• 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.
BHS1975 said:
Not to mention in the summer it's still well below freezing. The East Antarctic ice sheet was the first to form about 45 Ma when is was much warmer and will be the last to melt out completely which would take over 5C of warming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yes, you go from -30 to 0 you are still adding ice. What we need to see is if the outer boundaries surrounding warmer temps are adding up. The core will obviously add.
 
MichaelJ said:
Sorry, I am not going to continue to do your work for you
Click to expand...
I’ve brought my argument and shown what I think supports my argument and you just say I’m wrong and to go look up why I’m wrong … if you don’t see the issue with that than that’s on you. Have a good one Michael.
 
NickyBGuarantee said:
I’ve brought my argument and shown what I think supports my argument and you just say I’m wrong and to go look up why I’m wrong … if you don’t see the issue with that than that’s on you. Have a good one Michael.
Click to expand...
Apparently you jumped in the middle without doing your DD, MichaelJ has offered up tons of info to support his POV for some time. It's rather compelling
 
www.yahoo.com

As Earth Warms, Human History Is Melting Away

For the past few centuries, the Yup’ik peoples of Alaska have told gruesome tales of a massacre that occurred during the Bow and Arrow War Days, a series of long and often brutal battles across the Bering Sea coast and the Yukon. According to one account, the carnage started when one village...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

... so maybe it was warm enough to inhabit where we, sitting here today, think it should forever be too cold to? ...

... just thinkin' ...
 
Last edited:
NickyBGuarantee said:
Every 10 years updated … the jump in only the past 10 years .. do this for another 40-50 years and we’re suddenly supporting weather than never gets that cold year round View attachment 93780
Click to expand...
This makes me want to see 1951 to 1980 and 1921 to 1950, going back as far as we can. Too short of a time frame and too small of a sample for any meaningful conclusion. Also, how much of this is from urban heat island effect?
 
NickyBGuarantee said:
Recent research shows were going to end up leveling off the population growth around probably somewhere near 9-10 billion people .. this is because most areas of the world are now very assimilated with technology and much more developed than they used to be and the average children output in these areas is 1-2 .. now if the average family only has 1-2 kids (obviously generally speaking) those 1-2 kids eventually replace the parents when they die so overpopulation as it used to seem like a big problem is definitely not something we need to worry about anymore
Click to expand...
You need more than 2 kids to replace the parents due to accidents, wars and leaky vaccines and stuff...just say'n.
 
Webberweather53 said:
There’s a reason that discussion thread is “forgotten”, I don’t think you wanna open up that Pandora’s box in here. Might as well consider the GW thread a political one, most non-mets’ opinions on AGW are motivated and reinforced by politics, most have little interest in understanding the actual science behind it or are willing to change their opinions, even when the evidence is downright overwhelmingly in favor of man-made climate change, with no other viable theory coming anywhere close to explaining the extremely rapid climate change we’ve seen in the past few hundred years. Some will of course say that earth was warmer in the past, while true, it’s very unusual to warm at the rate it’s doing so today, which makes adaptation damn near impossible and that’s really the cause for concern amongst most climate scientists. In any case, Dr. Roy Spencer is a fringe scientist that isn’t taken very seriously by most of his own peers and for good reason. I take whatever he says with a truckload of salt.
Click to expand...
Thank you Webb where were you when I was getting mauled by the crowd a few weeks ago lol
 
weatherfide said:
This makes me want to see 1951 to 1980 and 1921 to 1950, going back as far as we can. Too short of a time frame and too small of a sample for any meaningful conclusion. Also, how much of this is from urban heat island effect?
Click to expand...

If you've ever looked at a global temperature anomaly map, most of the warming is actually occurring in areas that aren't heavily populated (or populated at all) (*cough* the Arctic) and the actual surface area constituted by urban sprawl is small by comparison to the rest of the globe where warming is also being observed via XBTs, buoy measurements of sea surface temperature, dropsondes, radiance measurements of satellites, etc. So this urban heat island effect doesn't actually explain why it's warming more in areas w/ few-no humans.
 
Webberweather53 said:
None of his arguments were compelling whatsoever. Try getting it published in a peer reviewed journal (hint: it won't be).
Click to expand...
Peer-reviewed journals are filled with flaws. They only like to publish "positive results" , they don't like publishing anything that repeats an older study though that would be absolutely crucial to help prove the study is replicable. A study conducted on published studies found that a large portion, the majority, in fact, were not replicable at all, and this included studies that were considered groundbreaking.
 
Rain Cold said:
When you hear the term "settled science", as is frequently used in the CC debate, that ought to be a big red flag.
Click to expand...

Because... it is?! Human induced climate change is unequivocally real, basically every reputable climate scientist agrees that a majority of the warming we're seeing today is our fault and not natural and the evidence truly is overwhelming. Have u ever tried reading an IPCC report? I think it'd be worth your time even to learn about weather and climate. There's a lot of good tidbits in there and references to some amazing pieces of literature
 
Last edited:
Webberweather53 said:
Because... it is?! Human induced climate change is unequivocally real, basically every reputable climate scientist agrees that a majority of the warming we're seeing today is our fault and not natural and the evidence truly is overwhelming. Have u ever tried reading an IPCC report? I think it'd be worth your time even to learn about weather and climate.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as settled science, not even Einstein's theory of relativity is safe or considered " settled". You do understand science is the practice of attempting to disprove something to see whether it holds or not ?
 
Lickwx said:
Peer-reviewed journals are filled with flaws. They only like to publish "positive results" , they don't like publishing anything that repeats an older study though that would be absolutely crucial to help prove the study is replicable. A study conducted on published studies found that a large portion, the majority, in fact, were not replicable at all, and this included studies that were considered groundbreaking.
Click to expand...

Peer review has its flaws and cliques, but to have experts in the field review against other experts in the field is a whole lot better than average joe on the street that never got a degree in climate science or a related field, and think he knows more than everyone else in the room. Most studies on climate I've read are replicable, not everyone can get easy access to running a climate model on their own computer, because it takes insane amounts of computational power.
 
I don't think we know nearly as much as we think we do.



www.cnn.com

The Arctic Ocean began warming decades earlier than previously thought, new research shows

The Arctic Ocean has been warming since around 1900, decades earlier than observations would suggest, according to new research.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Francesco Muschitiello, an author on the study and assistant professor of geography at the University of Cambridge, said the findings were worrisome because the early warming suggests there might be a flaw in the models scientists use to predict how the climate will change.
"The Arctic Ocean has been warming up for much longer than we previously thought," Muschitiello told CNN. "And this is something that's a bit unsettling for many reasons, especially because the climate models that we use to cast projections of future climate change do not really simulate these type of changes
 
Lickwx said:
There is no such thing as settled science, not even Einstein's theory of relativity is safe or considered " settled". You do understand science is the practice of attempting to disprove something to see whether it holds or not ?
Click to expand...

It's pretty settled that climate change is real and we are the most to blame for the warming of the last few hundred years, the rate of which is unprecedented in earth's recent history (yes, earth was warmer in the past, but the rate of warming that's occurring today makes the PETM look extremely modest by comparison. It's the rate of warming that's alarming to scientists (like myself), not the actual temps necessarily because it changes literally everything about adaptation). What isn't settled is how much of the warming we've caused, but it's well beyond any reasonable doubt we've caused more than enough of a fraction even in the lowest possible realistic estimate to have a significant-very significant impact on our climate, and it's also pretty settled that we still haven't fully realized the warming we've already baked into the climate as the oceans take time to catch-up to the atmosphere. When you hear "settled science" that's what they're referring to. That doesn't necessarily equate to the entire field of climate science being settled, which many tend to lose in the interpretation. I can certainly understand this as this is the way I used to think about the term "settled science" for the longest time until I really understood what they were referring to. Climate scientists aren't necessarily the best science communicators (unfortunately)
 
Last edited:
Webberweather53 said:
Because... it is?! Human induced climate change is unequivocally real, basically every reputable climate scientist agrees that a majority of the warming we're seeing today is our fault and not natural and the evidence truly is overwhelming. Have u ever tried reading an IPCC report? I think it'd be worth your time even to learn about weather and climate.
Click to expand...
Nah, I understand the science. My issue is with the notion that is frequently put forth that we pretty much know all there is to know on the subject. That's not true. We will continue learning and though that process discover errors in our current thinking and course-correct along the way, as is the case with virtually everything in science.
 
Rain Cold said:
Nah, I understand the science. My issue is with the notion that is frequently put forth that we pretty much know all there is to know on the subject. That's not true. We will continue learning and though that process discover errors in our current thinking and course-correct along the way, as is the case with virtually everything in science.
Click to expand...
It would probably be worth your time investing a couple brain cells into the IPCC reports!
 
Webberweather53 said:
It would probably be also worth your time and energy to heed his advice
Click to expand...
Even if the world's warming, so frickin what? No scientist worth his salt considers it an existential crisis. So why turn the world upside down? Let the word be. Besides, the biggest threat to the environment has never been global warming and has always been habitat fragmentation as a result of development. Habitat fragmentation makes ecosystems far more susceptible to any changes in the climate. The Outerbanks have been eroding quickly and millions upon millions keep getting poured in every single year, that erosion is a result of natural cycles disrupted by the presence of permanent structures.
 
Webberweather53 said:
The last few comments here just echo this sentiment. You can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Click to expand...
I think you need to understand that it's not a reflection of ignorance if we don't accept what you say. I know it's hard to comprehend that it is possible that some people may have valid opinions of their own that are capable of being defended credibly.
 
Lickwx said:
Even if the world's warming, so frickin what? No scientist worth his salt considers it an existential crisis. So why turn the world upside down? Let the word be. Besides, the biggest threat to the environment has never been global warming and has always been habitat fragmentation as a result of development. Habitat fragmentation makes ecosystems far more susceptible to any changes in the climate. The Outerbanks have been eroding quickly and millions upon millions keep getting poured in every single year, that erosion is a result of natural cycles disrupted by the presence of permanent structures.
Click to expand...

The first statement is just 1000% wrong on many levels and shows how misinformed so many here are. I sent you a link to the IPCC report as a starting place, if you're not willing to put in the time and effort to understand this, then why have a conversation about it.

So in the end, you're saying that the Outer Banks eroding is our fault multiple times over because not only of man-made climate change but urban development and human activity. Glad we agree.
 
Lickwx said:
I think you need to understand that it's not a reflection of ignorance if we don't accept what you say. I know it's hard to comprehend that it is possible that some people may have valid opinions of their own that are capable of being defended credibly.
Click to expand...

I'm (along with other mets here) attempting to show you evidence that could dare I say, change your beliefs, but you're not willing to do so, that in fact is ignorance. I've already said earlier in this thread that it's a lost cause to try and convince people on here of man-made climate change so you're not breaking any new ground there.
 
Webberweather53 said:
I'm (along with other mets here) attempting to show you evidence that could dare I say, change your beliefs, but you're not willing to do so, that in fact is ignorance. I've already said earlier in this thread that it's a lost cause to try and convince people on here of man-made climate change so you're not breaking any new ground there.
Click to expand...
That's the dumbest thing I ever heard, quite arrogant really. I dare say we have shown you causes for skepticism, yet you were not willing to consider it, so you are ignorant. See how that argument works? You entered this argument with an already haughty outlook, already convinced of the superiority of your position which clouded your vision, and disallowed you from ever possibly considering errors in your way of thinking.
 
Webberweather53 said:
The first statement is just 1000% wrong on many levels and shows how misinformed so many here are. I sent you a link to the IPCC report as a starting place, if you're not willing to put in the time and effort to understand this, then why have a conversation about it.

So in the end, you're saying that the Outer Banks eroding is our fault multiple times over because not only of man-made climate change but urban development and human activity. Glad we agree.
Click to expand...
Sea levels have risen the amount of thickness of a dime. Insignificant as hell, the cause for the issues on the Outerbanks have overwhelmingly been because of development.
 
Lickwx said:
That's the dumbest thing I ever heard, quite arrogant really. I dare say we have shown you causes for skepticism, yet you were not willing to consider it, so you are ignorant. See how that argument works? You entered this argument with an already haughty outlook, already convinced of the superiority of your position which clouded your vision, and disallowed you from ever possibly considering errors in your way of thinking.
Click to expand...

The causes from skepticism emanate mostly from self-proclaimed experts in the field of climate science and meteorology. If anyone is being skeptical here, it's actually me being as a scientist skeptical of the sources of information you use to develop your opinions on this subject, sorry but some dude's cousin he knows that supposedly has a PhD or Joe Bastardi/Roy Spencer (or insert whatever fringe scientist you'd like) doesn't count as overwhelming evidence to overturn the increasingly insurmountable mountain any new theory would have to overcome. The field has moved well beyond this point of climate change happening or not and the focus is shifting more towards adaptation and mitigation, you need to get with the program. I've got 2 degrees in atmospheric science, with one of those actually being specifically in climate science (as I studied ENSO for my MS and its past changes in the last few hundred years and understanding uncertainties in how its measured), I have every right to feel the way I do. Unlike you, I've put in the time, effort, & work it takes to get here and spent countless hours reading literature, IPCC reports (yes, those monstrous things that you've still refused to read a lick of, actually working with climate models, understanding where the science is, needs to go, etc.
 
Lickwx said:
Sea levels have risen the amount of thickness of a dime. Insignificant as hell, the cause for the issues on the Outerbanks have overwhelmingly been because of development.
Click to expand...

Have you ever considered that your opinion is factually and utterly wrong.

Globally-averaged sea level rises a few mm every single year. A few mm a year doesn't sound like a lot but over decades, hundreds and thousands of years, it threatens tens of millions that live near coastlines and forces them to adapt or perish. Again, that's the issue w/ AGW, it's not the actual temperatures themselves, but the rate of change that is concerning and sea level rise is accelerating due to thermal expansion of the ocean as a hydrostatic response to warming and melting land ice. (Sea ice melt actually doesn't have this effect, at least not directly, but it's indirect impacts on atmospheric circulation are undoubtedly more important and why sea ice loss is also a concern).

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
 
Lickwx said:
That's the dumbest thing I ever heard, quite arrogant really. I dare say we have shown you causes for skepticism, yet you were not willing to consider it, so you are ignorant. See how that argument works? You entered this argument with an already haughty outlook, already convinced of the superiority of your position which clouded your vision, and disallowed you from ever possibly considering errors in your way of thinking.
Click to expand...
Maybe you forgot, but at one time @Webberweather53 & I were climate-change deniers/skeptics (whatever you wanna call it) but after diving deeper into the science, the more we learned, the more we realized that there is actually a lot of sound evidence supporting climate change. This change happened because we actually opened ourselves up to ideas that opposed our beliefs.
 
Webberweather53 said:
The first statement is just 1000% wrong on many levels and shows how misinformed so many here are. I sent you a link to the IPCC report as a starting place, if you're not willing to put in the time and effort to understand this, then why have a conversation about it.

So in the end, you're saying that the Outer Banks eroding is our fault multiple times over because not only of man-made climate change but urban development and human activity. Glad we agree.
Click to expand...
It's settled science that you can't have 1000% of anything, fyi.
 
EastAtlwx said:
Maybe you forgot, but at one time @Webberweather53 & I were climate-change deniers/skeptics (whatever you wanna call it) but after diving deeper into the science, the more we learned, the more we realized that there is actually a lot of evidence supporting climate change. This change happened because we actually opened ourselves up to ideas that opposed our beliefs.
Click to expand...

This ^ 1000%. A few people that have known me for a really long time probably can attest to my opinion being different several years ago (probably 2015 ish or so and earlier), but that was largely because I didn't understand CC and just regurgitated talking points my favorite politician, talking head on youtube, or fringe scientist spout and reinforced it with articles, statements, or graphs I happened to find on the internet as opposed to opening up my mind to something different and listening to what the evidence actually was. It's frustrating from both of our perspectives because we've been there/done that, and we see many people here are still stuck where we generally were several years ago, yet refuse to listen/read/or take in any evidence to the contrary.
 
Webberweather53 said:
I was obviously being facetious, my point still stands regardless of this nit-pick
Click to expand...
And I was being facetious in the December thread when I threw in the words "Climate Change" in an obviously satirical post, which was clearly not an invitation to open a GW discussion there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top