• 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.
They have been predicting an ice free arctic in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019. Sooner or later, they may get it right, perhaps by 2065?

They have been predicting an ice free arctic in 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918 ... >>> ... 2019. Sooner or later, they may get it right, perhaps by 2525?

In the year 2525
If man is still alive
If woman can survive
They may find-
 
Last edited:
This a possible breakthrough on the AGW front. No need to cut private jets from the Elite just yet.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...thane-emissions-by-half/ar-AADR9tZ?li=BBnbcA1
I'm curious to see how this plays out moving forward..... it's really got to be a conundrum for some, I mean we should only eat organic foods and no genetically altered proteins but this is genetically altering hmmmm. Well, we should all be vegetarians and let the animals live but then we have way too many farting cows..... what to do what to do.
 
I'm curious to see how this plays out moving forward..... it's really got to be a conundrum for some, I mean we should only eat organic foods and no genetically altered proteins but this is genetically altering hmmmm. Well, we should all be vegetarians and let the animals live but then we have way too many farting cows..... what to do what to do.

What will happen is they will modify genetically or through using hybrids a cow that does what they say. It will cut emmissions by 50% and only be 25% smaller and thus be a win! Yet it will never occur to them that the trucking, feeding and processing of the extra animals will result in a net gain of GHGs in the end.

Mark it down.
 
1562343482463.png
1562343496319.png

1562343420045.png
1562343372808.png

the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013
– John Kerry, US Secretary of State

John Kerry: We Can’t Ignore the Security Threat from Climate Change
Because climate change in the Arctic region is occurring faster and to a greater extent than anywhere else, the Arctic Ocean may be ice-free for a short period of time as early as the summer of 2015, according to the 2009 Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment Report completed by the eight Arctic Council Nations.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/
 
View attachment 20793
View attachment 20794

View attachment 20792
View attachment 20791

the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013
– John Kerry, US Secretary of State

John Kerry: We Can’t Ignore the Security Threat from Climate Change
Because climate change in the Arctic region is occurring faster and to a greater extent than anywhere else, the Arctic Ocean may be ice-free for a short period of time as early as the summer of 2015, according to the 2009 Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment Report completed by the eight Arctic Council Nations.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/

2012 was pretty close with only 3 million cubic km left. At the current 3 million cubic km loss per decade it could be anytime now and once it does happen it will self perpetuate and become permanent within a few years wreaking havoc on the climate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
These “ice free summer” predictions have been going on since the early 1900s and will continu to be wrong.

I have a question for BHS1975. You see how poorly our seasonal models are at predicting temp patterns a few months in advance. Why in the world would you trust something they say about the future 20+ years in advance when they can’t even get snow storms right 3 days in advance or the well BN winter we were supposed to have that never verified this past year?

Now here’s a thought provoking question for everyone. What impact would an ice free arctic actually have, both positive and negative? I assume it would probably open up some new shipping routes? Winters might be less harsh which would extend growing seasons for crops and other things?
 
2012 was pretty close with only 3 million cubic km left. At the current 3 million cubic km loss per decade it could be anytime now and once it does happen it will self perpetuate and become permanent within a few years wreaking havoc on the climate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The Arctic has been ice free in the past and it obviously fixed itself since we have ice there now. All without human intervention.
 
The Arctic has been ice free in the past and it obviously fixed itself since we have ice there now. All without human intervention.
Yeah that was going to be my next comment, according to reports (and depending on which one's you read), the arctic was ice free a million years ago or 2.6 million or anyway it's been ice free before. AND most reports don't know really know what caused it then they only know that what's causing it now is "us" and we must stop it at all cost. Because you know the world has survived for billions of years through ice ages, ice free arctic, dinosaurs, who knows what else but this time will surely spell doom for all mankind.
 
These “ice free summer” predictions have been going on since the early 1900s and will continu to be wrong.

I have a question for BHS1975. You see how poorly our seasonal models are at predicting temp patterns a few months in advance. Why in the world would you trust something they say about the future 20+ years in advance when they can’t even get snow storms right 3 days in advance or the well BN winter we were supposed to have that never verified this past year?

Now here’s a thought provoking question for everyone. What impact would an ice free arctic actually have, both positive and negative? I assume it would probably open up some new shipping routes? Winters might be less harsh which would extend growing seasons for crops and other things?
I had a professor in college in 1992, tell us that Rocky Mount, NC would be ocean front property in our lifetime...... well I'll reserve judgment since I'm still here but it has a long way to go to get there.
 
Last edited:
Yeah that was going to be my next comment, according to reports (and depending on which one's you read), the arctic was ice free a million years ago or 2.6 million or anyway it's been ice free before. AND most reports don't know really know what caused it then they only know that what's causing it now is "us" and we must stop it at all cost. Because you know the world has survived for billions of years through ice ages, ice free arctic, dinosaurs, who knows what else but this time will surely spell doom for all mankind.

The earth has but civilization may not. The jet stream would be severely disrupted causing even more severe droughts, floods and heatwaves than we already have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The earth has but civilization may not. The jet stream would be severely disrupted causing even more severe droughts, floods and heatwaves than we already have.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How do you know this would be the outcome and that the earth wouldn’t be more stable? Mankind has always adapted to changes in the earth and weather and I have no doubt that will continue to be the case. We don’t have mass droughts, heat waves or floods that kill hundreds or thousands of people in developed countries anymore like we had in the past.
 
How Many Buffalo Were There? Estimates of bison numbers vary from 30 to 75 million. 50,000,000 to 60,000,000 are the most common numbers cited as total buffalo population in the early 1800s.

Now that's one hell of a lot of methane and other "poop" wafting into the NCONUS atmosphere ... and wasn't it cold yesteryears ago???
 
“But but Antarctica is gaining sea ice” nope now it’s losing it fast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
“But but Antarctica is gaining sea ice” nope now it’s losing it fast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can you explain to me why sea ice extent steadily increased during 1978-2010 with a peak around 2014 while at the same time CO2 emissions were steadily increasing and Arctic ice was decreasing? And also why sst’s around Antarctica have been cooling not warming? Is man-made global warming responsible for this cooling trend too?

1562369803520.jpeg
 
I would say cooling from all the meltwater injection just like off the southern tip if Greenland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I would say cooling from all the meltwater injection just like off the southern tip if Greenland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So ice extent increased from 1978-2014 from melting ice while Antarctica and the surrounding ocean was cooling down? And why did Antarctica shift from a warming trend to a cooling one when according to AGW it should be warming up not cooling? Also, I am talking about Antarctica, Greenland is in the Northern Hemisphere and meltwater from it would have 0 effect on Antarctica.

Recent analysis (Turner et al., 2016) has shown that the regionally stacked temperature record for the last three decades has shifted from a warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of − 0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014.
 
So ice extent increased from 1978-2014 from melting ice while Antarctica and the surrounding ocean was cooling down? And why did Antarctica shift from a warming trend to a cooling one when according to AGW it should be warming up not cooling? Also, I am talking about Antarctica, Greenland is in the Northern Hemisphere and meltwater from it would have 0 effect on Antarctica.

Recent analysis (Turner et al., 2016) has shown that the regionally stacked temperature record for the last three decades has shifted from a warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of − 0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014.

Here’s the paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/06/25/1906556116


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Here’s the paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/06/25/1906556116


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What does this article have to do with meltwater? Their conclusion is very open ended, see below.

“I hope that the 40-y record discussed in this paper will encourage further studies into the atmospheric and oceanic conditions that could have led to the extremely rapid 2014–2017 decline of the Antarctic sea ice cover, the comparably rapid decline in the mid-1970s, and the uneven but overall gradual increases in Antarctic sea ice coverage in the intervening decades. More broadly, the environmental datasets may be nearing the point where they are long enough and rich enough to enable the linking of several of the modes and dipoles and oscillations now spoken of separately, just as the El Niño and Southern Oscillation phenomena were linked together years ago as ENSO; once that further linkage happens, the understanding of Earth’s very interconnected climate system, including the sea ice cover, could be markedly enhanced.”
 
Sounds like it’s a work in progress just like the rest of the climate which we are changing without fully understanding the consequences. The meltwater would cool ssts down just like it does in Greenland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sounds like it’s a work in progress just like the rest of the climate which we are changing without fully understanding the consequences. The meltwater would cool ssts down just like it does in Greenland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But it doesn’t make sense. Temperatures in Antarctica over land and the surrounding ocean have been decreasing. Colder air temps and water temps would produce less melting ice not more of it. The point of that paper you linked was basically there are several possible explanations for the rapid variations in the Antarctic ice extent and temperature fluctuations and we aren’t sure what exactly it is yet. Melting ice and melt water was not mentioned and usually if there is increased melt water it means the surrounding land temps are increasing, not decreasing like we’ve seen.
 
But it doesn’t make sense. Temperatures in Antarctica over land and the surrounding ocean have been decreasing. Colder air temps and water temps would produce less melting ice not more of it. The point of that paper you linked was basically there are several possible explanations for the rapid variations in the Antarctic ice extent and temperature fluctuations and we aren’t sure what exactly it is yet. Melting ice and melt water was not mentioned and usually if there is increased melt water it means the surrounding land temps are increasing, not decreasing like we’ve seen.

It’s way above my head as the climate system
is extremely complex. I was just speculating. The scientists are playing catch up with the observations. By the time scientists fully understand whats going on it’s going to be too late if we aren’t being proactive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It’s way above my head as the climate system
is extremely complex. I was just speculating. The scientists are playing catch up with the observations. By the time scientists fully understand whats going on it’s going to be too late if we aren’t being proactive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t think so. Humanity has shown the ability to adapt to changing environments. If you look at the past there were massive heatwaves, hurricanes, and other natural disasters that would kill thousands or hundreds of thousands since mankind didn’t have the technology to prepare for what was coming. It’s been demonstrated that the advances in technology and reliable energy have significant reduced the death toll/mortality in developed countries and building codes have improved to better hold up to hurricanes in those areas.

There is also a good number of articles and research out there that points to natural cycles at play explaining the changes in Arctic and Antarctic ice as well. Changes over 30-40 years are comparably insignificant to a climate that has naturally changed over periods of hundreds of years and thousands even from warmer to colder and back warmer again. There have been periods where scientists believe the Arctic was actually ice free and that happened naturally. Also keep in mind that since the end of the little ice age the temperatures have been gradually increasing anyways as we return to a warmer state in the climate.

As someone else mentioned, the greater danger to the environment that’s not being discussed is all the waste from the batteries and solar cells that’s going to have to be dealt with in the coming years... not to mention deforestation. Why is no one advocating for planting more trees across the US and other places to help balance things out? Not to mention solar and wind farms they end up clearing massive tracts of land to use for a very inefficient and unreliable method of power. It’s incredibly stupid.
 
I don’t think so. Humanity has shown the ability to adapt to changing environments. If you look at the past there were massive heatwaves, hurricanes, and other natural disasters that would kill thousands or hundreds of thousands since mankind didn’t have the technology to prepare for what was coming. It’s been demonstrated that the advances in technology and reliable energy have significant reduced the death toll/mortality in developed countries and building codes have improved to better hold up to hurricanes in those areas.

There is also a good number of articles and research out there that points to natural cycles at play explaining the changes in Arctic and Antarctic ice as well. Changes over 30-40 years are comparably insignificant to a climate that has naturally changed over periods of hundreds of years and thousands even from warmer to colder and back warmer again. There have been periods where scientists believe the Arctic was actually ice free and that happened naturally. Also keep in mind that since the end of the little ice age the temperatures have been gradually increasing anyways as we return to a warmer state in the climate.

As someone else mentioned, the greater danger to the environment that’s not being discussed is all the waste from the batteries and solar cells that’s going to have to be dealt with in the coming years... not to mention deforestation. Why is no one advocating for planting more trees across the US and other places to help balance things out? Not to mention solar and wind farms they end up clearing massive tracts of land to use for a very inefficient and unreliable method of power. It’s incredibly stupid.
We don't have a long term trash plan. We can't even reliably recycle anymore. But barring an ELE, humanity, at least some portion of it, will make it through climate change, deforestation, pollution, etc. At the same time, it's really sad that we'd rather fight about old statues than to come together around figuring out how to keep our house clean and habitable.

In the "conspiracy theory world", it's a cornerstone belief that the "elite" (the ones with the wealth and power to influence/control the destiny of humanity) secretly want to greatly reduce the population. That seems crazy and sci fi on the surface, but if you carefully watch how things are evolving (on so many fronts), it does make you scratch your head and wonder if there just isn't a little nugget of truth to that idea...at least on some level.
 
We don't have a long term trash plan. We can't even reliably recycle anymore. But barring an ELE, humanity, at least some portion of it, will make it through climate change, deforestation, pollution, etc. At the same time, it's really sad that we'd rather fight about old statues than to come together around figuring out how to keep our house clean and habitable.

In the "conspiracy theory world", it's a cornerstone belief that the "elite" (the ones with the wealth and power to influence/control the destiny of humanity) secretly want to greatly reduce the population. That seems crazy and sci fi on the surface, but if you carefully watch how things are evolving (on so many fronts), it does make you scratch your head and wonder if there just isn't a little nugget of truth to that idea...at least on some level.

Reducing the population would make it easier to control the masses and thinning the herd usually encourages healthier members of any population of animals, to an extent. Also, you want the population distribution to be more heavily weighted toward the young/fertile members.
 
Reducing the population would make it easier to control the masses and thinning the herd usually encourages healthier members of any population of animals, to an extent. Also, you want the population distribution to be more heavily weighted toward the young/fertile members.
Damn ... I'm out of (if not banished from) the herd then, and out of the picture as well, I 'spose ... Tony (@dsaur) and I need to start our own alternate reality ... LOL ...
 
But it doesn’t make sense. Temperatures in Antarctica over land and the surrounding ocean have been decreasing. Colder air temps and water temps would produce less melting ice not more of it. The point of that paper you linked was basically there are several possible explanations for the rapid variations in the Antarctic ice extent and temperature fluctuations and we aren’t sure what exactly it is yet. Melting ice and melt water was not mentioned and usually if there is increased melt water it means the surrounding land temps are increasing, not decreasing like we’ve seen.

Yeah, this doesn’t compute at all.
 
Something not mentioned by GW alarmists is that increased CO2 increases crop sizes due to CO2 being plant food. Also, assuming the CO2 AGW connection, increased CO2 means longer growing seasons meaning larger crops. The Earth is getting greener, partially due to increased CO2.

Moreover, wouldn’t increased greening then lead to increased rainfall/reduced droughts which would mean even more increases in greening? And with even more greening, wouldn’t more CO2 be taken out of the air? Are these feedbacks incorporated in the models and would they mean that CO2 in the air would be naturally limiting at some point?
 
Something not mentioned by GW alarmists is that increased CO2 increases crop sizes due to CO2 being plant food. Also, assuming the CO2 AGW connection, increased CO2 means longer growing seasons meaning larger crops. The Earth is getting greener, partially due to increased CO2.

Moreover, wouldn’t increased greening then lead to increased rainfall/reduced droughts which would mean even more increases in greening? And with even more greening, wouldn’t more CO2 be taken out of the air? Are these feedbacks incorporated in the models and would they mean that CO2 in the air would be naturally limiting at some point?
It means, Larry, that you, and a few others, actually bother to ponder, and think ... ;)
 
Another thing to consider in this very complicated mess is that warmer oceans actually emit back more CO2 than cooler oceans. So, it is a vicious cycle. CO2 causes warming and vice versa. Which actually came first, the higher CO2 that then caused warming or warming from non-CO2 sources like the ☀️, which only then would have lead to higher CO2 due to more coming out of the ocean, which then leads to even more warming? Did the higher CO2 from human activity predate the initial warming or not? If the oceans were to cool, would that allow CO2 in the air to actually decrease even without decreasing human induced CO2 emissions?
 
Last edited:
Something not mentioned by GW alarmists is that increased CO2 increases crop sizes due to CO2 being plant food. Also, assuming the CO2 AGW connection, increased CO2 means longer growing seasons meaning larger crops. The Earth is getting greener, partially due to increased CO2.

Moreover, wouldn’t increased greening then lead to increased rainfall/reduced droughts which would mean even more increases in greening? And with even more greening, wouldn’t more CO2 be taken out of the air? Are these feedbacks incorporated in the models and would they mean that CO2 in the air would be naturally limiting at some point?

Indeed, increased CO2 brings with it significant greening and many examples of increased crop production as well. Also, here is an article from 2016 discussing the greening effects in places like the Sahel region.

“As researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg report in the current edition of the journal Nature Climate Change, due to higher sea temperatures in the Mediterranean more moisture from the eastern Mediterranean is reaching the southern edge of the Sahara at the start of the West African monsoon in June. Moreover, according to the current study, the future development of precipitation in the Sahel region is crucially dependent on the warming of the Mediterranean.”

It’s also interesting to note that the Sahara Desert used to be a vast forest and some believe the reason everything dried up was due to a period of global cooling many years ago. In theory this reduced the amount of available moisture in the air which then caused the area now known as the Sahara Desert to dry up and all plant life died out. There are other theories as well but it’s interesting to note that something big happened to transition a massive area from trees to sand/desert.
 
If it's true that CO2 levels were much higher in the past, then obviously the earth has some sort of self-correcting mechanism that will kick in at some point. Question is, will that be a quick or a very slow process?
 
We don't have a long term trash plan. We can't even reliably recycle anymore. But barring an ELE, humanity, at least some portion of it, will make it through climate change, deforestation, pollution, etc. At the same time, it's really sad that we'd rather fight about old statues than to come together around figuring out how to keep our house clean and habitable.

In the "conspiracy theory world", it's a cornerstone belief that the "elite" (the ones with the wealth and power to influence/control the destiny of humanity) secretly want to greatly reduce the population. That seems crazy and sci fi on the surface, but if you carefully watch how things are evolving (on so many fronts), it does make you scratch your head and wonder if there just isn't a little nugget of truth to that idea...at least on some level.
I agree that humans have the ability to adapt and overcome anything that comes our way, our Creator made us this way. But going in a different direction I know, but each new generation is losing touch with that ability more and more. They depend on someone or something to complete any task, survivalist they aren't. With that said, while I'm not in anyway suggesting civilization is doomed, I'm not convinced either that the world as a whole can adapt as they have in the past.

Also I agree we are not good stewards of the planet God has given us, we are trashy people (pun intended). But convenience, laziness, technology has led to some of this.... when the people used cloth diapers, paper products and built everything from what the land provided instead of all the synthetic last forever products, the world was a cleaner place.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
I agree that humans have the ability to adapt and overcome anything that comes our way, our Creator made us this way. But going in a different direction I know, but each new generation is losing touch with that ability more and more. They depend on someone or something to complete any task, survivalist they aren't. With that said, while I'm not in anyway suggesting civilization is doomed, I'm not convinced either that the world as a whole can adapt as they have in the past.

Also I agree we are not good stewards of the planet God has given us, we are trashy people (pun intended). But convenience, laziness, technology has led to some of this.... when the people used cloth diapers, paper products and built everything from what the land provided instead of all the synthetic last forever products, the world was a cleaner place.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
It's human nature to more greatly care for things for which you have to work. Our lives, especially in the west, are dominated by a general sense of entitlement, laziness, and apathy toward things that aren't convenient -- things that don't fit neatly into our fast and self-centered lifestyles. Technology, to a large extent, fosters this mentality. I'm not saying we're bad. It's just that if things aren't beating us over the head, then we're not apt to pay them much mind.

Eventually, the rubber band will snap in the other direction, and those that aren't prepared or have any skills will be in real trouble. I hate to sound doom and gloom, but it really is inevitable.
 
Damn ... I'm out of (if not banished from) the herd then, and out of the picture as well, I 'spose ... Tony (@dsaur) and I need to start our own alternate reality ... LOL ...
Well, I can't be young anymore, but I can sure be firtile...that means furry right? I can wear fake fur coats, and leer at the women..is that close enough?
 
Sorry, I don't believe you can accurately estimate temperatures down to 2-3C just by studying tree rings or ice cores. Yes you can determine the severity for specific years of the Climate but to think you can use it to compare to precise thermometers we have today is ridiculous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top