• 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:
Good luck getting China to stop their emissions, and other developing countries too. The latest climate conference ended in disaster and no real progress on a solution. War and nuclear war is always a threat when you have rogue countries like N Korea, Russia or China who want to control the world.

Btw the green energy policies in CA have not been working out very well and the high taxes, regulations and other issues are significantly affecting things there now. I’ve read some articles where it’s suggested that the whole reason the electric company over there has dealt with fires and shutting power down is due to the green management policies forcing them to use maintenance funds to instead implement “green energy” instead of maintaining infrastructure. As a result now when major wind arrives people deal with 0 power for days and guess what they’re running for backup electricity? Yep, fossil fuel generators. If that’s what you want for all of America then that’s a huge step backwards imo.
Click to expand...
Yeah California is ironically making their living worse due to their attempts to help which are being executed poorly. For a state with a powerhouse of an economy they sure are wasting a lot of money on things that aren't working. They're too focused or trying to get sustainable energy their mediums of delivery are failing. Maybe it's all dark marketing. Make the people suffer with power outages and force them to buy solar panels for their homes so they can pat themselves on the back for "going green". I really doubt that though. It's most likely them failing to maintain because of overspending on "green energy" that went nowhere.
 
Webberweather53 said:
Nothing wrong with this map it’s just that it uses a much warmer climatology than most commonly used 1981-2010 baseline. Shifting that base period to 1987-2016 and including those 6 warm-very warm Decembers from 2011-16 and excluding those in the 80s does in fact make that much of a difference in the perceived anomaly. I personally think the weatherbell one is a more accurate representation of the current base state because we’ve already become significantly warmer than 1981-2010, at least in December anyway.

View attachment 28844
Click to expand...

The thing is the climate is warming so fast that each “AN” December may actually just be the temporary normal because there’s not enough time for random chance to get a good average.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I believe in GW. But how is it possible Greenland is melting when its always a +NAO and a big blue blob of below normal heights there all winter? It should grow so dang thick in the winter that it couldn't possibly melt in the summer.
 
it's not really about belief. There is like science n crap that backs it up. It's pretty neat, you should check it out.
 
After the lows we saw in ice earlier this year (2nd lowest), the ice extent has rebounded quite quickly. Taken from the Arctic sea ice forum, check out the cool chart/graph to see where we stand. So far the cold air placement has been favorable to allow consistent extent growth in all areas. Still a long ways to go though.

1577280832253.jpeg

1577280849896.jpeg
 
Snowless & Grumpy said:
I believe in GW. But how is it possible Greenland is melting when its always a +NAO and a big blue blob of below normal heights there all winter? It should grow so dang thick in the winter that it couldn't possibly melt in the summer.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if it really matters how cold it gets there in the winter since it’s going to be cold enough to add to the ice cap, regardless. They need snow to fall to increase the thickness of the ice cap, though; cold alone doesn’t really do anything. What would cause increases in the ice cap is for snowfall in the winter to outweigh melting in the summer, and the balance has been tilted towards the later for the last couple centuries.
 
Right James, and the average temp in the winter has little to nothing to do with the ice mass. Even IF the temperature goes up 10 degrees on average during the winter, the melting increase would be insignificant. So let's say the average for the past 100 years has been -25 degrees in the winter, adding 10 degrees over a 20-30 year time span would bring it up to a toasty -15 and not much melting would go on then either. The summer temps would have to increase exponentially to decrease the ice pack to make any difference. As James pointed out, increased temps would also cause increased precip in the form of snow and that would maintain the ice mass to a large extent.
 
BHS1975 said:
This video gives a good picture of whats happening to the ice.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Too bad we don't have that nice video representation from the 1920's and 30's to compare it to. Also, the many many times the Arctic was virtually ice free in recorded history has no video either. Let's see where this stands when the AMO goes negative in a few years and the warm water (which is what really melts the ice) has cooled after a 2-3 year lag.
 
MichaelJ said:
Too bad we don't have that nice video representation from the 1920's and 30's to compare it to. Also, the many many times the Arctic was virtually ice free in recorded history has no video either. Let's see where this stands when the AMO goes negative in a few years and the warm water (which is what really melts the ice) has cooled after a 2-3 year lag.
Click to expand...

Ice free really? When was that? This graph shows otherwise.

dd61a63435481557fb058f1c7e1fadb1.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You do know there have been periods in our past when there was little IF ANY ice anywhere in the world right? Would you like to see a graph of temps for the past several million years? There are these things called ice ages and there are the intermittent periods of short duration (3-10,000 years) called interglacials where the temps warm and the ice sheets retreat. We happen to be in one of those now and have been for several thousand years and it will come to an end regardless of a .7C temperature increase so far this past 100+ years
 
MichaelJ said:
You do know there have been periods in our past when there was little IF ANY ice anywhere in the world right? Would you like to see a graph of temps for the past several million years? There are these things called ice ages and there are the intermittent periods of short duration (3-10,000 years) called interglacials where the temps warm and the ice sheets retreat. We happen to be in one of those now and have been for several thousand years and it will come to an end regardless of a .7C temperature increase so far this past 100+ years
Click to expand...

Lol try 3C or more by 2100. The planet will be totally transformed. There’s no precedent in the rate of warming in the Earth’s history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
BHS1975 said:
Lol try 3C or more by 2100. The planet will be totally transformed. There’s no precedent in the rate of warming in the Earth’s history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It’s been far warmer in the past on the earth vs now. And ice free too.

“Pollen from three subarctic sites in the Norwegian Sea, northern Iceland and Labrador Sea indicate that mid-Pliocene January temperatures in Norway, Iceland and southeastern Canada were 4 to 10°C warmer than today (Willard 1994). … Evidence of both mixed deciduous/coniferous and coniferous forests places mean July temperatures 10°C warmer than today [in Arctic Canada] (Vincent 1990). In addition, northwestern Alaska air and sea temperatures during peak Pliocene interglacials were considerably warmer than present, by 7 to 8°C, with no permafrost, and absent or severely limited sea ice (Carter et al. 1986; Kaufman and Brigham-Grette 1993).”

“The consensus among these proxies suggests that Arctic temperatures were ∼19 °C warmer during the Pliocene than at present, while atmospheric CO2 concentrations were ∼390 ppmv.”


“Pliocene Arctic Ocean summer SSTs were appreciably warmer than modern and seasonally sea-ice free conditions existed in some regions. … At Lake El’gygytgyn (Lake ‘‘E’’) in Siberia summer temperatures were 8°C warmer than modern and at Ellesmere Island, Canada, summer and MAT [mean annual temperatures] were 11.8°C and 18.3°C higher than today.”
“[A] seasonally ice-free marginal and central Arctic Ocean was common … regionally during the early Holocene [6,000 to 10,000 years ago]. … Some species thought to be dependent on summer sea ice (e.g., polar bears) survived through these periods.”

Here is a chart that goes back 10k years.
1577407379187.jpeg
 
snowlover91 said:
It’s been far warmer in the past on the earth vs now. And ice free too.

“Pollen from three subarctic sites in the Norwegian Sea, northern Iceland and Labrador Sea indicate that mid-Pliocene January temperatures in Norway, Iceland and southeastern Canada were 4 to 10°C warmer than today (Willard 1994). … Evidence of both mixed deciduous/coniferous and coniferous forests places mean July temperatures 10°C warmer than today [in Arctic Canada] (Vincent 1990). In addition, northwestern Alaska air and sea temperatures during peak Pliocene interglacials were considerably warmer than present, by 7 to 8°C, with no permafrost, and absent or severely limited sea ice (Carter et al. 1986; Kaufman and Brigham-Grette 1993).”

“The consensus among these proxies suggests that Arctic temperatures were ∼19 °C warmer during the Pliocene than at present, while atmospheric CO2 concentrations were ∼390 ppmv.”


“Pliocene Arctic Ocean summer SSTs were appreciably warmer than modern and seasonally sea-ice free conditions existed in some regions. … At Lake El’gygytgyn (Lake ‘‘E’’) in Siberia summer temperatures were 8°C warmer than modern and at Ellesmere Island, Canada, summer and MAT [mean annual temperatures] were 11.8°C and 18.3°C higher than today.”
“[A] seasonally ice-free marginal and central Arctic Ocean was common … regionally during the early Holocene [6,000 to 10,000 years ago]. … Some species thought to be dependent on summer sea ice (e.g., polar bears) survived through these periods.”

Here is a chart that goes back 10k years.
View attachment 29037
Click to expand...


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
snowlover91 said:
It’s been far warmer in the past on the earth vs now. And ice free too.

“Pollen from three subarctic sites in the Norwegian Sea, northern Iceland and Labrador Sea indicate that mid-Pliocene January temperatures in Norway, Iceland and southeastern Canada were 4 to 10°C warmer than today (Willard 1994). … Evidence of both mixed deciduous/coniferous and coniferous forests places mean July temperatures 10°C warmer than today [in Arctic Canada] (Vincent 1990). In addition, northwestern Alaska air and sea temperatures during peak Pliocene interglacials were considerably warmer than present, by 7 to 8°C, with no permafrost, and absent or severely limited sea ice (Carter et al. 1986; Kaufman and Brigham-Grette 1993).”

“The consensus among these proxies suggests that Arctic temperatures were ∼19 °C warmer during the Pliocene than at present, while atmospheric CO2 concentrations were ∼390 ppmv.”


“Pliocene Arctic Ocean summer SSTs were appreciably warmer than modern and seasonally sea-ice free conditions existed in some regions. … At Lake El’gygytgyn (Lake ‘‘E’’) in Siberia summer temperatures were 8°C warmer than modern and at Ellesmere Island, Canada, summer and MAT [mean annual temperatures] were 11.8°C and 18.3°C higher than today.”
“[A] seasonally ice-free marginal and central Arctic Ocean was common … regionally during the early Holocene [6,000 to 10,000 years ago]. … Some species thought to be dependent on summer sea ice (e.g., polar bears) survived through these periods.”

Here is a chart that goes back 10k years.
View attachment 29037
Click to expand...

Sea lvls where 10-22m higher too. Going back to the Pliocene is not a good thing and it just gets worse beyond that. Large mammals like us wouldn’t survive in a hothouse state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
These arguments using very old natural climate change events are red herrings and in utterly bad faith. Our current extreme climate change event is mostly man-made and happening in hundreds of years rather than thousands, tens of thousands or millions of years. So silly.
 
SETNwx said:
These arguments using very old natural climate change events are red herrings and in utterly bad faith. Our current extreme climate change event is mostly man-made and happening in hundreds of years rather than thousands, tens of thousands or millions of years. So silly.
Click to expand...
You call .3-.7C over a hundred years increase extreme? Now who is acting in bad faith?
 
MichaelJ said:
You call .3-.7C over a hundred years increase extreme? Now who is acting in bad faith?
Click to expand...

Try over 1C at this point since the 1880s and yes thats extreme, especially considering most of the warming was over the last 35 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
GaWx said:
Good observation. Yes, it is mainly the lows rather than the highs that are so mild, which has been a common thing throughout the E US during the 2010s warmth throughout the year. On this 0Z EPS, RDU is about 5 AN overall but with the lows about 8 AN (~39 vs 31 normal) and the highs only about 2 AN (~52 vs 50 normal).
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I would expect from more long wave radiation getting trapped in the troposphere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
Try over 1C at this point since the 1880s and yes thats extreme, especially considering most of the warming was over the last 35 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I'm sorry brother, but I'm not impressed with 1 degree c ... considering their average temp, and ice melts at 32 degrees f . I think you polar ice cap melting boys need to be looking at the sun. If there is truly this issue, 1 degree c (1.8 degrees f) isn't the culprit. I know you can remember days that you got snow and the temp stayed well below freezing but the snow melted where the sun shine on it? At the same time in the shade of the forest the snow didn't melt? Also, you probably remember days when the snow fell, the temp went to 1 degee c and it was overcast ...the snow melted very little. It's got to be the sun,(or lack of cloud cover ) that affects melt in that region because the temps are so cold.
 
This news article from 2004 warned we would face catastrophe in the next 20 years and by 2020 would see a Siberian climate in Britain along with other catastrophic scenarios. As 2019 comes to a close and 2020 is only a few days away.... well let’s just say there is 0 evidence for this predicted catastrophe 15 years later.

“Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents”
 
WEATHERBOYROY said:
I'm sorry brother, but I'm not impressed with 1 degree c ... considering their average temp, and ice melts at 32 degrees f . I think you polar ice cap melting boys need to be looking at the sun. If there is truly this issue, 1 degree c (1.8 degrees f) isn't the culprit. I know you can remember days that you got snow and the temp stayed well below freezing but the snow melted where the sun shine on it? At the same time in the shade of the forest the snow didn't melt? Also, you probably remember days when the snow fell, the temp went to 1 degee c and it was overcast ...the snow melted very little. It's got to be the sun,(or lack of cloud cover ) that affects melt in that region because the temps are so cold.
Click to expand...
Roy from Alabama is smarter than science.
 
Broken024 said:
Roy from Alabama is smarter than science.
Click to expand...

Where I'm from matters little in this debate. I'm proud to be from Alabama. Logic can be found in any state if you will let go of things you've been brainwashed into believing just because" they say so". I gave a simple experiment you might try that delivered a scientific conclusion.. I didn't need a computer, just simple logic. You guys might try getting your noses and out of your computers a little bit and see what the real world is like. Or maybe try proving things through experimentation rather than trying to extrapolate conclusions with incomplete data. Or are you really interested in the TRUTH?
 
WEATHERBOYROY said:
Where I'm from matters little in this debate. I'm proud to be from Alabama. Logic can be found in any state if you will let go of things you've been brainwashed into believing just because" they say so". I gave a simple experiment you might try that delivered a scientific conclusion.. I didn't need a computer, just simple logic. You guys might try getting your noses and out of your computers a little bit and see what the real world is like. Or maybe try proving things through experimentation rather than trying to extrapolate conclusions with incomplete data. Or are you really interested in the TRUTH?
Click to expand...
Have you considered scientific research with computers that can process way more information than you can are more accurate? Your logic is simply 'I don't believe/understand so it isn't true'. It's similar to people arguing the earth isn't round because it is flat in front of them.
 
Broken024 said:
Have you considered scientific research with computers that can process way more information than you can are more accurate? Your logic is simply 'I don't believe/understand so it isn't true'. It's similar to people arguing the earth isn't round because it is flat in front of them.
Click to expand...
To add to this
Broken024 said:
Roy from Alabama is smarter than science.
Click to expand...
Are you just saying ice is melting because it has been abnormally sunny?
 
Broken024 said:
Have you considered scientific research with computers that can process way more information than you can are more accurate? Your logic is simply 'I don't believe/understand so it isn't true'. It's similar to people arguing the earth isn't round because it is flat in front of them.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Did you read my initial post? Computers are great, but they have yet to invent one that can compare to the human brain. Computers are simply a tool like a thermometer. I believe the flat earth theory was the science of the day. Kinda like Global warming is...excuse me I mean global cooling(1970s), global climate change is or was ...who knows what to believe?
 
t
Broken024 said:
To add to this

Are you just saying ice is melting because it has been abnormally sunny?
Click to expand...

To respond to your question, If there is polar ice melt, it has happened before. Evidence of water levels over the mountainous regions would indicate the necessity of the water in the ice around the poles.......unless you beieve in the Great flood that God sent. I do believe in that, but I also know the sun's heat fluctuates generally according to solar max and solar min. Also, pollution has been proven to cool the earth.
 
WEATHERBOYROY said:
t

to respond to your question, If there is polar ice melt, it has happened before. Evidence of water levels over the mountainous regions would indicate the necessity of the water in the ice around the poles.......unless you beieve in the Great flood that God sent.
Click to expand...
It isn't that climate change has never happened its that humans are contributing to it... but I rest my case, your point that the sun melts ice probably was never considered by scientists. Can't believe they missed that.
 
Broken024 said:
It isn't that climate change has never happened its that humans are contributing to it... but I rest my case, your point that the sun melts ice probably was never considered by scientists. Can't believe they missed that.
Click to expand...

I don't get what your saying? You might want to look into who benefits financially from the Global whatever agenda. You might find some of your heroes not to be lily or should I say snow white. If you will, consider the amount of co2 humans put into the atmosphere vs what is released naturally. If you will allow yourself to, you can see that there is great financial gain for a few that are at the top of this erroneous theory. They have good reason to "miss that"!
 
WEATHERBOYROY said:
I don't get what your saying? You might want to look into who benefits financially from the Global whatever agenda. You might find some of your heroes not to be lily or should I say snow white. If you will, consider the amount of co2 humans put into the atmosphere vs what is released naturally. If you will allow yourself to, you can see that there is great financial gain for a few that are at the top of this erroneous theory. They have good reason to "miss that"!
Click to expand...
You are basically spitting out climate change denial talking points - climate changed in past, "someone" is making money, and global cooling in the 70s. I agree it's possible climate change may not be as great as presented but your argument about ice melting in the sun is the cause and that anyone who believes the majority of scientific study is brainwashed is asinine. One could argue that your belief of god flooding the earth is brainwashing.
 
Broken024 said:
You are basically spitting out climate change denial talking points - climate changed in past, "someone" is making money, and global cooling in the 70s. I agree it's possible climate change may not be as great as presented but your argument about ice melting in the sun is the cause and that anyone who believes the majority of scientific study is brainwashed is asinine. One could argue that your belief of god flooding the earth is brainwashing.
Click to expand...

There is much more evidence to support the flood, and all the Word of God, than there is for global warming(the way it is presented). It's hard for me to understand how anyone could feel there is sufficient data to support global climate change to the point that people accept it as fact. These so called global climate scientist have spewed their predictions time and again, and things have not happened as they predicted. they have been caught red handed changing data to support their religion. You believe what you want, but I find it unreasonable to continue trusting so called experts that can't get it right. I've lived through several different directions these so called scientist promote, and they have a common denominator.....fear. They are fear-mongers that thrive on the less experienced(less informed). Just because most educated people believe in something that doesn't make it right. Most educated people are not truly the most educated.
 
Last edited:
WEATHERBOYROY said:
There is much more evidence to support the flood, and all the Word of God, than there is for global warming(the way it is presented). It's hard for me to understand how anyone could feel there is sufficient data to support global climate change to the point that people accept it as fact. These so called global climate scientist have spewed their predictions time and again, and things have not happened as they predicted. they have been caught red handed changing data to support their religion. You believe what you want, but I find it unreasonable to continue trusting so called experts that can't get it right. I've lived through several different directions these so called scientist promote, and they have a common denominator.....fear. They are fear-mongers that thrive on the less experienced(less informed). Just because most educated people believe in something that doesn't make it right. Most educated people are not truly the most educated.
Click to expand...
I'm a Bible believer. I also believe that climate change is happening. I don't think those two things stand opposed to each other. The debate is certainly there to be had in terms of the cause, duration, and outcome. I also don't doubt there is an agenda behind a lot of what we hear. You have to have your head in the sand to not believe that. Even if you set all the conspiracy/deep state stuff aside, even if you do that, you still get smacked right in the face with the fact that the stuff we *think* we know for sure has a sneaky way of completely changing as we learn more about our world...actually, as we just learn. That pretty much goes for everything. Just look at a little history. You don't even have to be all that smart to figure this out. And as it relates to climate and weather, you can look at the messaging that has been put forth as fact or near fact over the last several decades.

I'm not scared of climate change. It is not going to be the end of mankind. The oceans are not going to rise to the point of drowning everyone along the coasts of the world. That doesn't mean that the climate isn't changing, to some degree. And it also doesn't mean that we shouldn't do what we can to take care of our planet and preserve life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top