12 thoughts on “Do You See Any Climate Change?

  1. Not only climate change which is clearly visible but man made change as well. Do I see deck chairs in one picture and not the other? The deep greens in the later picture stand out far more and the lovely russet browns in the early picture are more prolific.

    Like

    1. Those aren’t deck chairs; they are picnic tables stacked for winter. They aren’t always stacked in the same place. You are splitting hairs on the deep greens and russet browns. The difference in the russet browns is as simple as a gust of wind. The reason there are more deep greens in the background is due to the evergreens there that have grown over a 4 year period. Perfectly natural. There is no man-made or natural climate change in the photos.

      Like

  2. Well the difference between us is I’m looking for change but your looking for constancy , but to be fair you did ask for the differences .
    When I was a boy seventy years ago , I used to have lots of fun in children’s books finding the difference between two pictures , but it’s all internet now , paper pictures are becoming more of a rarity.
    Men and women see what they want to see , we have a curious conviction that we are right about things.

    Like

    1. No, I don’t see what I “want” to see. I’m looking for changes in climate. You’re looking for changes in general. The picnic tables are not related to “climate change”. They are a matter of where they choose to store them. The extra green is also unrelated to climate change; they are the result of 4 years of growth of evergreens. My point is that the leaves change color the same time of year pretty much to the day – not two weeks later. Comprende?

      Like

  3. I understand your angry about the climate change that seems to be taking place all over the globe and anxious to prove it is
    not real. I’m not a scientist but today I see evidence everywhere that climate is changing. Incidentally there is no reason to suppose it should not change didn’t we have an ice age long ago or was that an illusion?

    Like

    1. I am not angry about climate change. At all. There is no reason to be angry about climate change. There is nothing anybody can do to stop it. I am not anxious to prove that climate change doesn’t exist. Climate changes all the time. It’s always changed. Antarctica used to be a tropical paradise. It’s now a frozen wasteland. A desert of ice. https://www.nap.edu/read/12168/chapter/4#22
      Iowa used to be under a mile of ice – a frozen wasteland. It now has 4 seasons. How do you think that Iowa and Antarctica reversed positions climate-wise over the years?
      There is an explanation – and it’s not CO2. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/22/true-polar-wander-may-have-caused-ice-age/
      The point of these two photos is simply to show that we’re right on schedule. We’ve been told winters are getting shorter; they are not getting shorter here. In fact, I can show that winters are, if anything, getting longer here. They call it “global” warming, but here, according to their data, it is cooling. It is disingenuous for alarmists to continue to call it “global” anything.

      Like

      1. The problem is it is causing tremendous difficulties for low lying coastal cities and nations . It’s not so bad for us richer nations who can afford better sea defences , or a change in our habits to prevent floods , but the poorer nation’s will suffer.It looks to me that as usual politicians are arguing about it instead of putting resources into combating the problem.

        Like

      2. There are a number of things that can cause water to rise in coastal areas. It cannot be assumed to be due to climate change.
        There are clues that tell us that places having serious issues with rising waters are most definitely not due to climate change – it’s not rising by the same rate everywhere. That tells us something else is going on. Some areas are dealing with simple erosion.
        One story I read was about Inuits who tried to stop sand erosion with large rocks – which actually made the situation worse. Other places like Hampton Roads are having problems with subsidence – something like over half of their problem is due to subsidence from removing ground water. That’s a local issue. The Gulf states also have an issue with subsidence. Their solutions there may not be the same as Hampton Roads. Point is, it’s not climate change causing the problem.
        I know they blame more frequent and more severe flooding on climate change, but they too, need to look at other causes of said flooding. More people are building on flood plains. That needs to stop.
        They also need to stop building levees which actually make floods worse; levees don’t allow the water to drain, and they increase the risk flooding downstream.
        Levees are also not good environmentally; they prevent farmland from benefiting from the nutrients carried by flood waters that were formerly allowed to spread out naturally, replenishing aquifers. Now most of those nutrients and fresh water gets carried down to the ocean where both can cause all sorts of problems that wrongfully get blamed on climate change)
        Back when I was in school, they taught us not to build on flood plains. It was good advice then, and it’s good advice now. It’s one thing if you have to build a dock along the coast or next to a river for commerce, but houses don’t need to be built there.

        Some references:

        “Levees Make Mississippi River Floods Worse, But We Keep Building Them”
        “Levee hazards are not a new idea. In 1852 an engineer named Charles Ellet Jr. wrote a report for the federal government in which he warned that confining the Mississippi River to a narrow channel caused the water to ‘rise higher and flow faster.'” https://www.npr.org/2018/05/21/610945127/levees-make-mississippi-river-floods-worse-but-we-keep-building-them)

        “What’s Good About A Flood?”
        https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/flood/gifts3.html

        “Land Subsidence and Relative Sea-Level Rise in the Southern Chesapeake Bay Region”
        Pg. 20: “Major Conclusions
        • Land subsidence and global sea-level rise combine to cause relative sea-level rise in the southern Chesapeake Bay region.
        • Land subsidence causes more than half of the observed relative sea-level rise. • Aquifer-system compaction causes more than half of the land subsidence.

        Click to access circ1392.pdf

        Some areas of Hampton Roads are sinking 7-10 times faster than others: https://phys.org/news/2017-11-nasa-virginia-metro-area-unevenly.html

        “Rising sea or sinking land?”
        “Subsidence is the principal cause for flooding and shoreline erosion at the mentioned locations and other places as well. The open ocean continues to rise at only 6-7 inches per century averaged on a millennial scale.”
        https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rising-sea-or-sinking-land

        For comparison, this is sea level “rise” in a stable location: the link is to a “then vs now” gif of The Cove (La Jolla, CA) The first photo is from 1871. The second one is a more recent photo.
        “A lot of erosion has occurred over the last 130 years. In the blink animation above (click on the image to see animation) note that the rock under the three people standing on the right in the 1871 image is gone, and has formed a small island of boulders with three people sitting on it in the recent image. There is no evidence that sea level has risen.
        A few Palm Trees have been planted, but the sea appears to be in exactly the same place it was 130 years ago. In fact the rocks on the upper right are higher above the water now than in the earlier picture (high tide.) There is no glacial rebound in San Diego, and the faults in the region are strike-slip (horizontal) faults. They don’t cause vertical movement.”

        Like

  4. I can see you have gone into this in some detail. I heard we have a matter of twelve years to reduce human pollution to reduce the rising temperatures globally or we are in big trouble.
    You must remember I’m a layman and I can only take the word of the consensus of experts. Mind you there does seem to have been a lot of forest fires , California was a terrible case in point.

    Like

    1. Laymen have every right to question “experts”. It was “experts” that told us that we should eat unsaturated margarine made from vegetable oil. Turns out saturated fat is good for us and vegetable oil is not. All that whipped butter was killing people. Please, check your history. Tony Heller has all the vital stats you’ll ever need. CO2 is not pollution. The temperatures are not rising “globally”. There have been bigger fires than California has ever seen. If you’d check your history, you’d know that.

      Like

  5. It is true that the experts sometimes exaggerate or make mistakes but the data is very complicated and there are always some experts who disagree with the general consensus. I have also read that some deniers have ulterior motives in that they do not want to change their lifestyles.
    In the UK we have been told we must cut down our meat consumption to help save the planet , apparently beef is a very dangerous because of the methane the cows produce.

    Like

  6. Ignore the data. The “experts” themselves say “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” Then they turn around and call the models “convenient fictions”. I kid you not:
    “The data doesn’t matter.
    We’re not basing our recommendations on the data.
    We’re basing them on the climate models.”
    ~ Prof. Chris Folland ~
    Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

    “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
    ~ Dr David Frame ~
    Climate modeler, Oxford University
    Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

    If you’re a thinking person, you would be asking questions of alarmists rather than repeating their drivel. How many questions have you asked? How many realizations did you come up with *by yourself?* Do you ever stop to ask if what they’re saying really makes any sense given what’s happened historically?

    Btw, stop with the denier label. No one is a “climate denier” – it’s an ad hominem attack. If anyone is a denier, it’s those that think that climate change didn’t happen until we started burning coal and oil. Climate isn’t determined by CO2. It’s determined by location on the planet relative to the sun. Change requires a lot more than temperature.

    Who needs to change their lifestyle? There is no skeptic getting rich off this scheme. If anyone doesn’t want to change their lifestyle, it’s hypocrites like David Suzuki with multiple large homes. People like Al Gore, etc. the wealthy proponents of CAGW who fly to these shindigs they put on rather than practicing what they preach; they think they can buy “indulgences” to pay for their extravagances. They could hold their meetings over the internet, but they don’t. Most people cannot change their lifestyle (including myself) because they’re already living as close to the edge as they can.

    Cutting down your meat consumption won’t save anything but the cow – and it will leave people malnourished. I know – I used to be vegan. What they’re telling you is all hogwash. Meat is packed with nutrition. It’s a “complete protein”. https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/abcs-of-nutrition/protein-building-blocks-of-the-body/ Cutting back on meat won’t do a thing for the climate. Methane from cattle can’t hold a candle to what nature produces, not only from the earth, but via elephants, whale farts (yes, whales fart, imagine that), antelope, water buffalo, deer, elk, bears of all kinds, etc. Do you suppose they’re going to suggest we do away with wildlife which is even more abundant? Our emissions are no more harmful than any others – and our contribution is much smaller – just like our annual CO2 emissions are much smaller than natures. And our emissions are no more pollution than natures are.

    Will you please do some research for yourself? Start asking questions instead of unquestioningly trusting what those people are telling you. When we burn fuel, the natural by-products are water vapor and CO2. Neither is a pollutant. But they are not going after water vapor which has a much bigger effect than CO2. Did you ever ask why?

    BTW, it has been shown that grazing animals can transform the deserts. This is but one environmentalist that has come to this conclusion. So if anything, if you want to help “save the planet” you should be eating more meat, not less. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s