Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

[pcbjr]

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.

 

[BHS1975]

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

 

[pcbjr]

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

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 ...

 

[ForsythSnow]

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

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.

 

[BHS1975]

It also depends on how much the population drops to consider it a collapse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pcbjr]

It also depends on how much the population drops to consider it a collapse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a neighbor you can come and collect ...

 

[BHS1975]

Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pcbjr]

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 ...
... btw ... not looking for any "Likes" on this, but a little common sense would go a long way, somewhere ...

 

[Metwannabe]

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

 

[pcbjr]

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

... and to you too, my friend ...

 

[GaWx]

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.

 

[snowlover91]

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.



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.


Next I looked at a pretty rural county in NC, Cherokee county, and found a distinctly different trend there.


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

 

[setxwx]

reading through this thread slowing and meticulously... https://www.americanwx.com/bb/topic/36645-antarctic-sea-ice-extent/?page=2 so far, I've noticed a lot of claims here thoroughly countered... anyway a lot of interesting back and forth. Very few, if any outright deniers of AGW.

 

[snowlover91]

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

 

[BHS1975]

Interesting. Yeah pretty complicated process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GaWx]

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

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).

 

[MichaelJ]

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

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.

 

[Avalanche]

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.

 

[snowlover91]

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.

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.

 

[snowlover91]

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.

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.

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...

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

And here was the drought index for 1934 per NOAA, at a time when PPM levels were around 310ppm.

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

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.