• 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.
Rain Cold said:
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.
Click to expand...


I am all for doing what we can as a nation to limit man made pollution that we release. Technology has improved a lot since the industrialization revolution and we as a nation have come along way to identifying and reducing their release, but we are just one of the major producer. Until we can convince other nations such as India and China, just to name a few, to do the same then there is only so much that can happen.

God forbid that we have any major volcanic activity. Doesn't matter how much we have done, if there are any major eruptions, it won't add up to a hill of beans to what we accomplished. I also do not fear Climate Change. We will adapt just like we always have.

I also think, imho, it is not something we as a nation should have to shoulder the brunt of the financial cost for either. I also do not think we need to be Socialist nation to do it. This is just my 2 cents worth and is probably worth less...
 
Tagat said:
I am all for doing what we can as a nation to limit man made pollution that we release. Technology has improved a lot since the industrialization revolution and we as a nation have come along way to identifying and reducing their release, but we are just one of the major producer. Until we can convince other nations such as India and China, just to name a few, to do the same then there is only so much that can happen.

God forbid that we have any major volcanic activity. Doesn't matter how much we have done, if there are any major eruptions, it won't add up to a hill of beans to what we accomplished. I also do not fear Climate Change. We will adapt just like we always have.

I also think, imho, it is not something we as a nation should have to shoulder the brunt of the financial cost for either. I also do not think we need to be Socialist nation to do it. This is just my 2 cents worth and is probably worth less...
Click to expand...


I appreciate your sense of responsibility, but, all of man's pollution combined makes up less than 5 percent of the so called green house gasses.
You mentioned a major volcanic eruption. there are major volcanic eruptions across the world almost daily. Super eruptions have been linked to every extreme cold period in recorded history. So, if you like cold and snow the more the better.
 
Tagat said:
I am all for doing what we can as a nation to limit man made pollution that we release. Technology has improved a lot since the industrialization revolution and we as a nation have come along way to identifying and reducing their release, but we are just one of the major producer. Until we can convince other nations such as India and China, just to name a few, to do the same then there is only so much that can happen.

God forbid that we have any major volcanic activity. Doesn't matter how much we have done, if there are any major eruptions, it won't add up to a hill of beans to what we accomplished. I also do not fear Climate Change. We will adapt just like we always have.

I also think, imho, it is not something we as a nation should have to shoulder the brunt of the financial cost for either. I also do not think we need to be Socialist nation to do it. This is just my 2 cents worth and is probably worth less...
Click to expand...
There is some evidence to suggest that during deep solar minimums, like we are now into, volcanic activity increases. Not sure if that elevates the chance of a supervolcanic eruption, but if that stuff is true, then we should see an increase in geologic activity over the next few years.
 
WEATHERBOYROY said:
I appreciate your sense of responsibility, but, all of man's pollution combined makes up less than 5 percent of the so called green house gasses.
You mentioned a major volcanic eruption. there are major volcanic eruptions across the world almost daily. Super eruptions have been linked to every extreme cold period in recorded history. So, if you like cold and snow the more the better.
Click to expand...

I may have been a little under-spoken here. I know that there are volcanic eruption daily around the world. I guess I am meaning the Super Calderas like the one under Yellowstone. If any of those type decide to blow, nothing we accomplished will matter.

I also realizes that our impact is only a small portion of the overall change but that does not mean we should ignore it completely. We should continue to find cleaner and more efficient and less expensive means of powering our existence but that doesn't mean I want us to halt everything we currently have.
 
MichaelJ said:
January 2 2020 is now the coldest day in Greenland history at -66C and -86.8F
Click to expand...

So what. It’s a 10k ft solid chunk of ice. If the pv sits right on top it gets cold which makes since as the loss of sea ice has displaced the tpv over Greenland instead of over the north pole. There’s twice as many heat records broken as cold ones with the spread only getting wider.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
So what. It’s a 10k ft solid chunk of ice. If the pv sits right on top it gets cold which makes since as the loss of sea ice has displaced the tpv over Greenland instead of over the north pole. There’s twice as many heat records broken as cold ones with the spread only getting wider.


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


o_O:eek:
 
MichaelJ said:
January 2 2020 is now the coldest day in Greenland history at -66C and -86.8F
Click to expand...
That is somewhat significant. Goes to show us that there are still things that we don't understand about climate change. One is how the added Oceanic heat will be distributed. We know that some will experience cooling while others see warming.
 
Really dislike the term climate change, as if there was a time it DIDNT change. The only way to defeat climate change would be to create a new normal, and ensure the climate never strayed from that. Most people couldnt agree on what that new normal should be. Some would think Miami needs to average 88 in the summer, others might think 91. Some would say it snows too much in Buffalo NY. Couldnt get any agreement. And whos to say what the new normal should be? International government?

We should have stayed with the term global warming. The earth is warming, and that is something you can quantify, and work against. People are still purchasing property in areas that Al Gore said would be under water, so from a broad brush approach it probably wasnt the right idea. However, driving a jeep with the doors off leaving a city heading into the country, you can feel the urban heat island in full effect. Urban heating is a quantifiable entity, and i say make the case for that, and how we can neutralize it. Creating a new normal and making sure the climate doesnt change isnt going to cut it.
 
BHS1975 said:
So what. It’s a 10k ft solid chunk of ice. If the pv sits right on top it gets cold which makes since as the loss of sea ice has displaced the tpv over Greenland instead of over the north pole. There’s twice as many heat records broken as cold ones with the spread only getting wider.


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

I seem to remember you saying Greenland was melting and the subsequent runoff would flood all the coastal cities. Have you looked at the Graph for 2020 in Greenland lately? No sign of a huge melt going on and oh BTW if we lost a net loss of 350 billion tons of ice yearly (which is slightly above the average from 2002- 2017), it would take approx 6000 years to melt 50% of the ice sheet (don't believe me, do the math). There is no cause for concern because (as a matter of fact) there were small gains in total ice mass the past 2 years. The sea levels have increased a startling 2-3 mm since 1980 due to Greenland ice melt. Here is graph of the temp anomalies at Nuuk since 1860

1578501146638.png
 
I know that many on here believe that if we don't believe in man made global warming we are conspiracy nut jobs. But, there is much evidence and monetary motive for data to have been changed to promote this very profitable agenda. A very small piece of the evidence of tampering with arctic temperatures can be found here.

I know you, who are ones, who believe the global climate change story, because that's all you've been taught in school, might not want to risk denying their teachers and professors or even your own heart felt beliefs. All I ask is at least look at this one short clip with an open mind to the possibility that there is an agenda, that is a big , big business, that needs to perpetuate this story to keep getting funding. Consider the scrutiny you use to buy a used car......won't you be at least be as critical with this agenda?
 
MichaelJ said:
I seem to remember you saying Greenland was melting and the subsequent runoff would flood all the coastal cities. Have you looked at the Graph for 2020 in Greenland lately? No sign of a huge melt going on and oh BTW if we lost a net loss of 350 billion tons of ice yearly (which is slightly above the average from 2002- 2017), it would take approx 6000 years to melt 50% of the ice sheet (don't believe me, do the math). There is no cause for concern because (as a matter of fact) there were small gains in total ice mass the past 2 years. The sea levels have increased a startling 2-3 mm since 1980 due to Greenland ice melt. Here is graph of the temp anomalies at Nuuk since 1860

View attachment 29961
Click to expand...

I’m at 400 ft above sea level. I could care less. Will be fun watching others go under though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
I’m at 400 ft above sea level. I could care less. Will be fun watching others go under though.


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

a423de99e7a5e4bf8e93b2cdf46a1ba0.jpg




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
I’m at 400 ft above sea level. I could care less. Will be fun watching others go under though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Well I am at 1000 feet but, unlike you, I would not have fun watching others misfortune whatever it is that happens to them. If you think science is a static process, or that a consensus means it is "settled", or that science has all the answers to things, I truly feel sorry for you. There is something MUCH bigger than science that controls things in this universe but I can see you don't believe that.
 
Last edited:
WEATHERBOYROY said:
I know that many on here believe that if we don't believe in man made global warming we are conspiracy nut jobs. But, there is much evidence and monetary motive for data to have been changed to promote this very profitable agenda. A very small piece of the evidence of tampering with arctic temperatures can be found here.

I know you, who are ones, who believe the global climate change story, because that's all you've been taught in school, might not want to risk denying their teachers and professors or even your own heart felt beliefs. All I ask is at least look at this one short clip with an open mind to the possibility that there is an agenda, that is a big , big business, that needs to perpetuate this story to keep getting funding. Consider the scrutiny you use to buy a used car......won't you be at least be as critical with this agenda?
Click to expand...


Well, your posts sure are reading like a conspiracy nut job as you put it. The science is quite clear on global warming no matter how much you keep trying to deny it's happening.
 
Steven_1974 said:
Well, your posts sure are reading like a conspiracy nut job as you put it. The science is quite clear on global warming no matter how much you keep trying to deny it's happening.
Click to expand...

And it’s still BAU. Looks like the worst case scenario is playing out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
And it’s still BAU. Looks like the worst case scenario is playing out.


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


Believe what you want, but I'm gonna lay some facts down on you that prove what you are believing isn't entirely true. If the world were truly getting warmer, then the data would prove it out? I decided to look at a Us city, that I knew would have some older data to look at the record highs and lows for January to see how the recent temperatures compared to the older ones. knowing that a record would usually indicate there were probably a period of several days above or below near that date. So I chose Cincinnati Ohio whose records go back to 1872. That gives us 148 years of info. A pretty good sample. The middle of the record dates would be approximately 1950. So, looking at the record highs and lows, I separated the records that came before 1950 and called them early period records, and the ones that were post 1950 I called them modern period records. As it turns out, January s in the modern period turned out to be colder. 21 of the 31 days of record cold were after 1960 (68 percent) . Also, January s in the early period turned out to be hotter. 19 of the of the 31,(61 percent) record hot days were recorded in the early period (pre 1950). Attached you will find the data from Weather .gov.
https://www.weather.gov/iln/climate_records_cvg#
 
Steven_1974 said:
Well, your posts sure are reading like a conspiracy nut job as you put it. The science is quite clear on global warming no matter how much you keep trying to deny it's happening.
Click to expand...



you apparently just drink the cool aid ....at least open your eyes and see that what you call science is anything BUT proven .... in fact the signs at the Glacier national park warning that the glaciers would be melted by 2020 were just taken down......BECAUSE like every one of you guys
un-scientific predictions IT DIDN'T HAPPEN,,,,AGAIN! ;) If this is science, Einstein was a monkey.
 
ryan1234 said:
I have to wonder- (and I am not preaching climate change) but the loss of sea ice must have some impact on our weather. It begs the question of models and forecasts being able to decipher the difference between pattern recognition and determining LR forecast. I don't think models have good insight, yet. Hence, why we going back and forth every day. At some point somethings, gotta give, hopefully for the best. It's going to snow, it's just a matter of how much and when.
Click to expand...

Loss of sea ice? Its as highest as its been in decades right now
 
WxBlue said:
You're trolling... right?
Click to expand...
December 2019 sea ice grew by an average of 82,100 square kilometers (31,700 square miles) per day. This is faster than the 1981 to 2010 average gain of 64,100 square kilometers (24,700 square miles per day) and is the third fastest December ice growth rate in the satellite record, behind 2006 and 2016.Jan 7, 2020
 
NCSNOW said:
December 2019 sea ice grew by an average of 82,100 square kilometers (31,700 square miles) per day. This is faster than the 1981 to 2010 average gain of 64,100 square kilometers (24,700 square miles per day) and is the third fastest December ice growth rate in the satellite record, behind 2006 and 2016.Jan 7, 2020
Click to expand...
If I understand it right the growth, recovery rate in Dec was fast but overall coverage for the last 13 years have been at a record low. I could have misunderstood it.
 
frazdaddy said:
If I understand it right the growth, recovery rate in Dec was fast but overall coverage for the last 13 years have been at a record low. I could have misunderstood it.
Click to expand...

Also the reason the growth rates are so high is there was so much open water to refreeze.....so in order to see so much new ice growth so fast you first had to melt all the previous ice....so in winters in the past when the ice pack was larger and had older ice the refreeze rate was lower because it was already frozen in many places....so actually you will see the biggest refreeze numbers after particularly bad melt years....for instance Nov 2016 had the lowest extent in the sat era so not surprisingly that Dec had some of the biggest refreeze numbers....

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/12/arctic-and-antarctic-at-record-low-levels/
 
Downeastnc said:
Also the reason the growth rates are so high is there was so much open water to refreeze.....so in order to see so much new ice growth so fast you first had to melt all the previous ice....so in winters in the past when the ice pack was larger and had older ice the refreeze rate was lower because it was already frozen in many places....so actually you will see the biggest refreeze numbers after particularly bad melt years....for instance Nov 2016 had the lowest extent in the sat era so not surprisingly that Dec had some of the biggest refreeze numbers....

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/12/arctic-and-antarctic-at-record-low-levels/
Click to expand...
Spot on, another factor on the fast refreeze is that because of the warm pool of water and it starting the refreeze process later in the year. The refreeze did not get started till the area was in total darkness so no daily solar influence.
 
When the AMO goes negative, you will see a rise in area and extent. How much depends on several factors and this should occur in the next 3-7 years. The temp is not what melts the ice as it is still very cold even with a 1-2C rise, it is the warm ocean waters found in a positive AMO along with undersea volcanoes which thins the ice from below
 
MichaelJ said:
When the AMO goes negative, you will see a rise in area and extent. How much depends on several factors and this should occur in the next 3-7 years. The temp is not what melts the ice as it is still very cold even with a 1-2C rise, it is the warm ocean waters found in a positive AMO along with undersea volcanoes which thins the ice from below
Click to expand...

This current warm phase of the AMO has gotten higher that the last 2 and will only delay the inevitable during the cold phase. The bottom line is we don’t know the exact outcome for the sea ice in the future an are being irresponsible with the climate and not taking care of the planet. It’s like smoking where you know it’s bad but you don’t know if you will have complications or not but the sooner you quit the less risk you have for any negative effects.

41b799e803fa623f5493398f67f9b4fd.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
weatherfide said:
There is no effing way to know what the average temp was 8000 years ago. That’s a pointless graph. It’s only function is to promote an agenda.
Click to expand...

That’s always been one of my biggest doubts. We cant even get weather stations today to read accurately because of urbanization around them. How can we expect a graph using tree cores or ice or whatever the core of the day is to exactly tell the global picture of temps for a few millennia? Lol. And what if spikes like this happen all the time but you just can’t see them via current methods?

I’m not all out against the concept of warming but I am a skeptic. ESEPCIALLY when the driving voice for any topic is a specific political party or politics in general. That’s when the red flags go way up because we all know politics is not known for its honesty lol.
 
WEATHERBOYROY said:
Believe what you want, but I'm gonna lay some facts down on you that prove what you are believing isn't entirely true. If the world were truly getting warmer, then the data would prove it out? I decided to look at a Us city, that I knew would have some older data to look at the record highs and lows for January to see how the recent temperatures compared to the older ones. knowing that a record would usually indicate there were probably a period of several days above or below near that date. So I chose Cincinnati Ohio whose records go back to 1872. That gives us 148 years of info. A pretty good sample. The middle of the record dates would be approximately 1950. So, looking at the record highs and lows, I separated the records that came before 1950 and called them early period records, and the ones that were post 1950 I called them modern period records. As it turns out, January s in the modern period turned out to be colder. 21 of the 31 days of record cold were after 1960 (68 percent) . Also, January s in the early period turned out to be hotter. 19 of the of the 31,(61 percent) record hot days were recorded in the early period (pre 1950). Attached you will find the data from Weather .gov.
https://www.weather.gov/iln/climate_records_cvg#
Click to expand...


I understand why you chose 1950 as your benchmark being the center of what recorded data we have, I just don't know if it makes sense to use that year. I don't know the exact numbers, but Asia, the highest populated continent on the planet, has modernized and increased their carbon footprint who knows how many times since 1950. 1990 is probably a better benchmark for your calculations.
 
Last edited:
Fountainguy97 said:
That’s always been one of my biggest doubts. We cant even get weather stations today to read accurately because of urbanization around them. How can we expect a graph using tree cores or ice or whatever the core of the day is to exactly tell the global picture of temps for a few millennia? Lol. And what if spikes like this happen all the time but you just can’t see them via current methods?

I’m not all out against the concept of warming but I am a skeptic. ESEPCIALLY when the driving voice for any topic is a specific political party or politics in general. That’s when the red flags go way up because we all know politics is not known for its honesty lol.
Click to expand...

I am less of a skeptic now than I was, I just don't see how we are not making a impact, certainly I don't think anyone can realistically quantify that impact in real numbers but its not 0....the earth has a natural variation cycle for CO2, man harvesting and releasing 40 gigatons of sequestered CO2 a year is not part of that cycle, its like having a room with a air purifier in it that is capable of handling a few smokers and then having 20 people come in the room smoking, the purifier will take care of some of the excess but the room still ends up smokier than it was when there was only a few smokers....it is a shame that both sides have turned this into a political issue, this causes people on both sides to take ridiculous stances on a issue that should be strictly based on science.
 
J.C. said:
I understand why you chose 1950 as your benchmark being the center of what recorded data we have, I just don't know if it makes sense to use that year. I don't know the exact numbers, but Asia, the highest populated continent on the planet, has modernized and increased their carbon footprint who knows how many times since 1950. 1990 is probably a better benchmark for your calculations.
Click to expand...


Thanks brother, I see where you're coming from, but manufacturing sector really boomed after WWII , and was totally EPA free until 1970. In fact until 1980 the pollution from the factories in Birmingham restricted visibility so much so that Monday through Friday you rarely could see the top of Red mountain from the north side of the city limits. If you shopped downtown it was common place to get smut on your hands if you rubbed them along an exposed handrail. so, I feel like 1950 is probably a better place for the midpoint.
 
The CFSV2 has an ice bias that is almost always higher values than the actual turns out to be so it will be interesting this melt season to see if it's current forecast of way below 2012 turns out accurate. AFAIK, there has not been a major upgrade to the Climate model (CFSV2) last year so perhaps it will be right this time now that is is showing a major ice reduction over even 2012?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top