all i want for my children is more children who are capable of independent thought ...................... a warmer world would be a more equable climate and that is good
do you have a link to any scientific studies that support your climate change model? A warmer world maybe, if not generated by greenhouse gasses created by human consumerism...but an artificially created warmer world may not be what you have in mind... Whether we like it or not, humanity is terra-forming this planet and doing a really bad job of it... And what happens in Green land or the Antarctic will be yet another example of how we get it wrong...
An admirable ambition as long as you include good critical thought that includes stuff they might not like... Denying the world scientific community or being selective is not indicative of independent thought.
btw Kuwait recently registered the hottest March temperature for the entire Arabian Peninsular. Breaking the record by up to a massive 2 degrees C on Thursday 25th, March 2021 with 44.6C The Summer on it's way for the Northern Hemisphere could be a real ball breaker... Src: The Watchers.
Research article The Early Eocene equable climate problem: can perturbations of climate model parameters identify possible solutions? Navjit Sagoo , Paul Valdes , Rachel Flecker and Lauren J. Gregoire Published:28 October 2013https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2013.0123 Abstract Geological data for the Early Eocene (56–47.8 Ma) indicate extensive global warming, with very warm temperatures at both poles. However, despite numerous attempts to simulate this warmth, there are remarkable data–model differences in the prediction of these polar surface temperatures, resulting in the so-called ‘equable climate problem’. In this paper, for the first time an ensemble with a perturbed climate-sensitive model parameters approach has been applied to modelling the Early Eocene climate. We performed more than 100 simulations with perturbed physics parameters, and identified two simulations that have an optimal fit with the proxy data. We have simulated the warmth of the Early Eocene at 560 ppmv CO2, which is a much lower CO2 level than many other models. We investigate the changes in atmospheric circulation, cloud properties and ocean circulation that are common to these simulations and how they differ from the remaining simulations in order to understand what mechanisms contribute to the polar warming. The parameter set from one of the optimal Early Eocene simulations also produces a favourable fit for the last glacial maximum boundary climate and outperforms the control parameter set for the present day. Although this does not ‘prove’ that this model is correct, it is very encouraging that there is a parameter set that creates a climate model able to simulate well very different palaeoclimates and the present-day climate. Interestingly, to achieve the great warmth of the Early Eocene this version of the model does not have a strong future climate change Charney climate sensitivity. It produces a Charney climate sensitivity of 2.7°C, whereas the mean value of the 18 models in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) is 3.26°C±0.69°C. Thus, this value is within the range and below the mean of the models included in the AR4. 1. Introduction The term equable climate has been used to describe the global extent of warmth in past climates, which have a reduced equator-to-pole temperature difference (EPTD), warm polar regions with a reduced seasonality and ice free conditions at both poles [1,2]. The extent of this warming is supported by a wide range of data. Recent syntheses of terrestrial [3] and marine [4] proxy climate data for the Early Eocene suggest that the polar temperatures were 15°C or more but that the tropics were only slightly warmer than modern. Moreover, palaeobotanical data also suggest that the high latitudes were above freezing throughout the year [5], which is a major change over present conditions despite the fact that the continents are not that different from the modern. The Early Eocene equable climate problem relates to differences between climate model simulations and proxy reconstructions of the Early Eocene and the climate inferred from climate proxies. The modern generation of climate models has managed to capture much of this warmth from the proxy data in the low and mid-latitudes by forcing the climate with very high concentrations of CO2, 16 times pre-industrial concentrations of CO2 [3,6], but simulating above freezing temperatures at the poles all year round is difficult. The assumption of a strong seasonal bias in the proxy data must currently be assumed in order to reconcile proxy polar temperatures with climate model output [4]. Estimates of Early Eocene temperatures include annual sea surface temperatures (SSTs) of up to 27°C [7] and terrestrial mean annual temperatures (MATs) of up to 18°C [8] at palaeolatitudes greater than 80°N. In the Southern Hemisphere (SH), SSTs between 17°C and 32°C [9–11] have been reconstructed at palaeolatitudes greater than 60°S, while terrestrial MATs between 12°C and 18.8°C have been reconstructed at similar latitudes [12–14]. These high latitude temperatures are likely to have been sufficient to prevent any significant permanent ice cover. While there is reasonable data coverage for the mid- and high latitudes, data from the low latitudes are scarce. Tropical SST data are available from the Tanzania drilling project, which indicate that SSTs at a palaeolatitude of 18°S were approximately 33°C [15]. One of the features inferred from this distribution of temperatures is that the temperature difference between the pole and the equator was much reduced compared to the modern day. There is also evidence of an enhanced hydrological cycle in the high latitudes during the Early Eocene [16–18]. Water vapour has an impact on the radiation balance of the planet through the water vapour greenhouse effect, the cloud greenhouse effect and via reflection of shortwave radiation from clouds and ice [19]. Understanding what role an intensified hydrological cycle may play in developing and maintaining an equable climate is therefore also of interest. The first paper on the Early Eocene equable climate problem was published over 30 years ago [20] and substantial modelling efforts have been undertaken.....etc...etc... https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2013.0123 QQ There is much much more out there(if you would see, you have but to look) but Perhaps it would be better if you just dismiss the concept and save us both a lot of time
I am sure there is much out there but do they support the current very rapid rise in average global temperatures directly measured ( not estimates ) around the globe? As part of critical thinking I tend to compartmentalize the facts from the consequential modeling. I also separate the qualified historical data ( estimates ) of previous "ages" and treat them separate to the relatively new data we have at hand ( last couple of hundred years etc) then after a fairly solid review make comparisons. Key questions: What is the differences between the rates ( speed of change) of global mean temperature increases? ( natural model and artificial induced model) How accurate are the estimates used in natural modelling of historical "ages" based propositions? How does the Ages based natural models account for the speed of change? How can we eliminate the coincidence of the start of the Human Industrial Age and the start of heat build up and subsequent global mean temperature increase over the last couple of hundred years or so.? and so on... Personal: How can I justify the rapid increased need for protective measures and adaptations to climate change experienced personally over the last 10 years or so...? Is it just because I am getting older and more sensitive to heat issues? What about all the younger people making the same adaptations? Why do I have to make increasing use of expensive air conditioning in Summer when I never had to before? and so on... ( the Summer just passed was an exception after many years of increased use) We actually had a very mild Summer here in Melbourne Victoria 2020/21 Then when over viewing all that I ask: Is there reason for me personally to be concerned even when ignoring all the media hype etc? (Example: what does it mean when 2 am temperatures climb by 3 or 4 degrees C when they never used to do so in the past?) Do I have reason to believe what so many so called experts are claiming even though their timing may be a little confused? (both sides of the argument) and so on.... So at the moment until informed other wise I have to come to the conclusions: 1/ Something is definitely happening to our weather and happening rapidly ( noticeably) 2/ That the change may very likely be caused by human activity. ( the failure to eliminate the coincidence mentioned earlier.) 3/ That if the change is not addressed the human race will have great difficulty adapting in the very near future...
when, & it is defined as a "when" the antarctic melts it will raise sea levels by 60 meters Greenland will add 5 meters some of the glaciers metling at the same time as Greenland will add another 5 meters to solve what specifically ? as any real scientific mind should with data sets & modeling otherwise it all becomes urban myth soup
If this happened over thousands or millions of years of atmospheric heating, while inconvenient, we as a race would not really have a problem adapting. Having it all happen in less than 300 years means we as a race have a big problem.. I am not sure why the climate change denialist who resort to using "natural epoch climate evolution" fail to consider the main problem. That being the sheer rate and scale of change that appears to be happening...
there are a few different things at play 1. human condition of disassociation from scary things 2. developmental ability to falsify real scary things to make them not scary 3. ability to control public opinion to convince everyone not to run off the same cliff or throw the leaders off one. 4. religion used in various ways to achieve the above there is a trade off point of being in an upper class and being able to ignore the mass death around you it is a Darwinian survival reality of human evolution some people preach it as a religion some as an ideology some manipulate it as a means to their own fascist control & greed modern american culture as one example is still locked in the self affirmation process where people think they need to have a science fact opinion of reality of physics laws to be able to define their own right to exist "self actuation as a social culture model" gets a bit tricky lots of sadistic predators reading this so i should not get more detailed effectively your addressing 2 things human evolution as a psychological impasse to developmental conceptualization versus religions & ideologies(of differing formats) fyi climate change deniers tin-foil-hat community ask them RE: "how many atomic bombs can you let off before you get blamed for effecting the weather & people and the world ?" what is the magic number ?
or If most people believe it to be true then it must be false ( sheeple conspiracy - lack of independent thought etc) Natural tendency to distrust authority and thus rebel against convention. Attempting to strive for self determination (human nature 101) etc I mean I agree in many ways, for example, when they told us about the human created hole in the ozone layer I was pissed I mean really angry. I felt betrayed by science because it was science that failed to protect us from it's ignorance/mistakes. Of course this is the way of it and is a part of what life is but the resentment and rebellion and the distrust lingers even now after nearly 45 years so this bit of nasty compounded with other bits of nasty leads to a cynical view of all science and scientists. For some this leads to a significant anti science sentiment.
corporate greed ? is it sciences duty to protect the public from corporate greed ? you see the game here liberal-conservatives claiming science is the bad guy while they rally against regulation & give blatant greed a free pass