African locust outbreak (it's real and it's normal)
Is the locust outbreak in Aftrica really “biblical” and “the worst”?
Lately, there have been the “headlines of doom” concerning the locust plague in Africa. The melodrama in the headlines is enough to make a rational, thinking person scream:
Africa locust plague worst infestation in decades: ‘Even cows are wondering what is happening’
FoxNews Jan 28, 2020
Why today's biblical locust swarms can't be stopped
Mashable Jan 2020
It is probably true that this is one of the worst infestation in decades, if you count two as “decades” which is technically correct. However, it implies a much longer time, which is highly dishonest. How common are locust plagues?
'HISTORICAL' PLAGUES OF LOCUSTS, GRASSHOPPERS HIT AFRICA PLAINS
SunSentinal July 1986
Argentina Is Preparing For The Worst Locust Swarm In 60 Years
ATI February 5, 2018
Famine-ravaged Ethiopia invaded by locust swarm
June 6, 1978 NYT
In Africa, when it rains, it swarms
CSM October 14, 2004
Just a quick search for locusts plagues on the internet yielded four headlines from 1978 to 2018 on two different continents. Australia has also seen plagues of locust. That’s not really looking rare or out of the ordinary. The headlines are for melodrama and to frighten people.
Maybe this invasion is bigger and badder?
“Swarms of Desert Locust have been recorded somewhere or other in every year since 1860 (Rainey 1963); however, the longest plague period lasted from 1950-1962, and during this period the largest swarm was recorded. Rainey (1954) calculated that of a well-packed swarm observed in East Africa contained 50 million locusts per km2. At such rates, a swarm of 100km2 could contain over 5×109 locusts, but not all would be flying at once. Often some will settle while others take off, so that the swarm, however uniform it looks at any moment, is really progressing in a rolling motion with one part constantly replacing the other in the air as the whole body of the swarm moves forward (Baron 1972).”
Book of insect records university of Florida
“Now consider that in the last century alone, there were seven periods of numerous plagues, the longest of which lasted intermittently for 13 years.”
Looks pretty bad for those 12 and 13 years. Much more serious than the “historic plagues” headlined above. Seems it’s not the biggest, baddest of all. Just a “typical” plague. This is not to diminish the reality of the damage these plagues do, but in reality, they are quite common. Dealing with them is a way of life, even if it’s a rather unsuccessful one at times. It’s part of the natural world.
The locust invasions occur in South America, Africa, Australia, Europe, China—everywhere except North America and Antarctica. There are varying ways to deal with these pests. They are edible and considering the damage they do to crops, methods of drying and freeze-drying of the insects can be quite useful for later consumption. While many people have an aversion to eating insects, when confronted with reduced food supplies and crop-gobbling locusts, that aversion can be overcome. There are various ways to prepare the locust—dried, fried, chocolate-covered, breaded. One can often make flour out of dried insects. This will not remove large quantities of locust, but may help with famine later on. Pesticides also work, but are limited in their value due to the huge number of locusts. One must kill the locust without poisoning everything else in the area.
The invasions one reads about are mostly desert locust. It is interesting to note that in the 1800’s, North America did have swarms of locust—the Rocky Mountain locust, now extinct. There is considerable in what caused the mass extinctions. This happened very quickly, going from swarms of locust to extinction in approximately 30 years. Further study is warranted on what happened and if the situation can be created artificially, thus ridding many areas of locust plagues.
(There are still grasshoppers in North America and many other places. Locust are a special type of grasshopper and they form swarms. Grasshoppers generally live on the ground, flying only when moving from one plant or area to another.)
Wyoming grasshoppers in an "up" year
They don't swarm, but they are annoying
The abject misnaming of ocean acidification:
I have been reading headlines about ocean acidification being so strong it is corroding the shells of crab larvae.
This is what science denial looks like. We have the discussed the ocean issue—scientifically referred to as ‘LESS ALKALINE” never acidic. The pH scale above 7 is ALKALI. The ocean runs about 8.3. Therefore, calling the phenomena acidic is denial of actual established science. Repeat that to yourselves often. Scientists do misrepresent facts and terms when money is involved, the press lies as a matter of standard practice. One should run run run from any source that uses this completely inaccurate term “acidic” to try and scare people into believing warming is harming the planet. It is pure propaganda. Science has been severely damaged by the complete dishonesty and denial of basic science that results from the need to push the AGW fake science. One should be very concerned about the effect the political and monetary groups are having on science. At this point, it’s not really trustworthy in many areas, which makes us regressing to the stone age shamans and seers. He who is flashy enough or loud enough or tells the best tale wins. We all lose.
How does this happen—the lie of acidification and scientists pushing it? It sells as a headline. Sadly, people love doom and gloom and rarely try to learn the truth and the real science. There were only 50 specimens from 10 environments in the actual study. The lowest pH used in the water tanks was 7.48 still alkali, approaching a neutral solution. There were other serious problems within the study quoted: in situ, meaning done in the lab, so the crab larvae cannot move about freely as crabs do in the ocean. Crabs move through many pH levels so confining them to one level immediately negates the usefulness of the data. If researchers must use tanks, the pH should vary over the life of the experiment, which may not yield the desired answers.
The researchers were measuring tiny changes and failing to allow the crabs to mature (because they dissected the larvae). There really is no way to know if the changes at the larval stage carry to adulthood. The most interesting item, however, the scientists dissolved the layer of shell (carapace epicuticle) they needed removed to examine a layer beneath it (that layer is what they were gauging damage by) using 6% sodium hypochlorite, which is basically bleach and has a pH of around 11. Yes, 11, making it very alkali, NOT acidic, and it dissolved the carapace. It seems interesting that there is a claim that a less alkali ocean will harm shells when MORE alkali does indeed dissolve them and the researchers clearly showed this.
Why do scientists say the acidic ocean is harming the crabs? Because saying the ocean water is becoming more neutral, which is the scientifically accurate state, not a falsehood like the term “acidic” is, and may be harming crabs just does not sell like “ACIDIC OCEAN DISSOLVING CRAB SHELLS” does. The scientific illiteracy of people reading the headlines and the desire for a doomsday scenario makes the use of the word “acidic” very effective. Totally unscientific, but very effective in frightening the public.
Remember that the ocean pH varies from place to place, creatures move freely in the ocean (except coral) and that changes in shells and habitats are 100% natural and have always occurred. Humans do affect the ocean through fishing, using it as trash dumpster, crossing it in ships, etc, but since humans are part of the ecology such affects are not different from what any other species on the planet cause as changes. Humans are just aware of the changes and have the capacity to exploit those changes for selfish and often very wrong reasons.
See these past posts for more on ocean pH changes:
St. Greta was named “person of the year” by Time magazine.This is honoring a child that skipped school, and scowls at everyone over something she apparently lacks the intellectual capacity to understand.She shoves the IPCC document in questioner’s faces and yet appears unable to explain any of the science.Greta may have read the political part of the report (or not), but I seriously doubt she can even begin to understand any of the hundreds of pages of science studies that are supposed to be the foundation of the report.Think about this—Greta is rewarded for taking away your childhood, depriving you of your education andbullying people who do not agree with her.Honestly, she behaves as one that hates humanity, not loves it.Greta wants your life to be sad, empty and without hope.She wants you to be uneducated.She wants you bullying everyone who disagrees with you.WHY?????Why would any rational person wish that hell on future generations?Why would Greta despise you so much she steals your childhood? Why?
Being honored for bullying and trying to destroy the childhoods of others is what Time magazine is praising. This is the insanity that the climate change propaganda politicians push. DON’T FALL FOR IT.
The world is not in more danger from weather/climate than it ever was. The climate has not changed significantly in well over a century. Humans cannot stop hurricanes or tornadoes or blizzards or heatwaves. What humans can do is adapt and thrive. So be part of the adaptable human race and don't cower in fear over a truant child honored for dishonoring the human race. Learn the truth and take back/keep your lives and your futures.
Greta Thunberg had been making quite a splash, scowling at adults and politicians and claiming they "stole her childhood". There are many problems with Greta, but for now, I am going to link to a site with a video from another teen who is not being crowned queen of the world like Greta and never will be because she doesn't shout the "proper climate attitude". Yet, she makes very compelling points about the hysteria that IS destroying childhoods, through fear and terror of having no future. The link goes to a "skeptic site" and can also be accessed on YouTube. It's definitely worth listening to as the speaker makes excellent points. She is reading from notes and doing this in front of her PC, not the latest climate conference. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/04/the-anti-greta/ If you want to comment, that is great. However, remember that comments are limited to addressing the science and attacks on the speaker or their presentation will not be approved. If you disagree, state what you disagree with and why, in detail. Thank you for adhering to this rule.
As this blog has discussed before, NO ONE CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE. No one. Not the psychic you may see on television, the person reading tarot cards, no one. Not the people who write apocalyptic books like "The Population Bomb" (totally discredited now), no scientist and no computer. People can speculate and occasionally guess right, but never reliably. Which makes all this "climate emergency" completely bogus.
In all fairness, most of the climate hysteria is spread by politicians, a group not known for their interest in facts or science nor much of anything but power. Scientists make "projections", which differ from "predictions" in that projections are only valid if every single assumption and input are true. Even if conditions do match, the assumption of where the circumstances lead can be very, very wrong. In reality, there is very little difference between projections and predictions, but one sees some entities using the "projection" label to avoid explaining why they missed the mark so far with their future prediction. Most scientist would not say we have only 10 or 12 years or so to save the planet. However, politicians could not care less if the prediction is true or not, as long as the statement serves their purposes.
I'm not sure where the timeline originated. An American freshman congressperson may have started the recent hysteria and everyone just jumped on the bandwagon. There have been many such predictions in the past:
1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000 (they did not)
1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is (Obviously, many do know what a HUGE amount of snow is)
2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
None, of course, have come true and there is zero reason to think current predictions will either, with the occasional lucky guess. All this is scare tactics.
Sadly, children are very often the targets of such fear tactics. There are reports of children having nightmares about climate change. Yet, it's all fabricated fear. The 2° rise the IPCC set as a limit? As far as one can tell, they pulled the number out of thin air. They have zero evidence that a two-degree rise in a "global average" can cause catastrophic warming. Sea level rise is not increasing, the ocean is not acidifying.
Could things get worse? Sure. There's no way to know. Things have an equal probably of getting better or not changing much at all. Things could get better or worse due to many factors that have nothing to do with CO2 or human beings. History is full of foolish, evil and wrong things humans did to themselves without involving nature. Gullibility and apathy are can kill or make one's life very, very depressing. Fight these, not an invisible, mathematically created enemy.
There is no reason to fear future climate, to skip school to protest (learning is what the job of a child is, not protesting), none of those things. Few things steal the future: death, illness and malevolent governments do. Climate cannot steal the future. It can only require adaptations.
The proper response is to learn as much about living and dealing with reality as much as possible. Humans have adapted to many different environments for centuries. There's no reason humans can't continue to unless they chose to fail. Let's not choose to throw away the future on the ridiculous fear-mongering of the global warming politics.
A word on the deification of Greta: If ever there was PROOF beyond a doubt that global warming is nothing but politics and religion, the Church of Sweden has declared Greta "the successor to Jesus Christ". First there is no successor to Jesus Christ. That's absolutely fictitious. Second, this is RELIGION, pure and simple. It is NOT about science at all, no matter how many times the Greta one may pretend to believe that or repeat the lie that it is science. Now, if you want to swear allegiance to a religion dead set on destroying humanity and your futures, that is your choice. However, please do not try and blame science for "stealing your childhood". Adults stole your childhood and you went along with the lie of global warming out of religious or political need, NOT because you're scientific. Please do not blame the thinking, scientific people for your despair. While living miserably never really made sense, humans do have that choice. One would hope you would choose to enjoy the wonderful, incredible times in which you live and celebrate humanity, rather than cower in fear.
Glacier National Park in Montana (USA) has been removing its signs that said the glaciers would be gone by 2020. It's 2019 and there are still several glaciers there to see. Some reports now say there will be no glaciers by 2030 or thereafter. Within in the next 10 to 50 years is now the most cited number. Considering the signs were stating quite clearly that by 2020, the glaciers would be gone, there would seem to be problem with the entire ability of scientists to accurately predict the future. It's very possible there will be plenty of glaciers in 2030 and far into the future. There's really no way to know. This is a perfect example of over-certainty in science and why all scientific predictions based on statistics and modeling should be regarded as very possibly wrong. (Additional note: The prediction of 2030 was changed to 2020 in 2009 because things were happening faster than projected. There were double mistakes made in these projections.)
There are other glaciers in the Rocky Mountains that are larger than those in Glacier National Park and mountain areas where there are more glaciers. However, many require hiking in for miles to observe up close. Also, there is a commercial component to the glaciers in Glacier National Park, making them the focus of many melting glacier discussions.
So what is a glacier and should we be worried when they melt? A glacier is a mass of ice that moves under its own weight. Generally, that requires it be approximately 100 feet thick. Also, a glacier must cover at least 25 acres (for those who live in the city, this is 5 to 12 blocks, depending on the size of the block. Blocks are from between 2 and 5 acres per block.) It seems a rather small size, that 25 acres, for a glacier, but that is the definition. The small size may account for why many glaciers are not very permanent. Larger ones would be longer lasting.
There does not exist a complete listing of glaciers. Until satellites came into being, the only way to find a glacier was to physically go there. Needless to say, this was no small task. Glaciers outside the two poles tend to be in the high elevations where access is very difficult. Satellites made it possible to get a much clearer picture of the number of glacier out there. Satellite mapping of glaciers is not a perfected technology. Snow can be read as a glacier and you need evidence of movement of the snow/ice to distinguish between a glacier and not just snowpack. Still, it's better than having to reach all the glaciers in person. There are nearly 200,000 glaciers in the world currently--those that are mapped and known at this time.
Melting glaciers are of concern mostly because they are of value for fresh water. Many places depend on the glacier melt for water. So what happens when the glaciers are gone? One supposes the same thing that happened when people's other water supplies dried up. They either found new sources in the areas or migrated to a place where there was water. While we now seem to fear the "end of the water", this was actually very, very common throughout all of mankind's and the earth's history. The modern world has ways of moving water from one location to another via pipelines, water tankers, etc. Bottled water has been trucked into cities that lose their water supply temporarily due to natural disasters. There is also desalination. While it requires a fair amount of energy and is quite expensive, it can and does provide water to many locations. The Middle East and desert areas are the major uses, plus areas that have concentrations of humans high enough to exceed local water supplies and are close enough to the ocean.
Glaciers also have a commercial value for tourism. National Parks and mountain ranges worldwide have people come to see the glaciers and to study them. If the glaciers disappear, then the focus of the tourism would have to change.
Those who study global warming have tended to use the glaciers as a measure of the seriousness and rate of change due to human-caused warming. There appears to be little justification for this other than glaciers are visible and fascinating, which draws people to any narrative about changes in them and the possible loss of the glaciers.
Temperature is not the sole factor in the formation of glaciers. It does have to remain cold enough for the snow to remain pretty much year round in order to compact into ice and then a glacier, but there also has to be sufficient snow to build upon the foundation and cause the glacier to grow or at least maintain size. Especially dry, but cold years, result in the glacier not growing. Additionally, wind can melt a glacier even when there are cold temperatures. It's not uncommon to see water on top of ice on a cold winter day due to the wind. Abrasion can also cause melting, as can particles of dust and other materials on the surface. The dust causes the surface of the glacier to darken and thus warm more than it would without the dust, and can result in more rapid melting.
How serious is it that glaciers are melting? It depends on the concern. Economically, it may be of great concern. The need for easily obtained water may cause great concern. Do the glaciers indicate the rate of planetary warming? Considering how many times the dates for when all the glaciers will be gone has changed and changed, if they do, we have no clue as to what rate of warming correlates to how much glaciers melt.
Perhaps most interesting, is that as glaciers melt, artifacts from past civilizations and warmer climates with trees are found. A whole new field of study, glacial archeology, has developed. While there is often a reference to climate change making this possible, logically, the climate changed multiple times in the recent past or the artifacts would not be there. It was warm when the artifacts were laid down. This was before human beings started emitting CO2 at a high level. Thus, there is a contradiction in the theory of CO2 driving the melting of glaciers. There are many things that need to be understood, studied and worked out before any science about climate is even marginally close to settled.
Glaciers are fascinating natural phenomena. How they change, form and melt is worth studying to help us understand more of our world. It's far too soon to even pretend we understand and predict climate, weather or most anything based on a shrinking glacier.
This is an example of the the obsession with CO2 and human-caused warming crossing over to very nearly a religion. It brought to mind the worship of nature, including sacrifices to weather and sun gods. Glaciers melt. There is nothing magical or special in 2019 that changes this. A sign marking the first human-cased demise of a natural event is ridiculous. It's not rational to mourn the way nature works nor commemorate what amounts to a fictitious event.
This glacier is atop a volcano in Iceland. It has not grown since 2003. However, as noted in this posting, other things cause glaciers to stop growing or wither, other than increased temperature. If no snow falls, the glacier will begin to sublimate and shrink. It's a delicate balance and completely natural. When you see signs like this one in Iceland in the news, remember the twice wrong projections concerning Glacier National Park.
I am posting this because the contest Jim Steele is presenting is an excellent exercise in true scientific thought (as a contest with a prize). I have addressed some of his points—especially the improper “Argument from Authority”. It’s worth thinking through the requirements and seeing if you can come up with a truly scientific defense of global warming/climate change, not the usual angry insults and indignation often seen in discussions of climate change.
Currently children are being asked to lead a political charge for “climate change action”. Climate is very complex, and most adults have a very poor understanding of all the factors affecting climate change. Thus, many people believe our children must have a far inferior understanding of climate change and are just being used as pawns in the politics of climate change. Many adults see student strikes as silly political theater, not validation of any climate theory or proof of an impending climate crisis.
But perhaps I underestimate the knowledge and intelligence of our student “climate strikers”. So, I am offering a $1000 award to the student who unequivocally outlines why 1) rising concentrations of CO2 are the cause of recent climate change, and 2) why that change is catastrophic.
I warn participants, I devoted my whole professional career towards scientific research and education that promotes wise environmental stewardship. Nonetheless I became a climate skeptic. I observed too many people eager to blame climate change for environmental problems that were caused by other factors and had real remedies. So, I suspect no adult, never mind a child, can meaningfully determine that recent weather or recent changes in a species abundance have been driven by rising greenhouse gases.
But you may prove me wrong.
Furthermore, to encourage good scientific thinking, if there is no winner in this climate challenge, I will still guarantee a $500 “runner-up” prize to the student who demonstrates the best scientific thinking, even if their conclusions are wrong.
Here are the requirements:
1. The student must be 21 years or younger. Nonetheless I encourage each student to discuss climate change with your parents, teachers and friends as well as contacting scientists.
2. The student must email their arguments in a document that is no larger than 5000 words. They must state their name and age and type “The $1000 Student Climate Challenge Award” in the subject line. Email the document by December 1, 2019 to email@example.com.
3. The student must use the foundation of scientific inquiry, the “null hypothesis”. In other words, the student must show that current weather/climate reflects a change that exceeds natural climate change. That requires choosing the appropriate time frames for discussion.
4. Students must go beyond simple correlations. Correlation is not causation. Although CO2 concentrations are higher today than they were 200 years ago, higher concentrations are not evidence of causation.
5. Students must address relevant alternative hypotheses. For example, why is Arctic warming the result of CO2 warming and not the result of natural oscillations that drive warmer waters into the Arctic?
6. Students must address why warming is catastrophic. If warming is caused by rising CO2, why would a longer growing season be catastrophic? Or if there is less sea ice why would the resulting increase in photosynthesis be catastrophic? Or what is the evidence of a trend in larger or more tornados?
7. Consensus is not evidence. Consensus is merely political theater. Arguments must be based on evidence. Politically motivated scientists tried to refute Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity using a “consensus” argument and writing “100 Authors Against Einstein”. The consensus was still wrong.
8. Avoid arguments from authority. As Carl Sagan wisely advised “arguments from authority carry little weight - authorities have made mistakes in the past.” For example, John Muir’s ideas were published in popular papers and magazines regards the formation of Yosemite Valley by glaciers. The geological authority from Harvard, Josiah Whitney, suggested otherwise and tried to smear Muir as just an “ignorant shepherd”. But Muir was mostly correct! Likewise, I warn that using the word “denier” will not make your arguments more correct.
9. Students can enter as many times as they want. You may want to change your arguments when new information comes to light. Simply note that your new entry replaces your last.
As student essays roll in, I will periodically report in my What’s Natural newspaper column, and on my landscapesandcycles.net blog, regards failed common arguments and why it will disqualify your essay from the award. That will allow every student to improve their argument and re-submit.
I wish every student the best and hope their sincere essays will promote better scientific discourse and understanding.
Sincerely Jim Steele
Director emeritus, Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University
If you have questions, please go to Jim's website. Thank you!
These are some definitions of climate I have gathered:
Weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
"our cold, wet climate" ·
A region with particular prevailing weather conditions. "vacationing in a warm climate"
Climate is the statistical average of prevailing meteorological conditions. It is always regional and applies over a given period of time. The most common climate variables are temperature, precipitation and wind pressure. On Earth, the climate depends on a region’s latitude, altitude, topography, vegetation and proximity to the oceans. Extraterrestrial forces that influence climate include the orbit of the Earth and planets around the Sun, and variations in the Sun’s intensity.
Climate: definition, the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
Climate is the average weather usually taken over a 30-year time period for a particular region and time period. Climate is not the same as weather, but rather, it is the average pattern of weather for a particular region. Weather describes the short-term state of the atmosphere.
Climate is the statistics of weather over long periods of time. It is measured by assessing the patterns of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. Climate differs from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.
So what is climate? Is it a statistical value? The "average" weather as observed but not calculated? Whether there are four distinct seasons or less than four? Is it whether the weather is always warm, always dry, always wet? Perhaps a weighted average of each?
There really isn't a "true" definition of climate. For climate science, most often it's the average temperature (and maybe precipitation, etc) for an area over 30 years time. That's what the Global Average Temperature is based on. However, a calculated statistic is not reality in any way. The "average" height of humans is meaningless since there are always those taller and those shorter. Giving an average is just giving a number.
What then does climate change mean? I don't know that there is a real definition thereof. There's a rise in the calculated global average temperature that was attributed to global warming. Then, it became obvious that "global" warming really wasn't global at all. Now, while the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period may not have been 100% global, current changes in climate are in NO way global. The Arctic appears to warm faster while much of the Norther Hemisphere is freezing--indicating there really is only LOCAL climate, not global.
Going back to "what is climate"? The most reliable answer would be the number of seasons a place has, yet even that is in no way constant. When I first moved to Wyoming, there was virtually no fall. I was so excited the first years the leaves turned colors. There wasn't much for spring, either. Mostly just summer and winter with a very brief divide between the two. Now, we have fall colors fairly regularly. I varies from year to year. Sometimes there's just winter and summer basically. Seasons, therefore, are not even a 100% way of defining climate.
Climate--it looks more and more like a magical term used for whatever purpose one wants. The reality is the only thing that really matters to humans is weather. Let's go with the idea for the moment that weather is what climate really means (since "extreme weather" is now used as evidence for "climate change"). So what is global warming and man made climate change? Global warming refers to the property of CO2 (and H2O also) that absorbs long wave radiation (radiation the earth reflects back to space. Incoming radiation is short wave radiation) and then reradiates the energy in all directions. The energy that is directed toward the earth and some of the other energy as well is sent back to earth, adding heat to the planet. Water actually does the same thing. Humans burning fossil fuels and changing landscapes are believed by some to have increased the global temperature.
Now we are back to what is a "global temperature"? As with climate, it's a mathematical construct. IF the global average temperature rises, what does that mean? Many say "climate change" but climate change really isn't relevant, only local conditions. There is no "global climate". Nothing in the man made climate change theory can in any way predict local weather changes. Nothing. So why then are people saying we have 12 years left to fix this "problem", school kids striking (I realize that may be to get a day off from class...), and so forth? Politics is why. Politicians often use propaganda and incorrect or exaggerated claims to frighten people, to keep themselves in power. (see http://climate4kids.blogspot.com/2014/04/dont-be-afraid.html) There is no science behind the scary predictions. We simply DO NOT KNOW what is coming. There are no scientific psychics out there (nor any other kind, for that matter). Plus, again, the theory does not address local weather but rather makes broad, meaningless, useless claims about more extreme weather.
The weather--what we live in--changes always and will no matter what we do or don't do. Contrary to what the scare mongers say, the weather is not getting worse. Yes, it's flooding across parts of the US but it flooded longer and a much larger area in 1993. There have been tornadoes but there have always been tornadoes, more in some years, fewer in others. There's no clear trend in numbers or severity. The "permanent drought" in California is now officially over. Snow has returned to the Northern Hemisphere in large amounts, as has colder weather. Glaciers are growing in some areas, decreasing in others, as has always been. Some examples of what might be called "extreme weather". In the real world, these are common. Extremely annoying, problematic at times, dangerous, but the events are what has always happened on Earth. Nothing has really changed except our reactions. We have snow, hail, high wind and a thunderstorms pictured here. It's important to note that the media regularly exaggerate these events. Four inches of snow in the past did not call for a "winter storm warning". A blizzard warning involved many, many inches of snow and high wind. High wind warnings seem to vary depending on the area—people in urban areas consider 30 mph high wind much of the time. All definitions of these terms are subjective and can be ramped up or down at will by the media, scientists, etc. The weather people do have standard definitions, but again, these can be modified to increase people's belief in the weather being more severe.
Back to climate and what it is. Other than to say it's a mathematical construct, it's really not definable in any meaningful way or perhaps it's defined in too many ways to be useful. So what is "climate change"? Again, nothing that is definable or useful. It comes down to weather and weather is always changing. There is no crisis. Later on, we will look at the weather in local areas to see how that is changing, which is really all that matters. I think you'll be surprised at how little things do change over time in the weather.
Dark, stormy weather
Time to realize "climate change" really is nothing to fear. We live in weather, not climate, and weather always changes. We adapt.
(Feel free to comment on this article. I am interested in people's reactions to this idea. All comments are modified. I will address them as quickly as possible.)
There has a been a trend of school children exploited by their activist teachers into suing or striking for climate change attention (attention in general, if we are honest). This is (1) VERY, VERY bad for science and education in general and (2)very bad for the students and teachers who just look foolish and attention starved. It gives the appearance of being desperate and naive. The students look like little puppets, with their strings being pulled by the puppet-master. It all shrieks of INDOCTRINATION, NOT EDUCATION. This is meant to be very blunt. If one cares at all about science and the future, one must call out the charlatans and these ARE some of the biggest charlatans out there, using children as their tools for political gain.
However, IF you really want to save the planet and think CO2 is a problem, here is how you do it:
1. Demand your school keep all classrooms at 55°F during the winter and 85°F in the summer (if your school has heating and air conditioning). Assuming the school has not covered all the windows in a vain attempt to "save energy", demand the lights be turned off in the classrooms. If you must use lights, demand LED ONLY.
2. Demand NO computers, cell phones or other electronic devices. These are energy hogs and cause a great deal of petroleum fuels to be utilized. They must be abandoned. A chalkboard and chalk were fine in the old days and they will be fine now. Notes can be taken on recycled paper or scrap paper the students bring from home. This worked for centuries, so why change it?
3. All buses will only pick up students that live over one mile from the school. All others will walk or bicycle. Students living over one mile from the school can get extra credit for bicycling and not taking the bus. NO students may drive to school individually. They MUST carpool, take the bus, or they can be expelled. Parking lots will be covered with greenhouses for growing fresh vegetables. Teachers must also carpool or be fired. Students and teachers must attend/work at the school closest to their home to cut down on transportation usage.
4. Students must wear a cotton uniform made in an eco-friendly fashion, preferably in their own country to cut or eliminate shipping of goods. Nothing but a uniform is acceptable and any student not wearing one will be sent home (if they rode the bus, they can sit in the gym and read a book until the bus takes them home). Repeat violations should have the student expelled for failure to care about their planet and future.
5. NO hot lunches. All lunches will be cold and students will get extra credit for bringing lunches from home. School lunch programs that provide free lunches will provide only cold lunches. If students fail to eat said lunches, they will be instructed to bring their own lunch from home. FOOD WASTE IS UNACCEPTABLE. Monitors will keep track of those wasting food.
6. Your homes will be kept at 55°F or 85°F in the summer, just like the schools. Demand your parents do this. If they won't, you can claim they don't care about your future.
7. Anyone whose parent works for oil or gas, etc, gets extra credit if they can get their parent to change to an "eco-friendly" job.
8. Make sure your school and homes recycle everything. Lunch rooms must use paper cups, not styrofoam, if they serve drinks. Plastics, aluminum, etc must all be recycled.
9. Insist your parents plant gardens, abandoning their pesticide-laden lawns in favor of producing more food for the planet with no transportation costs. Protest loudly if your parents or siblings drive anywhere they could have walked (anything under one mile away). Protest if your parents or siblings make purchases of new clothing or shoes when they do not really need them. Constantly point out that Used is Better.
10. If your parent flies somewhere when a teleconference could have sufficed, wail and moan that your future is being destroyed by their actions. Better yet, make sure only one parent works, that you live in a tiny house and have few possessions. No electronics to speak of, of course.
11. You should learn, along with your parents, how to preserve food by canning. Do not use a freezer because of the electricity usage. For meats, you can make jerky or can the meat. People did this for decades, you can too. Make your meals at home. Eating out is very unfriendly to the environment. These are a start. IF you REALLY ARE SERIOUS, we'll see you start doing these "planet-saving" things and stop with the silly, useless, insincere lawsuits. IF we do NOT see you do this, we will assume you're just parroting what your teachers told you and trying to get attention. IF you don't care enough to get off your duffs and save the planet that you are going to be living on, we certainly don't. There is no reason we should. Your lack of action shows us that it is obvious that climate change is all a madeup money grabbing scheme and there's nothing to worry about. Ball's in your court, children.
(Note: There will be unintended consequences to everyone of these changes. Carefully consider whether saving the planet will in fact destroy humanity.)