primary sources.
Your point is basically meaningless. I have tried to address it multiple times, but even the short versions keep getting longer and longer. I am not trying to be a smug asshole with you, but to understand why it is meaningless, you need to understand thermodynamics and magnetism.
The Earth’s magnetic field prevents the atmosphere from being stripped-off by the solar winds. It also regulates the electromagnetic waves passing through it. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, and water is an excellent medium for thermal energy storage and transfer.
The thermal energy stored in the oceans and the atmosphere is distributed through established vertical and horizontal currents, and these currents are affected by thermal energy and other factors. (I should have added fluid dynamics, also.)
The Milankovitch cycle is a much longer version of the annual season cycle, and we are in the late spring to early summer. The oceans store the additional thermal energy, and it is distributed through the ocean currents. It is also transferred to the atmosphere at the surface.
(Also, human time spans are not even rounding errors in geological time spans. It requires massive catastrophic events to quickly alter the planet.)
In any case, I am not interested in a debate. I really do not care. Humans will always some evil to explain climate changes. So, five hundred years ago witches caused the glaciers to grow and crops to fail. Today, it is fossil fuels.
TastyBits: Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas
Yes.
TastyBits: The thermal energy stored in the oceans and the atmosphere is distributed through established vertical and horizontal currents, and these currents are affected by thermal energy and other factors.
Yes.
TastyBits: The Milankovitch cycle is a much longer version of the annual season cycle, and we are in the late spring to early summer.
Milankovitch cycles are not “versions” of the seasonal cycle, but do affect the seasonal cycle.
TastyBits: The oceans store the additional thermal energy, and it is distributed through the ocean currents. It is also transferred to the atmosphere at the surface.
Yes.
You forgot to provide your explanation of why the Earth’s surface is warming, while the stratosphere cools. You mentioned Milankovitch cycles, but they imply the Earth should be cooling slightly, nor would they explain the inverse relation between the temperature trends of the surface and stratosphere.
@Zachriel
The Milankovitch cycle has a cold, warm, cold to warm transition, and warm to cold transition. Kinda like the annual seasons.
Unless you have simply noted an interesting observation, it is incumbent upon you to explain the mechanics that make it relevant, and your explanation needs to address the transfer and storage of energy, especially thermal.
Stating that “8 out of 10 doctors recommend smoking to build lung capacity” ain’t gonna cut it. Nor is “it’s the greenhouse effect gone awry.” You do not need to provide mathematical equations, but you do need to address thermodynamic concepts.
(Extensive use of observational data would require a mathematical equation(s) that predict future and past observations.)
TastyBits: The Milankovitch cycle has a cold, warm, cold to warm transition, and warm to cold transition. Kinda like the annual seasons.
There’s actually three distinct Milankovitch cycles. “Kinda like the annual seasons,” but more complex and chaotic. Each individual cycle is also chaotic over long periods, being under the influence of the movements of the other bodies in the Solar System, especially Jupiter.
TastyBits: TUnless you have simply noted an interesting observation, it is incumbent upon you to explain the mechanics that make it relevant
YOU brought up Milankovich cycles. In any case, you haven’t answered the question: Why is the Earth’s surface warming (while the stratosphere is cooling)? We’d be happy to help you. Start with “the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground.”
@Zachriel
Again, the Milankovitch cycle has a cold, warm, cold to warm transition, and warm to cold transition. Kinda like the annual seasons.
… more complex and chaotic …
I am fully aware of this. On large scales, thermodynamics, magnetism, fluid dynamics, and physics is “more complex and chaotic” than I have the time or energy to explain. Since you have read and understand the Milankovitch cycle, you are quite capable of understanding thermodynamics, magnetism, and fluid dynamics.
Why is the Earth’s surface warming (while the stratosphere is cooling)?
This is a meaningless question. The terms “warming” and “cooling” are relative terms, at best. You will need to provide a better description of what you mean, and it should be in terms of thermal energy storage and transfer. “Surface” and “stratosphere” need to be quantified, as well.
I am not trying to pull a reverse “No True Scotsman” on you, but I do not have the inclination to write a dissertation for you to nitpick. I am not trying to change your mind, either.
Actually, I want fossil fuels eliminated as soon as possible. The people yelling the loudest will be the first to demand the return. Eliminating fossil fuels will also resolve the world population hysteria.
In any case, I wish you well. I thought that you had stopped with the “we” nonsense, but if there are multiple @Zachriels, you all should add the dissenting opinions. If every @Zachriel has the same opinion, there is no “we”.