• 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.
snowlover91 said:
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
Click to expand...
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 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.
 
MichaelJ said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Stormdoc said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
It seems like cat 4s and 5s and super typhoons are popping up out of nowhere these days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
It seems like cat 4s and 5s and super typhoons are popping up out of nowhere these days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
BHS1975 said:
It seems like cat 4s and 5s and super typhoons are popping up out of nowhere these days.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

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.
1-s2.0-S0377026517301069-gr9.jpg
Click to expand...

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.”
Hurricane-Freq-US-1900-to-2017-Klotzbach-2018-672x1024.jpg


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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

Although it may seem that the numbers of tropical systems and intensity are increasing the data out there indicates otherwise.
 
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.
 
snowlover91 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
gfs_T2ma_nhem_42.png


To current anomalies
gfs_T2ma_nhem_1.png


And 850s cool quite a bit as well. Interesting.
gfs_T850a_nhem_38.png
 
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?
anoplus80N_summer_winter_engelsk.png
 
snowlover91 said:
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?
anoplus80N_summer_winter_engelsk.png
Click to expand...

This is consistent with this site and is what I've been saying:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
 
GaWx said:
This is consistent with this site and is what I've been saying:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top