• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

Status
Not open for further replies.
snowlover91 said:
Remember when they said the Coral Reefs off Australia were bleaching at an alarming rate and this never happened prior to 1979? Well now research is showing that there are cyclical cycles of bleaching that have been occurring for 400+ years.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00283/full
View attachment 5637
Click to expand...

Again you are cherry picking data for the USA only. Extreme events are clearly on the rise globally as expected.

fecf4164e91cc1c449fa0ae1d869f966.png



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
Again you are cherry picking data for the USA only. Extreme events are clearly on the rise globally as expected.

fecf4164e91cc1c449fa0ae1d869f966.png



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What is your source for that graph and how does it determine “extreme” events? Sorry but we were talking about extreme heatwaves and I demonstrated that here in the US there has been a decline over the past 100 years and you changed the topic to something completely different.
 
Last edited:
snowlover91 said:
What is your source for that graph and how does it determine “extreme” events? Sorry but we were talking about extreme heatwaves and I demonstrated that here in the US there has been a decline over the past 100 years and you changed the topic to something completely different.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep talking about the USA when it’s a global phenomenon? The graph is showing heatwave ratio. Here’s the source.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/heatwaves-past-global-warming-climate-change.htm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
Why do you keep talking about the USA when it’s a global phenomenon? The graph is showing heatwave ratio. Here’s the source.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/heatwaves-past-global-warming-climate-change.htm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
There's a few problems with your argument here. One being that the source has at the top "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism" which indicates it's possibly a source that isn't reliable. The second is its outdated by 3 years.
 
pcbjr said:
Very humbly, please join me in the court system ... you'll rapidly, if not immediately retract that assertion ... LOL ... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I’m just saying folks aren’t going to write a paper about a very specific subject like USA heatwaves every year especially about a subject like global warming that takes time to see trends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
I’m just saying folks aren’t going to write a paper about a very specific subject like USA heatwaves every year especially about a subject like global warming that takes time to see trends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I thought we were talking about the world as a whole and GW in general. Those get papers, graphs, charts, and data every year.
 
BHS1975 said:
I’m just saying folks aren’t going to write a paper about a very specific subject like USA heatwaves every year especially about a subject like global warming that takes time to see trends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I know what you were saying, but sometimes a little levity might just cut down on fractious overtones (and that is not directed to you or anyone in particular!) ... So, your Curmudgeon was simply offering an overarching yet trite bit of jest ... ;)
... and yes, it's hot outside today; AGW ... awful Gainesville warm ... :confused:
 
Last edited:
ForsythSnow said:
I thought we were talking about the world as a whole and GW in general. Those get papers, graphs, charts, and data every year.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know I was talking a specific paper to directly address the claims snowlover was making that don’t get written every year. Updated maybe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
Why do you keep talking about the USA when it’s a global phenomenon? The graph is showing heatwave ratio. Here’s the source.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/heatwaves-past-global-warming-climate-change.htm
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The reason I mentioned the USA is because that’s what I was originally referencing.

You had stated “It seems like the se has escaped most of the extreme summer heat from AGW so far. I wonder how long it will last.”

My response to this was to provide data which showed the US (of which the Southeast is a part of) in particular has seen less extreme heat over time, not more.

Regarding the skeptical science article... I’m not a fan of their website because the entire basis of the website is to take any skeptical arguments, find AGW data that would argue otherwise, and then say that any AGW skepticism is a myth with no scientific basis. They are really good at cherry picking any data that fits the AGW view and ignoring other data which might cause problems for their position.

Btw the founder of Skeptical Science is not even a climatologist, his PhD is in cognitive psychology and almost the entire staff of the website have degrees in unrelated fields or even no scientific background. What’s incredibly ironic about this is they reject the OISM petition project because many of the scientists who signed it are not in the field of climate science and most of the Skeptical Science staff isn’t either. Hypocrisy much? It is nothing more than a glorified blog composed of people who religiously hold to AGW and will reject any other alternative explanations.
 
Here is some food for thought. Global temps based on OAA vs OSS stations show temperatures have been flat for over a decade.

upload_2018-8-19_15-11-9.jpeg
Temperature data 1900–2010 from meteorological stations across the world have been analyzed and it has been found that all land areas generally have two different valid temperature trends. Coastal stations and hill stations facing ocean winds are normally more warm-trended than the valley stations that are sheltered from dominant oceans winds.

Thus, we found that in any area with variation in the topography, we can divide the stations into the more warm trended ocean air-affected stations, and the more cold-trended ocean air-sheltered stations. We find that the distinction between ocean air-affected and ocean air-sheltered stations can be used to identify the influence of the oceans on land surface. We can then use this knowledge as a tool to better study climate variability on the land surface without the moderating effects of the ocean.

We find a lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature data – with less impact of ocean temperature trends – after 1950. The lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature trends after 1950 should be considered when evaluating the climatic effects of changes in the Earth’s atmospheric trace amounts of greenhouse gasses as well as variations in solar conditions.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0958305X18756670?journalCode=eaea
Click to expand...

The urban heat island effect is a factor to consider as urbanization and expansion of cities has rapidly increased the past 50-60 years.
Parker and Ollier, 2017
“We should also consider the role of the Bureau of Meteorology. The climate trend maps compiled by Bureau of Meteorology in their climate change section are completely unreliable, as the alleged increasing temperature is obtained by lowering temperatures of the past by “adjustments“.
“The global reconstructions as GISS (Hansen et al. 2010, GISTEMP Team 2017) are artificially biased upwards to reproduce the carbon dioxide emission trend, but the strong natural oscillation signal prevails. The very likely overrated warming rate since 1880 is 0.00654°C/year or 0.654°C/century. This rate increases to 0.00851°C/year or 0.851°C/century by considering the data only since 1910. The warming rate cleared of the oscillations is about constant since the 1940s.”
“There are stations covering different time windows having very close patterns of temperatures. In this circle of 3,141,593 km2 (roughly 50% of Australia) that is mostly underdeveloped, none of the stations […] actually has a warming trend. … It is therefore only an artefact by BOM to produce the warming. Homogenization is supposed to be used to account for upwards biases such as Urban Heat Island, not to introduce upwards biases. … The longest of the Australian temperature records that were considered the most reliable by Bureau of Meteorology on February 2009 (BOM 2009) are still available as raw temperatures in the climate data online section and consistently show no warming and no increased extreme events within the limit of accuracy of measurements.
Click to expand...

Oyler et al., 2015
Artificial Amplification of Warming Trends …Western United States “Observations from the main mountain climate station network in the western United States (US) suggest that higher elevations are warming faster than lower elevations. This has led to the assumption that elevation-dependent warming is prevalent throughout the region with impacts to water resources and ecosystem services. Here, we critically evaluate this network’s temperature observations and show that extreme warming observed at higher elevations is the result of systematic artifacts and not climatic conditions. With artifacts removed, the network’s 1991–2012 minimum temperature trend decreases from +1.16 °C decade−1 to +0.106 °C decade−1 and is statistically indistinguishable from lower elevation trends. Moreover, longer-term widely used gridded climate products propagate the spurious temperature trend, thereby amplifying 1981–2012 western US elevation-dependent warming by +217 to +562%. In the context of a warming climate, this artificial amplification of mountain climate trends has likely compromised our ability to accurately attribute climate change impacts across the mountainous western US.”
Click to expand...

McKitrick and Michaels, 2007
“[E]xtraneous (nonclimatic) signals contaminate gridded climate data. The patterns of contamination are detectable in both rich and poor countries and are relatively stronger in countries where real income is growing. We apply a battery of model specification tests to rule out spurious correlations and endogeneity bias. We conclude that the data contamination likely leads to an overstatement of actual trends over land. Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980–2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half.”[/quote)
Click to expand...
 
Then of course there is research out there questioning if the rise of CO2 is in fact manmade or from natural sources. See below.

Ahlbeck, 2009
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830509789876772
“The increase rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide for the period from 1980 to 2007 can be statistically explained as being a function solely of the global mean temperature. Throughout the period, the temperature differences seem to have caused differences around a base trend of 1.5 ppmv/year. The atmospheric CO2 increase rate was higher when the globe was warmer, and the increase rate was lower when the globe was cooler. This can be explained by wind patterns, biological processes, or most likely by, the fact that a warmer ocean can hold less carbon dioxide. This finding indicates that knowledge of the rate of anthropogenic emission is not needed for estimation of the increase rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

Quirk, 2009
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830509787689123
“The results suggest that El Nino and the Southern Oscillation events produce major changes in the carbon isotope ratio in the atmosphere. This does not favour the continuous increase of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels as the source of isotope ratio changes. The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.”
 
My point in all the above posts and papers cited? We don’t have it all figured out yet. There is plenty of research in various fields, with different conclusions, that offer alternative views to the AGW theory. The science isn’t settled and both AGW views and skeptical ones should be evaluated and considered as we seek to better understand our planet.

One of my main concerns is around deforestation. I live in a very rural area but all around me large swaths of land have been completely deforested with nothing but some dead logs left behind. It’s being done by people who I presume are having the land logged. Globally this is also a concern as urbanization increases, forests are transformed into concrete jungles, and the demand for resources increases. It’s sad to see a once beautiful forest turned into a pile barren wasteland with nothing but stumps and weeds/brush left behind.
 
snowlover91 said:
My point in all the above posts and papers cited? We don’t have it all figured out yet. There is plenty of research in various fields, with different conclusions, that offer alternative views to the AGW theory. The science isn’t settled and both AGW views and skeptical ones should be evaluated and considered as we seek to better understand our planet.

One of my main concerns is around deforestation. I live in a very rural area but all around me large swaths of land have been completely deforested with nothing but some dead logs left behind. It’s being done by people who I presume are having the land logged. Globally this is also a concern as urbanization increases, forests are transformed into concrete jungles, and the demand for resources increases. It’s sad to see a once beautiful forest turned into a pile barren wasteland with nothing but stumps and weeds/brush left behind.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BHS1975 said:
From what I’m seeing I’m going with #4.

https://www.sciencespacerobots.com/...ge-scenarios-for-civilization-planet-60520181


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I'm respectfully going with the unsaid #5 ... nothing out of the ordinary ... all of this is based on a long range model, and if any of it's right, it'll be the 1st one that is correct out past day 20, but in the interim as August roasts, glad to have conveniences my folks and their ancestors did not enjoy ... just wish folks would respect what God gave us to work with and progress - use it all but not abuse any of it ...
 
Last edited:
BHS1975 said:
From what I’m seeing I’m going with #4.

https://www.sciencespacerobots.com/...ge-scenarios-for-civilization-planet-60520181


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Of course you go with the worst case scenario that they present. All of those scenarios except maybe 2 seem extreme and act like we aren't doing anything at the moment to become more efficient. If I chose from that article, I think 2 would be the most likely path we take since technology changes fast and more efficient fuel sources and ways of obtaining energy from existing resources are constantly improving. All assuming the worst path plays out.
 
It also depends on how much the population drops to consider it a collapse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Actually and for once today, I'm being very serious ...
No links to send to get anyone directed to an international pulpit, and if there were any likely they would be shut down before blinking ... but until a billion folks in China and another +/- in India, and few 100K more outside our sphere cut down on whatever they spew, your back yard, my back yard, our back yard, ain't gonna make a hill of beans difference ... and then to digress and still stay somewhat on topic, ever wonder why the MJO doesn't cooperate with us ... :confused:
... btw ... not looking for any "Likes" on this, but a little common sense would go a long way, somewhere ... :cool:
 
Last edited:
Has anyone ever considered that ocean rise could be attributed to all the junk, crap, stuff that gets dumped in there? Think about the sunken ships, plane wreckage debris, junk, heck some nations have made their own islands by dumping soil into the ocean, not too mention all the vessels on ocean waters...... ok I say this in jest but I would add: Global warming can be a heated (no pun intended) topic and for the most part the debate in here, while strong emotions at times, is very civil and for that I say thank you!

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
metwannabe said:
Has anyone ever considered that ocean rise could be attributed to all the junk, crap, stuff that gets dumped in there? Think about the sunken ships, plane wreckage debris, junk, heck some nations have made their own islands by dumping soil into the ocean, not too mention all the vessels on ocean waters...... ok I say this in jest but I would add: Global warming can be a heated (no pun intended) topic and for the most part the debate in here, while strong emotions at times, is very civil and for that I say thank you!

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
... and to you too, my friend ... :cool:
 
I did some analyses of the # of days with record highs and lows at both RDU and a Lumberton, NC. I analyzed 2 periods: start of period of record to 1999 and 2000-present. I wanted to see if there really was a pronounced trend toward a higher rate of warm records 2000+ vs prior to that. I intentionally chose Lumberton as the 2nd city because it is a much smaller city not too far from RDU to see if the warming at RDU 2000+ was mainly due to the intensification of the urban heat island effect:

!. RDU:

A. Warm records

1. Warm maxes:

- 1887-1999: 292 days including 25 days tied with 2000+

- 2000+: 99 days including 25 days tied with 1887-1999

- When considering ratios of # of record days to # of years, this strongly suggests significant warming was still ongoing 2000+.



2. Warm mins:

- 1887-1999: 300 days including 42 days tied with 2000+

- 2000+: 108 days including 42 days tied with 1887-1999

- When considering ratios of # of record days to # of years, this strongly suggests significant warming was still ongoing 2000+.



B. Cold records

1. Cold mins:

- 1887-1999: 346 days including 13 days tied with 2000+

- 2000+: 33 days including 13 days tied with 1887-1999

- When considering ratios of # of record days to # of years, this pretty strongly suggests significant warming was still ongoing 2000+. Also, note for 2000+ only 33 cold min records vs 99 warm maxes!



2. Cold maxes:

- 1887-1999: 352 days including 14 days tied with 2000+

- 2000+: 28 days including 14 days tied with 1887-1999

- When considering ratios of # of record days to # of years, this strongly suggests significant warming was still ongoing 2000+. Also, note for 2000+ only 28 cold max records vs 108 warm mins!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



II. Lumberton:

A. Warm records

1. Warm maxes:

- 1903-1999: 319 days including 22 days tied with 2000+

- 2000+: 69 days including 22 days tied with 1903-1999

- When considering ratios of # of record days to # of years, this is the only one of the 8 different items analyzed between the 2 cities that doesn't strongly suggest significant warming was still ongoing 2000+. At best, it suggests it only mildly. But that only mild suggestion means it could be due mainly to randomness.



2. Warm mins:

- 1903-1999: only 234 days including 48 days tied with 2000+

- 2000+: a whopping 180 days!! This includes 48 days tied with 1903-1999.

- When considering ratios of # of record days to # of years, this very, very strongly suggests significant warming was still ongoing 2000+. This was the strongest indication of warming still ongoing 2000+ of the 8 different items analyzed between the 2 cities. Actually, other than the warm maxes at Lumberton, all of the others still strongly suggested ongoing warming 2000+.



B. Cold records

1. Cold mins:

- 1903-1999: 346 days including 9 days tied with 2000+

- 2000+: 23 days including 9 days tied with 1903-1999

- When considering ratios of # of record days to # of years, this very strongly suggests significant warming was still ongoing 2000+. Also, note for 2000+ only 23 cold min records vs 69 warm maxes!



2. Cold maxes:

- 1903-1999: 339 days including 8 days tied with 2000+

- 2000+: 35 days including 8 days tied with 1903-1999

- When considering ratios of # of record days to # of years, this strongly suggests significant warming was still ongoing 2000+. Also, note for 2000+ only 35 cold max records vs 180 warm mins!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSIONS:

1. Notwithstanding the rather inconclusive warm max stats at Lumberton for 1903-1999 vs 2000+, there are 7 sets of stats presented here that do strongly support warming still ongoing 2000+.


2. Notwithstanding the rather inconclusive warm max stats at Lumberton for 1903-1999 vs 2000+, there are 3 sets of Lumberton stats that so strongly support warming still ongoing 2000+ that I don't see an intensified urban heat island effect (UHI) being the major warming factor at RDU.
Further support of that conclusion is obtained by noting no big differences when comparing at RDU # of warm maxes vs # warm mins as well as # of cold mins vs cold maxes. If the intensified UHI were a major effect, you'd see it significantly more with the mins than the maxes. Furthermore, note the much greater # of warm mins at Lumberton (180) vs RDU (108). Also, note the 33 RDU cold mins vs only 23 Lumberton cold mins. I would have expected the reverse of both of these if the intensified UHI were a major effect.
 
Interesting data Larry. To piggyback off your post, I compared some NOAA graphs for Charlotte vs RDU min temperatures, the results were not what I expected.
41869011-0F44-47C5-A5AC-4B3DB517F306.jpeg
797C0415-F5DA-47AB-BBCF-D0EA7BDB505D.jpeg

Next I compared Wake County minimum vs maximum temperatures. Notice the min temperatures seem to have a steeper uptrend after 1962 or so whereas the max temperatures show a much more random pattern with a little less of a change.
3205A521-6312-4542-9CC4-6541A0A4FFA8.jpeg 5AAEDA07-34BE-41E3-A2D4-E8F990306868.jpeg

Next I looked at a pretty rural county in NC, Cherokee county, and found a distinctly different trend there.
F0ED5517-59DB-4198-B107-E13B856EB1CC.jpeg EA98D38D-F38C-4607-BC18-14A3AA6BE3B3.jpeg

What does all this mean? Who knows but it sure is interesting to see the variability. Could it be that Charlotte has reached a point where the heat island affect is “baked in” and no longer continues to contribute to warming, thus the slight cooling in min temperatures? Perhaps this would then explain why Raleigh has a continued uptrend in min temps as it hasn’t hit that point yet (and Lumberton too) while a very rural area like Cherokee county has seen cooling? I also wonder what the raw data would show for these areas? Here’s the link I use to generate the above graphs in case you want to try it out. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/city/time-series
 
I presume Dr Bill Gray is regarded around here as a respectable person within the weather community. His recent paper hypothesizing his view is a good read, see below for his conclusion and the link for his full paper. https://tropical.colostate.edu/media/sites/111/2018/01/Bill-Gray-Climate-Change.pdf

The earth is covered with 71% liquid water. Over the ocean surface sub-saturated winds blow which force continuous surface evaporation. Observations and energy budget analysis indicate that the surface of the globe is losing about 80 Wm2 of energy from the global surface evaporation process. This evaporation energy loss is needed as part of the process of balancing the surface’s absorption of large amounts of incoming solar energy. Variations in the strength of the globe’s hydrologic cycle are the way that the global climate is regulated. The stronger the hydrologic cycle, the more surface evaporation cooling occurs, and greater the globe’s IR flux to space. The globe’s surface cools when the hydrologic cycle is stronger than average and warms when the hydrologic cycle is weaker than normal. The strength of the hydrologic cycle is thus the primary regulator of the globe’s surface temperature. Variations in global precipitation are linked to long-term changes in the MOC (or THC).

I have proposed that any additional warming from an increase in CO2 added to the atmosphere is offset by an increase in surface evaporation and increased precipitation (an increase in the water cycle). My prediction seems to be supported by evidence of upper- tropospheric drying since 1979 and an increase in global precipitation from reanalysis data. I have shown that the additional heating that may be caused by an increase in CO2 results in a drying, not a moistening, of the upper troposphere that results in an increase of outgoing radiation to space, not a decrease as proposed by the most recent application of the greenhouse theory. Deficiencies in the ability of GCMs to adequately represent variations in global cloudiness, the water cycle, the carbon cycle, long-term changes in deep ocean circulation, and other important mechanisms that control the climate reduce our confidence in the ability of these models to adequately forecast future global temperatures. It seems that the models do not correctly handle what happens to the added energy from CO2 IR blocking
Click to expand...
 
snowlover91 said:
Interesting data Larry. To piggyback off your post, I compared some NOAA graphs for Charlotte vs RDU min temperatures, the results were not what I expected.
View attachment 5645
View attachment 5646

What does all this mean? Who knows but it sure is interesting to see the variability. Could it be that Charlotte has reached a point where the heat island affect is “baked in” and no longer continues to contribute to warming, thus the slight cooling in min temperatures? Perhaps this would then explain why Raleigh has a continued uptrend in min temps as it hasn’t hit that point yet (and Lumberton too) while a very rural area like Cherokee county has seen cooling? I also wonder what the raw data would show for these areas? Here’s the link I use to generate the above graphs in case you want to try it out. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/city/time-series
Click to expand...

Thanks for this great link! I dug deep into these 1980-2017 numbers for Charlotte and Raleigh. First of all, the reason Charlotte is -0.1 (and it is actually more like -0.06 rounded down to -0.1) for lows is November being -1.1. Why are Nov.'s lows so steeply colder covering 1980 to 2017? Because the first decade's 1985 and 86 were very mild while the last decade's 2008, 12, 13, and 14 were very cold. Otherwise, had Nov been flat, Charlotte's min trend for 1980-2017 would have actually been +0.04 instead of -0.1.

Month by month, here are the 1980-2017 changes per decade for Charlotte mins:
J: 0.0
F: +0.1
M: 0.0
A: +0.2
M: +0.3
J: 0.0
J: -0.3
A: -0.1
S: +0.1
O: -0.4
N: -1.1
D: +0.5
Annual : -0.1

Next, I looked at monthly 1980-2017 changes per decade for Charlotte maxes to see how they compare to the mins:
J: +1.0
F: +0.7
M: +0.6
A: +0.6
M: +0.5
J: +0.6
J: +0.2
A: +0.6
S: +0.6
O: +0.7
N: +0.4
D: +1.1
Annual : +0.6

Note that all 12 months' maxes warmed during 1980-2017 and each respective month was more + for the maxes than for the mins.

I then looked at monthly 1980-2017 min trends/decade for Raleigh to see how they compare to the Charlotte mins:
J: +0.9
F: +0.7
M: +0.7
A: +1.1
M: +1.3
J: +0.8
J: +0.4
A: +0.8
S: +0.9
O: +0.8
N: -0.2
D: +1.1
Annual : +0.8

First, note that November was the only month with colder mins trends for Raleigh. Also, note that the 3 most + months (April, May, and Dec) were also the most + for Charlotte mins., which is intuitive. There is a pretty good correlation when comparing Charlotte mins with Raleigh mins for each month but with Raleigh always being 0.6 to 1.2 warmer than Charlotte. The result is that Charlotte is -0.1 vs Raleigh's +0.8 for annual mins.

Raleigh's annual for maxes was +0.7. This is very similar to its +0.8 annual for mins, which is intuitive. This similarity for maxes and mins is a striking difference vs Charlotte, which was -0.1 for mins and +0.6 for maxes (i.e., mins and maxes very different). Also, note that the +0.6 for Charlotte maxes is similar to both the +0.7 (maxes) and +0.8 (mins) for Raleigh.

So, the pretty flat -0.1 for Charlotte mins really sticks out. If it were due to the UHI effect no longer contributing to warming, why did the Charlotte maxes still warm about as much as Raleigh maxes? Supposedly with GW excluding UHI, mins warm at least as fast as, if not faster than, maxes. So, the mins should have still warmed up just like the maxes did.

So, here's my question. Did Charlotte's station move during 1980-2017 to a location with better radiational cooling while Raleigh's didn't? If so, that could explain why Charlotte mins were ~flat (cooling due to better radiation cancelled out by continued warming of mins due to GW) and would explain why Charlotte maxes as well as both Raleigh mins and maxes continued to warm (due to GW).
 
Last edited:
snowlover91 said:
I presume Dr Bill Gray is regarded around here as a respectable person within the weather community. His recent paper hypothesizing his view is a good read, see below for his conclusion and the link for his full paper. https://tropical.colostate.edu/media/sites/111/2018/01/Bill-Gray-Climate-Change.pdf
Click to expand...
We lost a fantastic meteorologist when Dr Gray passed away, he used his experience to always have a good hurricane forecast and understand natural processes as well as anyone. I did not include him or Dr Reid Bryson on my list of skeptics because they are both now deceased.
 
There is an article out now in The Guardian that says Arctic's strongest sea ice breaks for the first time in history. So there is an effort now with certain publications to make the public aware of this historic state of global warming.
 
MichaelJ said:
We lost a fantastic meteorologist when Dr Gray passed away, he used his experience to always have a good hurricane forecast and understand natural processes as well as anyone. I did not include him or Dr Reid Bryson on my list of skeptics because they are both now deceased.
Click to expand...

Indeed, we lost a great mind when he passed away. I'm glad they were able to finish compiling his research and released his paper this year, it has some great info in it and no doubt is based on an incredible wealth of research and knowledge that he possessed.
 
Avalanche said:
There is an article out now in The Guardian that says Arctic's strongest sea ice breaks for the first time in history. So there is an effort now with certain publications to make the public aware of this historic state of global warming.
Click to expand...

This is nothing new, the "Arctic is melting and the end of the world is coming" has been going on for 80+ years now. Archives of old newspaper articles reveal this quite well.
2018-04-15030414_shadow-1-404x1024.png

C3yv-TOUMAALsob.jpg

2017-11-08045556_shadow-732x1024.png

Image819_shadow.png

At the time these articles were written, sea ice extent is similar to what we have now... yet as we know within about 30 years the levels recovered to the peak in the 70s before another downtrend cycle started. It almost seems like there are natural factors at play here...
90164-1.jpg


It's almost like the extreme heat in Europe has happened before and the news media hyped things like they always do.
The_Los_Angeles_Times_Sun__Dec_30__1934_-780x1024.jpg

g2585_shadow-965x1024.png

And here was the drought index for 1934 per NOAA, at a time when PPM levels were around 310ppm.
psi-1934071_shadow-3.png


I'm still waiting for the ice free Arctic predictions to materialize since at least 1923.
CfrluvmWcAAXcJC-1.jpg

CB_eGnxUEAAE-ac.png

PaintImage19.png


Meanwhile, in the 1970s when the ice reached the peak levels we've seen in the past 100 years, the tone shifted to an "Ice Age is Coming" fear. Ironically, this article was published by The Guardian as well.
2018-07-25041343_shadow-914x1024.png

Image1206_shadow.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top