• We've made some major changes to the website. You can view a short list : Here
  • Hello guests. Please take a minute to sign up and join in the conversation. It's free, quick, and easy!

Learning Global Warming facts and fiction (1 Viewer)

Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
130
Likes
94
Location
Raleigh
Still the question is unanswered, what cleaner, cost effective and efficient fuel source is their for the millions of trucks and cars all over the world? What reliable fuel source is their for power plants that isn't highly disputed like nuclear energy is? Sure there is plenty of research going on in various market sectors for alternative energy methods but until something viable to meet these needs is released then fossil fuels will continue as the primary source of power. Businesses are free to research and explore alternative methods of power there is nothing holding them back from doing so regardless of whether AGW is real, natural or something in between.

I think the media has made it abundantly clear that AGW is real (in their view) and have gone out of their way to promote this. Every single time there is a natural disaster or brutal heat wave you hear the media claiming it's all due to global warming and climate change. People have heard plenty on it so lack of information is not the problem. If anything I would add that people aren't hearing the skeptical side of the debate and only the AGW side. When was the last time you heard a news article discussed on a main news website/tv station that endorsed or presented the skeptical side of things? Do a google search on global warming and you'll quickly find all the top hits are in favor of AGW. That's far from a balanced scientific view into the climate change discussion since there are some incredibly smart people on BOTH sides of this debate but only one side is promoted...

In regards to the second bold statement, I'm not going to debateit in relation to the President since that would be getting into a political debate and that's not what this thread is for nor do I wish to go there so let's leave it at that. However at least make sure that you get the quotes correct, in a recent interview this is what was said by the President "I think something’s happening. Something’s changing and it’ll change back again,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a hoax. I think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s manmade. I will say this: I don’t want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs.” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...e-change-not-a-hoax-but-denies-lasting-impact
Well as far as as skeptics about AGW it all depends on your news source. Of course both right and left leaning sources are going to put out information that supports their point of view. Of course the media will put out whatever info gets them the most “hits” so it’s not going to ever be balanced either way. I never argued any single weather event supported or denied AGWs existence, lots of media puts out skeptical articles when we do we have abnormal cold shots as well. Just saw the article on Trump’s statement, brand new of course, but a change from what I quoted earlier. Of course no one on either side is advocating trillions of dollars or millions of jobs, but I guess I’m glad he’s at least discussing it. Nice discussing this with you, and will in the future, although it seemed you addressed a lot of my points other than my main premise regarding risk/ benefit analysis with the science at hand. Can’t say I have a lot of time to continue this debate with you, but I hope Americans can have more civil discourse in general like this.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
405
Likes
346
Location
Clemmons, NC
I personally know three eminently credentialed and qualified Atmospheric Scientists (my brother is one, he has a Phd in Atmospheric Sciences from MIT) who have been ostracized by Faculty and Administration in academia in a very career threatening way, unless they drop their debate about the legitimacy and degree of AGW. One has already been "urged' to retire and not allowed to spend class time on AGW skeptics or science which supports them. This is not the way science should be, and I truly hope we can get back to the "civil and open debate" about the actual observed facts as they relate to AGW. We see what happens when a process becomes completely politicized like the recent Kavanaugh hearings where truth and facts are trumped (excuse the pun) by a torrent of emotion instead of verified truth. Thanks to everyone here for trying to return to actual debate rather than character assassination and innuendo.
 

pcbjr

Supporter
Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
6,559
Likes
6,515
Location
Gainesville, FL
I personally know three eminently credentialed and qualified Atmospheric Scientists (my brother is one, he has a Phd in Atmospheric Sciences from MIT) who have been ostracized by Faculty and Administration in academia in a very career threatening way, unless they drop their debate about the legitimacy and degree of AGW. One has already been "urged' to retire and not allowed to spend class time on AGW skeptics or science which supports them. This is not the way science should be, and I truly hope we can get back to the "civil and open debate" about the actual observed facts as they relate to AGW. We see what happens when a process becomes completely politicized like the recent Kavanaugh hearings where truth and facts are trumped (excuse the pun) by a torrent of emotion instead of verified truth. Thanks to everyone here for trying to return to actual debate rather than character assassination and innuendo.
Do we even need to "debate", about weather at least ... how about let's discuss ... like a bunch of friends, or family with some friends in for the party
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
723
Likes
1,091
Location
Wilson, NC
Well as far as as skeptics about AGW it all depends on your news source. Of course both right and left leaning sources are going to put out information that supports their point of view. Of course the media will put out whatever info gets them the most “hits” so it’s not going to ever be balanced either way. I never argued any single weather event supported or denied AGWs existence, lots of media puts out skeptical articles when we do we have abnormal cold shots as well. Just saw the article on Trump’s statement, brand new of course, but a change from what I quoted earlier. Of course no one on either side is advocating trillions of dollars or millions of jobs, but I guess I’m glad he’s at least discussing it. Nice discussing this with you, and will in the future, although it seemed you addressed a lot of my points other than my main premise regarding risk/ benefit analysis with the science at hand. Can’t say I have a lot of time to continue this debate with you, but I hope Americans can have more civil discourse in general like this.
I agree, I wish Americans would be more willing to discuss issues they disagree on in a civil way. It certainly will be interesting to see how things go with time and hopefully our technology advances to the point we can find more cost effective, cleaner, and more environmentally friendly fuel sources which would be a win for the consumer and the environment.
 

ForsythSnow

Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
5,294
Likes
5,271
Location
North Forsyth County, Georgia
It seems like cat 4s and 5s and super typhoons are popping up out of nowhere these days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Always been several cat 4s and 5s out there in the Pacific and it's the last several years we had a peak in the Atlantic. We should see less active seasons up the next several years I believe and therefore less strong major hurricanes Atlantic wise.
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
723
Likes
1,091
Location
Wilson, NC
Interesting that sometime soon we should be getting a full release of the entire email chain regarding the infamous "hockey stick" graph. The University of Arizona fought for 7 years to keep this concealed... It will be interesting to see what these emails reveal, if anything. I'm quite curious myself since you don't spend 7 years trying to keep emails hidden from the public unless there is something you don't want them to know. A full breakdown of this is in the link below.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09...rizona-climate-emails-imminent/?cn-reloaded=1
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
723
Likes
1,091
Location
Wilson, NC
It seems like cat 4s and 5s and super typhoons are popping up out of nowhere these days.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
While it may "seem" that way, recent papers suggest TC frequency and intensity has been stable if not on a downward trend.

First article regarding the WPAC, source here. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377026517301069
Some simple research on Typhoon formation and TC landfall has been done. We plotted the evolution of total Typhoon (with maximum wind speed exceeding 32.7m/s) frequencies in the WNP since 1977 (due to data availability) and TC landfalls on China since 1960 (see Fig. 9, Fig. 10; below). It is interesting to note that the Typhoon frequency decreases significantly from ID2 (1977–1998; Typhoon number is 11) to ID3 (1999–2014; Typhoon number is 10). As for the TC landfalls on China, the average numbers for the three periods are 8.6, 7.8 and 7.6 respectively. The decrease from ID1 to ID2 is statistically significant, passing a 95% confidence level, while the decrease from ID2 to ID3 is not significant.
Philip Klotzbach had this to say regarding the US, full discussion here. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0184.1
“Since 1900 neither observed CONUS [Continental United States] landfalling hurricane frequency nor intensity show significant trends, including the devastating 2017 season. While neither U.S. landfalling hurricane frequency nor intensity shows a significant trend since 1900, growth in coastal population and wealth have led to increasing hurricane-related damage along the U.S. coastline.”


Then this...
Ten years ago, Webster et al. documented a large and significant increase in both the number as well as the percentage of category 4 and 5 hurricanes for all global basins from 1970 to 2004, and this manuscript examines whether those trends have continued when including 10 additional years of data. In contrast to that study, as shown here, the global frequency of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has shown a small, insignificant downward trend while the percentage of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has shown a small, insignificant upward trend between 1990 and 2014. Accumulated cyclone energy globally has experienced a large and significant downward trend during the same period. The primary reason for the increase in category 4 and 5 hurricanes noted in observational datasets from 1970 to 2004 by Webster et al. is concluded to be due to observational improvements at the various global tropical cyclone warning centers, primarily in the first two decades of that study. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0188.1
Another study adds more info..
“Our record of tropical cyclone activity reveals no significant trends in the total number of tropical cyclones (tropical storms and hurricanes) in the best sampled regions for the past 318 years. However, the total number of hurricanes in the 20th century is ∼20% lower than in previous centuries. … Long-term variations in the number of tropical cyclones do not show any evidence of increasing storm frequency and have declined a nonstatistically significant amount.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008GC002066
Although it may seem that the numbers of tropical systems and intensity are increasing the data out there indicates otherwise.
 

SimeonNC

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
704
Likes
388
Location
North Charlotte
This may be too political and/or off topic but a lot of the people I've seen who are aggressive AGW believers and bash AGW skeptics as science deniers tend to hold beliefs themselves that go against established science.
 

vtrap90

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
94
Likes
81
Location
Midtown, Atlanta, GA.
While it may "seem" that way, recent papers suggest TC frequency and intensity has been stable if not on a downward trend.

Although it may seem that the numbers of tropical systems and intensity are increasing the data out there indicates otherwise.
Social media, with the ease of reporting on storms around the world; has made it seem like they are increasing. 100, 50, even 10 years ago, people didn't care as much as they do today. With more interest being drawn to tropical systems now than ever before, it is easy for things to be over hyped. It's much like the reports on gun violence and terrorists attacks. These things have happened throughout the history of humankind. However, with tools of mass communication now being used, the stories on them are just easier to be shared and told. People only talk about the big ones.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
723
Likes
1,091
Location
Wilson, NC
After a VERY slow start to the ice growth the Arctic is finally taking off.
upload_2018-10-29_1-15-5.png

New ice is in the green area. Still a lot of work to do but a solid recovery considering the well AN temps in this region.
upload_2018-10-29_1-15-38.png
 

GaWx

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
3,270
Likes
5,481
Location
SAV, GA

BHS1975

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
942
Likes
434
Location
Raleigh, NC
One thing for sure we are going to learn a ton about the climate system by screwing it up and then trying to fix it. Very interesting times to be living.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
723
Likes
1,091
Location
Wilson, NC
Sea ice is expanding quite nicely.
5BCEB79B-5A44-4C5D-8338-D8EC87321F0F.png

Some areas in Canada to Greenland are actually freezing a bit quicker than the long term average, likely due to the colder than normal temps in this area. Still some work to do in other areas but nice ice growth right now.
upload_2018-11-5_0-31-5.png
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
723
Likes
1,091
Location
Wilson, NC
Right now the sea ice extent is increasing much quicker than other recent years. It may slow down soon but it's interesting that 850s are shown as cooling over the Arctic Circle while surface temps much closer to normal instead of the torch that has been in place.

Compare this forecast for roughly 10 days out at the surface


To current anomalies


And 850s cool quite a bit as well. Interesting.
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
723
Likes
1,091
Location
Wilson, NC
I found an interesting graphic from DMI that shows summer temps have remained quite constant in the Arctic while winter temps have been experiencing gradual increases since 1960. I would presume enhanced blocking is partially responsible for the increased winter temps, any ideas here?
 

GaWx

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
3,270
Likes
5,481
Location
SAV, GA
I found an interesting graphic from DMI that shows summer temps have remained quite constant in the Arctic while winter temps have been experiencing gradual increases since 1960. I would presume enhanced blocking is partially responsible for the increased winter temps, any ideas here?
This is consistent with this site and is what I've been saying:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
723
Likes
1,091
Location
Wilson, NC
This is consistent with this site and is what I've been saying:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Here's what I'm wondering though, with ice extent decreasing in recent years (especially since 1979 to present) why is it that the summer temps have consistently been averaging at to slightly BN since 1960 but the winter, spring and fall temps increasing? I feel like this was discussed some but I haven't seen any research papers dealing much with this phenomenon and why. If AGW was truly the cause for melting and the warming, should we not expect the warming to be consistent across all seasons and especially the summer as the ice extent decreases over time? I'd be interested in reading some research papers on this if anyone has come across any.
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
723
Likes
1,091
Location
Wilson, NC
Found this interesting article that's well worth a read. Outlined in it are some of the key "alarmist" claims that are then debunked as misleading or weak arguments. Here's a few excerpts below with the full article here. https://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/r...-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/

On Mann's infamous hockey stick graph:
"Mann used tree rings from bristle cone pines to estimate Northern Hemisphere temperatures back hundreds of years. This was done by calibrating the tree ring data with surface observations for a thirty year period, and using this calibration to estimate temperatures in the distant past in order to eliminate the medieval warm period. Indeed, this reconstruction showed flat temperatures for the past thousand years. The usual test for such a procedure would be to see how the calibration worked for observations after the calibration period. Unfortunately, the results failed to show the warming found in the surface data. The solution was starkly simple and stupid. The tree ring record was cut off at the end of the calibration period and replaced by the actual surface record. In the Climategate emails (Climategate refers to a huge release of emails from various scientists supporting alarm where the suppression of opposing views, the intimidation of editors, the manipulation of data, etc. were all discussed), this was referred to as Mann’s trick."

Extreme weather events:
"Every line weather forecaster knows that extreme events occur someplace virtually every day. The present temptation to attribute these normally occurring events to climate change is patently dishonest. Roger Pielke, Jr. actually wrote a book detailing the fact that there is no trend in virtually any extreme event (including tornados, hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc.) with some actually decreasing. Even the UN’s IPCC acknowledges that there is no basis for attributing such events to anthropogenic climate change."

Sea level rise:
"Globally averaged sea level appears to have been rising at the rate of about 6 inches a century for thousands of years. Until the advent of satellites, sea level was essentially measured with tide gauges which measure the sea level relative to the land level. Unfortunately, the land level is also changing, and as Emery and Aubrey note, tectonics are the major source of change at many locations. Beginning in 1979 we began to use satellites to measure actual sea level. The results were surprisingly close to the previous tide gauge estimates, but slightly higher, but one sees from Wunsch et al (DOI: 10.1175/2007JCLI1840.1) that one is in no position to argue that small differences from changing methodologies represents acceleration. Regardless, the changes are small compared to the claims that suggest disastrous changes. However, even in the early 1980’s advocates of warming alarm like S. Schneider argued that sea level would be an easily appreciated scare tactic. The fact that people like Al Gore and Susan Solomon (former head of the IPCC’s Scientific Assessment) have invested heavily in ocean front property supports the notion that the issue is propagandistic rather than scientific."

Arctic Sea ice:
"Satellites have been observing arctic (and Antarctic) sea ice since 1979. Every year there is a pronounced annual cycle where the almost complete winter coverage is much reduced each summer. During this period there has been a noticeable downtrend is summer ice in the arctic (with the opposite behavior in the Antarctic), though in recent years, the coverage appears to have stabilized. In terms of climate change, 40 years is, of course, a rather short interval. Still, there have been the inevitable attempts to extrapolate short period trends leading to claims that the arctic should have already reached ice free conditions. Extrapolating short term trends is obviously inappropriate. Extrapolating surface temperature changes from dawn to dusk would lead to a boiling climate in days. This would be silly. The extrapolation of arctic summer ice coverage looks like it might be comparably silly. Moreover, although the satellite coverage is immensely better than what was previously available, the data is far from perfect. The satellites can confuse ice topped with melt water with ice free regions. In addition, temperature might not be the main cause of reduced sea ice coverage. Summer ice tends to be fragile, and changing winds play an important role in blowing ice out of the arctic sea. Associating changing summer sea ice coverage with climate change is, itself, dubious. Existing climate models hardly unambiguously predict the observed behavior. Predictions for 2100 range from no change to complete disappearance. Thus, it cannot be said that the sea ice behavior confirms any plausible prediction.

It is sometimes noted that concerns for disappearing arctic sea ice were issued in 1922, suggesting that such behavior is not unique to the present. The data used, at that time, came from the neighborhood of Spitzbergen. A marine biologist and climate campaigner has argued that what was described was a local phenomenon, but, despite the claim, the evidence presented by the author is far from conclusive. Among other things, the author was selective in his choice of ‘evidence.’

All one can say, at this point, is that the behavior of arctic sea ice represents one of the numerous interesting phenomena that the earth presents us with, and for which neither the understanding nor the needed records exist. It probably pays to note that melting sea ice does not contribute to sea level rise. Moreover, man has long dreamt of the opening of this Northwest Passage. It is curious that it is now viewed with alarm. Of course, as Mencken noted, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” The environmental movement has elevated this aim well beyond what Mencken noted."

Coral Reef bleaching:
The alleged death of coral reefs is partly linked to the acidification issue above, and as we see, the linkage is almost opposite to what is claimed. There is also the matter of warming per se leading to coral bleaching. A typical alarmist presentation can be found here.
The article is behind a pay wall, but most universities provide access to Nature. The reasoned response to this paper is provided here. As Steele, the author of the above, points out, bleaching has common causes other than warming and is far from a death sentence for corals whose capacity to recover is substantial. This article is a bit polemical, but essentially correct."
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
723
Likes
1,091
Location
Wilson, NC
There's not really a specific thread for this but I thought I'd post some updates in here regarding Arctic ice extent and volume. Here's the latest NSIDC chart for ice extent.


Here's the DMI volume.
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
723
Likes
1,091
Location
Wilson, NC
After Arctic anomalies of a whopping +12C at the start of Nov, they have plunged to only ~+2 to +3C which are the lowest in nearly two months. However, with the oncoming strong -AO, I expect they’ll bounce back up for the next 7-10 days or so:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Larry, any theories as to what is causing the rapid ice buildup this year, or anyone else? SST's across much of the Arctic were well AN to start the season and per the graph you linked the temps were well AN for a time as well although now they are a little closer to normal. Comparing to other recent years I don't see anything noticeable with temps that would explain the rapid increase we are seeing. Any thoughts or ideas?

Latest JAXA and NSIDC extent data show that we now have the 11th lowest sea ice on satellite record or another way to look at it is the 3rd highest post 2005. Here are some charts and graphs from another site that catalogs these in detail. https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2223.msg181476.html#new

JAXA data
Jaxa Map .png
Jaxa.png
NSIDC data
NSIDC extent .png
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
723
Likes
1,091
Location
Wilson, NC
Also here is today’s NSIDC ice extent. Notice we are ahead of schedule in the Hudson Bay and around Greenland (Davis strait I believe). The biggest key will be ice volume, let’s see over the winter how that does.
upload_2018-11-19_18-59-3.png
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top