National Parks affected by the climate changes

[LesPalenik]

That is exactly what we are disputing.  There is no increasing number of catastrophic events, except in a very short, cherry-picked time frame.

Very few people, including climatologists and financial analysts take into consideration the S-shape or exponential progress of a curve. Right now, we are still relatively early in the climate change curve, but every year the slope of the curve is increasing. That applies similarly to the amount of dioxide and CO2 in the atmosphere as well as to the value of, for example, Tesla company. When you get multiple S-curves, like the atmospheric and water pollution or in case of Tesla new EVs, solar panels, batteries, autonomous robots, the cumulative pace of the change increases and the resulting S-curve shape gets much steeper. While the Tesla progress is beneficial, the ecological pollution is not.

[Alan Klein]

The polar bears are doing fine as they seem to be adapting to change whatever is causing it.  More fear-mongering exposed as untrue.

[LesPalenik]

The polar bears are doing fine as they seem to be adapting to change whatever is causing it.  More fear-mongering exposed as untrue.

I am much more concerned with japanese beetles, they just arrived in my backyard. In the last two summers, I neutralized several thousands of them (avg 50/day in mid summer). I haven't found any ticks yet, but apparently they are also on increase.

[digitaldog]

I am much more concerned with japanese beetles, they just arrived in my backyard. In the last two summers, I neutralized several thousands of them (avg 50/day in mid summer).

The Bark Beetles in NM have been devastating to our forest area.
https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/bark-beetle-infestations-could-cause-huge-pi-on-die-off/article_1fcb4242-a3b3-11ec-92c7-af38d3d23944.html

Human-driven climate change is compounding the drought’s severity and lengthening its duration, the researchers say, estimating that it could drag on to the 30-year mark before it finally passes.

[Peter McLennan]

Many climate deniers state "It's always been changing".  Absolutely true.  The Arctic was once a tropical jungle.  Toronto was once buried under kilometer-deep ice.

But it's been changing over thousands, hundreds of thousands of years, driven by forces we don't yet fully understand. 

Now, the changes are happening right before our eyes.

For those climate change deniers I suggest travel to Alaska or Northern Canada.  There, you'll see (and hear about) what's actually happening from the people who've lived there for centuries.  And, if you're lucky, from the scientists who are gobsmacked by what they're seeing up there. These are the guys with remote sensing and boots-on-the-ground data.  They are arguably in a better position to report on climate change than a few keyboard kowboys on a photography forum.

“The Arctic Report Card continues to show how the impacts of human-caused climate change are propelling the Arctic region into a dramatically different state than it was in just a few decades ago,” said NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad, Ph.D. “The trends are alarming and undeniable. We face a decisive moment. We must take action to confront the climate crisis.”

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/arctic-report-card-climate-change-transforming-arctic-into-dramatically-different-state

[Alan Klein]

Different doesn't mean worse. Warming allows species to expand their population and move into areas that were inhospitable before because they were too cold. But you don't hear much talk about that. They only focus on the negatives. What about the positives?

Sure there are more beetles and ticks but also more bears humans trees and other species that can now exist in areas they haven't existed before. So while more beetles may seem bad for us, birds that eat them couldn't be happier.

[TechTalk]

Hey Everybody! Just Think Warm Happy Thoughts and Everything Will Turn Out Fine!

[LesPalenik]

Many climate deniers state "It's always been changing".  Absolutely true.  The Arctic was once a tropical jungle.  Toronto was once buried under kilometer-deep ice.

But it's been changing over thousands, hundreds of thousands of years, driven by forces we don't yet fully understand. 

Now, the changes are happening right before our eyes.

For those climate change deniers I suggest travel to Alaska or Northern Canada.  There, you'll see (and hear about) what's actually happening from the people who've lived there for centuries.  And, if you're lucky, from the scientists who are gobsmacked by what they're seeing up there. These are the guys with remote sensing and boots-on-the-ground data.  They are arguably in a better position to report on climate change than a few keyboard kowboys on a photography forum.

“The Arctic Report Card continues to show how the impacts of human-caused climate change are propelling the Arctic region into a dramatically different state than it was in just a few decades ago,” said NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad, Ph.D. “The trends are alarming and undeniable. We face a decisive moment. We must take action to confront the climate crisis.”

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/arctic-report-card-climate-change-transforming-arctic-into-dramatically-different-state

I have personally noticed some changes in Ontario, both in the temperature and wind. .It seems that we have now more windy days - both in the summer and also in the other seasons. As a lake and river canoeist, I've been instictively attentive to the wind conditions. You don't want to be paddling on a big lake with high waves or whitecaps. Kayaks are generally safer in windy conditions, but a larger, more seaworthy canoe (16 - 18ft) has much more surface area which can catch wind gusts especially when paddling diagonally or or sideways to the wind.

The winds can make also the fire conditions more dangerous and firefighting much more difficult.

The National Weather Service in Boulder issued a record 16 red flag warnings—a measure of fire risk based on warm temperatures, very low humidity and strong winds—in April alone. That’s the most issued in a month in the history of the office. And some number-crunching by CU Boulder researchers confirms it was among the windiest Aprils in the last two decades, with day after day of strong or long-lasting gusts across the state.

“This spring, most of us on the Front Range are on edge because of what had happened with the Marshall Fire, and so any individual event of strong winds has felt significant,” said Julie Lundquist, associate professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, who gathers measurements in the field and conducts simulations which can fundamentally improve our understanding of the atmosphere. “But it has, in fact, been an exceptionally windy April.”

There isn’t a single, clear cause for the increased winds this spring, as wind is one of the trickier weather elements to model and forecast. Winds are very sensitive to subtle characteristics of the atmosphere, like temperature differences between atmospheric layers, soil moisture and topography. Dramatic changes in wind speed and direction can happen quite quickly, said Lundquist.

The models that predict winds were originally built to predict surface temperature and precipitation, and they most accurately predict those two. 
Strong, repetitive winds over time can also weaken infrastructure, and if one gusty day doesn’t down a power line, it might set up a situation where the next time the wind blows, it will, said Winters.

https://www.colorado.edu/today/2022/05/12/its-been-unusually-windy-spring-heres-why-you-should-care

While the 30-year averages for wind do not show a change as large as the ones for cold and hot days, like those trends, the rate of change does seem to be accelerating. The most recent dip, in the early years of the 21st century, did not go as low as the previous drop in the 1980s. From 2001 to 2012, there were no years with more than 90 windy days. In 2013, there were 91 days, and since 2014 it has been triple digits every year. Of the three trends, wind is the most volatile.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-climate-change-now-1.5804758

[LesPalenik]

The polar bears are doing fine as they seem to be adapting to change whatever is causing it.  More fear-mongering exposed as untrue.

Yes, polar bears seem quite adaptable, but in the summer their fur changes from white to dirty yellow. In southern Ontario, barely 20 miles northeast from Toronto downtown, we have a pack of five such bruins and they are doing just fine. People pay big bucks to see them.

[Ray]

Many climate deniers state "It's always been changing".  Absolutely true.  The Arctic was once a tropical jungle.  Toronto was once buried under kilometer-deep ice.

But it's been changing over thousands, hundreds of thousands of years, driven by forces we don't yet fully understand. 

Now, the changes are happening right before our eyes.

For those climate change deniers I suggest travel to Alaska or Northern Canada.  There, you'll see (and hear about) what's actually happening from the people who've lived there for centuries.  And, if you're lucky, from the scientists who are gobsmacked by what they're seeing up there. These are the guys with remote sensing and boots-on-the-ground data.  They are arguably in a better position to report on climate change than a few keyboard kowboys on a photography forum.

“The Arctic Report Card continues to show how the impacts of human-caused climate change are propelling the Arctic region into a dramatically different state than it was in just a few decades ago,” said NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad, Ph.D. “The trends are alarming and undeniable. We face a decisive moment. We must take action to confront the climate crisis.”

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/arctic-report-card-climate-change-transforming-arctic-into-dramatically-different-state

Climate has not only been changing over thousands of years and hundreds of thousand years, but millions of years and billions of years, and hundreds of years, and even just a few decades.

Changes that occurred, say, around 10 thousand years ago could obviously not be 'happening before our eyes' because we were not present at that time to see such changes. But our ancestors were present and such changes would have happened right before their eyes.

Here's an example of a very dramatic change. https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/megalithic-atlit-yam-001579


"Not far off the coast of the village of Atlit in the Mediterranean Sea, near Haifa in Israel, lies the submerged ruins of the ancient Neolithic site of Atlit Yam. The prehistoric settlement, which dates back to the 7 th millennium BC, has been so well preserved by the sandy seabed that a mysterious stone circle still stands as it was first erected, and dozens of human skeletons lay undisturbed in their graves.  Atlit Yam is one of the oldest and largest sunken settlements ever found and sheds new light on the daily lives of its ancient inhabitants."

"One of the greatest archaeological mysteries of Atlit Yam is how it came to be submerged, a question that has led to heated debate in academic circles. An Italian study led by Maria Pareschi of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology in Pisa indicates that a volcanic collapse of the Eastern flank of Mount Etna 8,500 years ago would likely have caused a 40 metre high tsunami to engulf some Mediterranean coastal cities within hours.

However, other researchers have suggested that there is no solid evidence to suggest a tsunami wiped out the settlement. After all, the megalithic stone circle still remained standing in the place in which it had been constructed.  One alternative is that climate change caused glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise and the settlement became flooded by a slow rise in the level of the Mediterranean that led to a gradual abandonment of the village.

If you're interested, the following 'Researchgate' site provides some sound academic reasons why the tsunami proposition doesn't match the evidence.

https://tinyurl.com/33ybef3j

[Alan Klein]

Climate has not only been changing over thousands of years and hundreds of thousand years, but millions of years and billions of years, and hundreds of years, and even just a few decades.

Changes that occurred, say, around 10 thousand years ago could obviously not be 'happening before our eyes' because we were not present at that time to see such changes. But our ancestors were present and such changes would have happened right before their eyes.

Here's an example of a very dramatic change. https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/megalithic-atlit-yam-001579


"Not far off the coast of the village of Atlit in the Mediterranean Sea, near Haifa in Israel, lies the submerged ruins of the ancient Neolithic site of Atlit Yam. The prehistoric settlement, which dates back to the 7 th millennium BC, has been so well preserved by the sandy seabed that a mysterious stone circle still stands as it was first erected, and dozens of human skeletons lay undisturbed in their graves.  Atlit Yam is one of the oldest and largest sunken settlements ever found and sheds new light on the daily lives of its ancient inhabitants."

"One of the greatest archaeological mysteries of Atlit Yam is how it came to be submerged, a question that has led to heated debate in academic circles. An Italian study led by Maria Pareschi of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology in Pisa indicates that a volcanic collapse of the Eastern flank of Mount Etna 8,500 years ago would likely have caused a 40 metre high tsunami to engulf some Mediterranean coastal cities within hours.

However, other researchers have suggested that there is no solid evidence to suggest a tsunami wiped out the settlement. After all, the megalithic stone circle still remained standing in the place in which it had been constructed.  One alternative is that climate change caused glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise and the settlement became flooded by a slow rise in the level of the Mediterranean that led to a gradual abandonment of the village.

If you're interested, the following 'Researchgate' site provides some sound academic reasons why the tsunami proposition doesn't match the evidence.

https://tinyurl.com/33ybef3j

Your story of the Atlit Yam people from 9000 years ago who were flooded out by rising seas due to global warming that occurred naturally after the last  ice age reminds me of my fellow New Jerseyans on the shore who are suffering the same fate as the warming contines.  Of course the Atlits blamed God and my neighbors blame CO2, but as long as the government provides cheap flood insurance, everyone's happy. 

[Ray]

Your story of the Atlit Yam people from 9000 years ago who were flooded out by rising seas due to global warming that occurred naturally after the last  ice age reminds me of my fellow New Jerseyans on the shore who are suffering the same fate as the warming contines.  Of course the Atlits blamed God and my neighbors blame CO2, but as long as the government provides cheap flood insurance, everyone's happy.

As I understand, Alan, the problem of rising sea levels in New Jersey is exacerbated by natural processes which are causing the land to sink. It's very doubtful that reducing CO2 emissions could solve that particular problem. 

Here's your own EPA's explanation of the causes.

"The land in North America is actually still adjusting to the loss of ice after the last ice age, which peaked about 20,000 years ago. Back then, thick sheets of ice covered areas of what is now Canada and the northern United States. The weight of all that ice depressed the land beneath it, but caused the land farther south (particularly the Mid-Atlantic region from North Carolina to New York) to bulge upward. After the ice melted and the extra weight was lifted, northern areas began to rise, and the Mid-Atlantic region started to sink. This very slow process continues today."

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/atlantic-coast

[TechTalk]

False narratives by selective editing Further down the linked page from the quoted text above... 

"The Sea Level indicator shows that sea level is rising overall in connection with climate change, but the rate of change varies by region, as do the effects. To provide a useful regional perspective, this feature examines the amount of land lost to sea level rise along the Atlantic coast from Florida to New York. It is based on satellite data that have been collected and analyzed at five-year intervals since 1996. Figure 1 divides the Atlantic coast into two regions for comparison, while Figure 2 shows the different types of land that have been lost."

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/atlantic-coast

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

… Now, the changes are happening right before our eyes….

Thus the availability bias.

[Ray]

False narratives by selective editing Further down the linked page from the quoted text above... 

"The Sea Level indicator shows that sea level is rising overall in connection with climate change, but the rate of change varies by region, as do the effects. To provide a useful regional perspective, this feature examines the amount of land lost to sea level rise along the Atlantic coast from Florida to New York. It is based on satellite data that have been collected and analyzed at five-year intervals since 1996. Figure 1 divides the Atlantic coast into two regions for comparison, while Figure 2 shows the different types of land that have been lost."

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/atlantic-coast

I was selective because I was addressing Alan's reference to the New Jersey problem, which is not the same as all problems in coastal areas, for the reason I highlighted. That's not a false narrative. Your quote from the same article confirms that.

"The Sea Level indicator shows that sea level is rising overall in connection with climate change, but the rate of change varies by region, as do the effects."

I don't deny that the average global sea level is rising, and I don't dispute that during the last 150 years or so, there has been a slight warming trend of around 1 degree C, which is very likely not an unusual temperature change in the history of humanity. Consider the 'Roman Warm Period', the 'Dark Ages', The 'Medieval Warm Period', and the 'Little Ice Age' which is the starting point for our current warming trend.

[Robert Roaldi]

Different doesn't mean worse. Warming allows species to expand their population and move into areas that were inhospitable before because they were too cold. But you don't hear much talk about that. They only focus on the negatives. What about the positives?

Sure there are more beetles and ticks but also more bears humans trees and other species that can now exist in areas they haven't existed before. So while more beetles may seem bad for us, birds that eat them couldn't be happier.

Maybe more deserts and scorpions too. OTOH, more solar power!

[digitaldog]

Thus the availability bias.

Thus the availability of observation along with measurement and science but your bias above is noted.

"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind."-Lord Kelvin

[TechTalk]

I was selective because I was addressing Alan's reference to the New Jersey problem, which is not the same as all problems in coastal areas, for the reason I highlighted. That's not a false narrative. Your quote from the same article confirms that.

It isn't a multiple-choice quiz where you have to choose one answer. There can be — and usually is — more than one force at work at any given time. Such as in this case... where you focused on one force at work while ignoring the other.

"The Sea Level indicator shows that sea level is rising overall in connection with climate change, but the rate of change varies by region, as do the effects."

It's a great big globe (assuming you don't believe the world's flat), that "the rate of [any] change varies by region, as do the effects" is not surprising.

[Ray]

It isn't a multiple-choice quiz where you have to choose one answer. There can be — and usually is — more than one force at work at any given time. Such as in this case... where you focused on one force at work while ignoring the other.

Ignoring the other?? Do you mean there are only two forces at work??   

This is what I wrote in my previous post.

"the problem of rising sea levels in New Jersey is exacerbated by natural processes which are causing the land to sink."

Now anyone with at least a reasonable comprehension of English should be able to interpret that the author of the above statement is aware that sea levels are rising in New Jersey, but they might appear to be rising at a faster rate than at other locations because the land along the New Jersey coast is sinking. This is why I stated the problem of rising sea levels is exacerbated by natural processes.

I haven't ignored the other force, or general sea level rise. I've simply made a distinction between sinking land and rising water levels. This distinction needs to be made because there are many islands, and cities by the coast, that are sinking, sometimes at a much faster rate than the sea water is rising. The inhabitants of such islands and cities need to be informed that the alarming rate of 'apparent' sea-level rise, that they can see with their own eyes, is mainly due to the sinking of their land, for reasons that the linked EPA article explained in relation to New Jersey, and there were possibly other reasons which they didn't address.

Bangkok is a example of a city which is sinking much faster than the global average rate of sea level rise. Jakarta is sinking even faster, as much as 250mm per year in some locations. Compare that with the average global sea level rise of around 3mm per year due to global warming.

[Alan Klein]

The whole Mississippi Delta and New Orleans are sinking because of man-made blockages of natural sediment not being deposited by the river.  Of course, the climate changers only mention rising seas and never falling land.  Of course, no one should be really living in New Orleans which is basically below sea level.  But as long as man insists on living in pretty seashore areas, we're going to continue to have problems with the climate.