Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

[Webberweather53]

Since you mix Climatology and Meteorology...

How's that AGW working out for you out west this year? Looks all warm and cozy in the Southwest. No?

You mean the part about where every single winter since 1993 has been above the early-mid 20th century average in the western US?

Or the part about where the western US is an island of BN anomalies in a sea of warmth?

 

[weatherfide]

Since you mix Climatology and Meteorology...

How's that AGW working out for you out west this year? Looks all warm and cozy in the Southwest. No?

Evidently, AGW gives Siberia record cold, too. Also, many places in the southern hemisphere are colder than normal. North American snow cover is very high, too. AGW does many, unpredictable things. I wish we could predict what AGW is going to do next.

January wasn't warmer than normal in many places in the world, as the UAH satellite data shows. We are now below the 30 year baseline. Where did I put my hockey stick again? I need to find it...I have charts to make.

 

[RDUHeatIsland]

Evidently, AGW gives Siberia record cold, too. Also, many places in the southern hemisphere are colder than normal. North American snow cover is very high, too. AGW does many, unpredictable things. I wish we could predict what AGW is going to do next.

January wasn't warmer than normal in many places in the world, as the UAH satellite data shows. We are now below the 30 year baseline. Where did I put my hockey stick again? I need to find it...I have charts to make.

You just posted a trendline graph that shows an clear positive trend in avg temperatures over the past 50 yrs in an attempt to deny AGW. Lol. Try again.

 

[Wild Weather Monger]

Wow! 105 pages on something no one can do anything about.

Wake me when we break ground on the first fusion power plant.

 

[weatherfide]

You just posted a trendline graph that shows an clear positive trend in avg temperatures over the past 50 yrs in an attempt to deny AGW. Lol. Try again

See my post about how long we've been measuring temps with satellites. Dataset is not long enough to prove anything. It doesn't prove global cooling, either. That's my point. I was only interested in the global temp in relation to recent years to show that an unusually warm January was localized.

Your turn.

Also, the rising temps are not primarily driven by CO2 and this chart doesn't link the two. I'm not denying the climate is changing. It always has and will. I side with the many scientists that say man's contribution is not the primary driver of climate change and that the proper response is adapting, not limiting cheap energy sources.

You can't arbitrarily set the start point and say "ah ha!" global warming! or "ah ha!" global cooling! but, for fun, look at the trend line starting at 2016. Oh mah gawd! ice age is a coming!

 

[weatherfide]

Wow! 105 pages on something no one can do anything about.

Wake me when we break ground on the first fusion power plant.

All of us will be long dead by then.

 

[severestorm]

Wow! 105 pages on something no one can do anything about.

Wake me when we break ground on the first fusion power plant.

Wounder if we will stick freezers in Siberia to stop the Methane from escaping when the permafrost definitely melts in the next 50 years. It's all a scam.

 

[CaryWx]

If the SE warming/records this year are to be attributed to AGW then why is the west below normal? Is AGW a regional issue? Can't have it both ways. I suppose if the opposite were occurring we'd still attribute to GW?

 

[Webberweather53]

See my post about how long we've been measuring temps with satellites. Dataset is not long enough to prove anything. It doesn't prove global cooling, either. That's my point. I was only interested in the global temp in relation to recent years to show that an unusually warm January was localized.

Your turn.

Also, the rising temps are not primarily driven by CO2 and this chart doesn't link the two. I'm not denying the climate is changing. It always has and will. I side with the many scientists that say man's contribution is not the primary driver of climate change and that the proper response is adapting, not limiting cheap energy sources.

You can't arbitrarily set the start point and say "ah ha!" global warming! or "ah ha!" global cooling! but, for fun, look at the trend line starting at 2016. Oh mah gawd! ice age is a coming!

No it's my turn...

Barring a cataclysmic, earth-shattering volcanic eruption in the tropics, the trendline isn't going down anytime soon and the earth has been warming before we put a satellite into orbit to measure microwave backscatter from oxygen atoms in the troposphere to infer temperature from satellite that then gets adjusted hundreds of times to account for things like orbital drift, the diurnal cycle, and instrument degradation, not to mention it's not actually in-situ... but, oh no let's cherry pick our favorite dataset created by a AGW denier with a long rap sheet of fudging data to support his own fossil fuel interests, because it shows what we want to see & we couldn't possibly ever come to the realization that what we believe is nonsense.

Also, notice anything about that trend in the satellite era? I'll give you a clue:

Every time we get a major El Nino event, the earth warms, but during the following La Ninas, the earth cannot fully dissipate the heat released during the previous El Nino, and we enter a new, permanent upward adjusted base state in global temperatures. Why is the Earth retaining this heat then? Something must be allowing that to happen, and it's not the sun, it's not volcanoes, and it's certainly not natural oceanic cycles.

How do you explain this obvious fact then? The sun has been dormant, we've had a multitude of La Ninas and the earth is not cooling anywhere to near the extent it was before the 1997-98 or even 2015-16 El Nino. Ask yourself for a second what that critical something might be as you turn the ignition in your fossil fuel combustion vehicle for the umpteenth time.

 

[Webberweather53]

If the SE warming/records this year are to be attributed to AGW then why is the west below normal? Is AGW a regional issue? Can't have it both ways. I suppose if the opposite were occurring we'd still attribute to GW?

Yeah I can have it both ways. It's called being on an isolated island of cold in a sea of warmth.

You mean the part about where every single winter since 1993 has been above the early-mid 20th century average in the western US?

Or the part about where the western US is an island of BN anomalies in a sea of warmth?

View attachment 132039

 

[ForsythSnow]

See my post about how long we've been measuring temps with satellites. Dataset is not long enough to prove anything. It doesn't prove global cooling, either. That's my point. I was only interested in the global temp in relation to recent years to show that an unusually warm January was localized.

Your turn.

Also, the rising temps are not primarily driven by CO2 and this chart doesn't link the two. I'm not denying the climate is changing. It always has and will. I side with the many scientists that say man's contribution is not the primary driver of climate change and that the proper response is adapting, not limiting cheap energy sources.

You can't arbitrarily set the start point and say "ah ha!" global warming! or "ah ha!" global cooling! but, for fun, look at the trend line starting at 2016. Oh mah gawd! ice age is a coming!

No it's my turn...

Barring a cataclysmic, earth-shattering volcanic eruption in the tropics, the trendline isn't going down anytime soon and the earth has been warming before we put a satellite into orbit to measure microwave backscatter from oxygen atoms in the troposphere to infer temperature from satellite that then gets adjusted hundreds of times to account for things like orbital drift, the diurnal cycle, and instrument degradation, not to mention it's not actually in-situ... but, oh no let's cherry pick our favorite dataset created by a AGW denier with a long rap sheet of fudging data to support his own fossil fuel interests, because it shows what we want to see & we couldn't possibly ever come to the realization that what we believe is nonsense.

Also, notice anything about that trend in the satellite era? I'll give you a clue:

Every time we get a major El Nino event, the earth warms, but during the following La Ninas, the earth cannot fully dissipate the heat released during the previous El Nino, and we enter a new, permanent upward adjusted base state in global temperatures. Why is the Earth retaining this heat then? Something must be allowing that to happen, and it's not the sun, it's not volcanoes, and it's certainly not natural oceanic cycles.

How do you explain this obvious fact then? The sun has been dormant, we've had a multitude of La Ninas and the earth is not cooling anywhere to near the extent it was before the 1997-98 or even 2015-16 El Nino. Ask yourself for a second what that critical something might be as you turn the ignition in your fossil fuel combustion vehicle for the umpteenth time.

I think there is a more mature way to discuss this topic without the back and forth parts and it's best everyone here goes by that. Basic netiquette should be implemented.

 

[CaryWx]

Yeah I can have it both ways. It's called being on an isolated island of cold in a sea of warmth.

You brought up our "torch" in the SE on the other thread as related to AGW. Curious if we were the region with BN temps and harsh winter wx (whole isolated island deal) would that post have even been dropped there

 

[weatherfide]

From what I've read from solar physicists, the sun is not "dormant" but in a long-term active period which will continue warming the Earth until around 2400. After that, it shuts down and rapidly decreases output, bringing on the next ice age on Earth. We will have a little cooling in the short term with the grand solar minimum coming up. after we exit that stage, it's back to warming for 400 more years. If this is true, there is nothing we can do about it and we need to adjust and adapt.

I don't have a problem using the least expensive energy source available. I do have a problem with elites driving up the price for energy because of some "belief" system about how man is causing the majority of the warming. Humans have definitely formed heat islands, polluted the land, air and water and caused mass extinctions. We could manage our limited resources better, but it's not CO2 that's the primary danger.

I also have a problem with the authoritarian and socialist approach to directing production in a way that supposedly reduces CO2 emissions and therefore, global warming. We need regulation to eliminate bio-toxicity, unfortunately, and this is not getting the attention it deserves. It won't matter one lick if we reduced the rise in global temps by 1 degree C if people are infertile and dying of cancer in droves.

 

[Wild Weather Monger]

All of us will be long dead by then.

I've heard 30 years. I'll almost certainly be at room temperature. YMMV

 

[Rain Cold]

Global warming alarmists are so certain of absolutely everything. And then, they're so certain about everything that changed between the last time they were so certain and this time they're so certain. In fact, there's absolutely nothing they aren't certain about when it comes to runaway global warming and how the planet responds to it. Nothing new to learn or discover at all. In fact, we're already past the point of no return. It's too late. We're certain about that. And when the end date shifts again, we'll be so certain about that too. Think about that when you plug in your EV to a grid not built to handle all of the EVs plugging into it or when the temp drops into the teens again and the rolling blackouts turn your heat off for a little bit. But it doesn't matter. The debate is over folks, certainly.

 

[weatherfide]

The EV's are just a smoke screen. They will convince the masses that they can buy an EV and plug it in but they will become prohibitively expensive. The end game is that only the wealthy will have them. Everyone else will move to the cities, be forced on to welfare in rent controlled neighborhoods full of crime and decay where you will hop on a bus or subway to go to your nearest food dispensary where you can spend your EBT credits on cricket flour and soy "meat".

You will own nothing and be happy...or else.

 

[Webberweather53]

Global warming alarmists are so certain of absolutely everything. And then, they're so certain about everything that changed between the last time they were so certain and this time they're so certain. In fact, there's absolutely nothing they aren't certain about when it comes to runaway global warming and how the planet responds to it. Nothing new to learn or discover at all. In fact, we're already past the point of no return. It's too late. We're certain about that. And when the end date shifts again, we'll be so certain about that too. Think about that when you plug in your EV to a grid not built to handle all of the EVs plugging into it or when the temp drops into the teens again and the rolling blackouts turn your heat off for a little bit. But it doesn't matter. The debate is over folks, certainly.

What is there to debate exactly? Because it certainly isn't the fact that the globe is warming today mainly because of man-made fossil fuels being released into the atmosphere and feeding back onto the earth system to accelerate their release from other additional natural and man-made sources sources to warm the earth even faster (positive feedbacks), at a rate that makes even the PETM look like a drop in the bucket.

The fact is that the scientific community and policy makers have long moved past this long, tired, baseless arguments like these decades ago & this so-called "debate" on whether or not we're the primary cause of today's warming, as you're trying to spin it, is a figment of people's imagination who have never spent a single day in their lives actually trying to understand how the climate system works, but instead regurgitate their favorite sound bites from their side of the political aisle, suddenly think because of this, they are suddenly experts on the topic, & refuse to accept any contradictory factual evidence to change their beliefs on the issue.

 

[Webberweather53]

You brought up our "torch" in the SE on the other thread as related to AGW. Curious if we were the region with BN temps and harsh winter wx (whole isolated island deal) would that post have even been dropped there

Because AGW changes the distribution of outcomes for BN & AN temps. Since it's also very clear the earth is in fact warming & significantly at that, the further we get into the warmer side of the distribution, the more likely it is to be related to AGW + climate change because said extreme warm anomaly would be unlikely to occur in the absence of a legitimate shift in the basic state climate. There's probably some component making the warm anomalies we've seen this winter thus far & will continue to see in February, a little stronger than they otherwise would have been.

Oth, we have seen at most one below average December since 2010 in the SE US (this year). That's a pretty undeniable indicator of climate change, even though it's over such a small area of the globe. Reason being, if we assume everything was equal and these things occurred completely at random, then odds of getting say at least 11 out of 12 heads in a row (akin to warm Decembers) in a coin flip is extremely small, actually 0.3%. There's a 99.7% chance that this didn't just occur by random chance.

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

Webber, I appreciate your hard work, but you said something that I don't understand . You said that the release of man made fossil fuels have caused the warming. you also said barring a volcanic eruption we would continue to warm. Are you saying that a sudden burst of greenhouse gasses could cool the Atmosphere? Also, since there are daily small volcanic eruptions eruptions that release thousands of times more fossil fuels into the atmosphere than all the modern industrial and commercial activity does, why do you feel like the percent pf a percent is the devastating factor? The 1970's was the most polluted time of the modern world, yet 1976-77 was the coldest. The 1930's was by far less polluted by man, yet some of the hottest years in modern history are then. You seem like you are a little bit worried. Don't be. The climate is going to do what the climate is going to do. There are deserts where ancient wet lands used to be and vise versa. these happened long before we had weather records. We have reduced emissions dramatically since the 1970s, that should be helping, yet you say we continue to warm. It apparently is not going to stop this dangerous warming. So, if you are that worried, I suggest you put your trust in One who can comfort you, because we can't make it hotter or colder.

 

[Wild Weather Monger]

Absent revolutionary technological advances in carbon-free, cheap abundant energy, efforts for the world to become carbon-neutral are doomed to utter failure. Western democracies' feel-good efforts will be dwarfed by the developing countries of Asia, Central&S. America, and African countries' need for the same cheap energy that fueled our unheard-of wealth and comfort for the past century.

Otherwise, we'll just need to adapt as mankind has for all of our brief time on this planet in which a warmer climate has always been a time of bounty rather than the human misery of cold periods such as the little ice age and Younger Dryes periods.