• 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.
weatherfide said:
SMB_combine_SM_day_EN_20220829.png


Huge increase in snow/ice in Greenland, during the summer, records have been broken going back to the start of record keeping in the 1980's. That's huge even for winter months! I don't think the ice sheet is going to melt anytime soon. Does that mean sea level is going to start falling?
Click to expand...
www.npr.org

Zombie ice will raise sea levels more than twice as much as previously forecast

Zombie ice, or doomed ice that is no longer getting replenished by parent glaciers will raise global sea level by at least 10.6 inches, according to a new study.
www.npr.org www.npr.org
 
weatherfide said:
SMB_combine_SM_day_EN_20220829.png


Huge increase in snow/ice in Greenland, during the summer, records have been broken going back to the start of record keeping in the 1980's. That's huge even for winter months! I don't think the ice sheet is going to melt anytime soon. Does that mean sea level is going to start falling?
Click to expand...
Oh, looks like that global ice age they predicted in the 70's and early 80s is finally starting. Whew, I was getting worried their prediction wasn't going to come true there. Just a few 40 years off. Delayed but not denied!
 
Nakamura has defected from the AGW crowd:

“The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation,” writes Nakamura.


Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd.


“It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.”

The consensus appears to be a victim of entropy.
 
smast16 said:
"Sir, this is the US government Not Amazon Prime." -KJP (probably)
Click to expand...
I don't care. These threads have made me realize how irrational liberals are and I can no longer believe a damn thing they are selling. Pure crybabies. Its September and our temps have gone from 90's to 70's and 80's. Typical sh.t. No hurricanes yet in spite of calling for record numbers due to their so called climate danger. Full of crap!
 
There was probably these monster canes in the past when the Earth had the same CO2 levels and temp as now but there where no humans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Avalanche said:
Everyone needs to unite together and find a way to fight this
Click to expand...
Wait, did BHS1975 just make the point that global warming occurred many years ago before the burning of fossil fuels? How did it do that? Did BHS have a change of heart on this issue?
 
weatherfide said:
Wait, did BHS1975 just make the point that global warming occurred many years ago before the burning of fossil fuels? How did it do that? Did BHS have a change of heart on this issue?
Click to expand...

Nope. Has been obvious for decades now but the big oil companies squashed it to keep making money. It's too late now to avoid major impacts. All we can do now is slow the rate of warming. And the Earth was much warmer in the distant past because of higher CO2 before humans which didn't evolve then and wouldn't be able to survive in the lower latitudes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
BHS1975 said:
Nope. Has been obvious for decades now but the big oil companies squashed it to keep making money. It's too late now to avoid major impacts. All we can do now is slow the rate of warming. And the Earth was much warmer in the distant past because of higher CO2 before humans which didn't evolve then and wouldn't be able to survive in the lower latitudes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
We must all do what we can, when we can.
 
Just wanted to pass on some information from the news I'm hearing.

- Turns out Ian would not have happened if we went green like when we should have years ago.

- Turns out, that the more that people build along coasts and continue to repopulate, it is not the reason why more people feel effects and damage occurs.

- Turns out that our observational planes and satellites were able to measure these storms in the 1800's as well as they can now!
 
severestorm said:
Forget gas, sign up for a monthly battery subscription.

VinFast Electric Cars - The Next Generation of Innovative eSUV Design - VinFast

VinFast is a leading Vietnamese electric car manufacturer that promises to bring affordable & luxury electric cars with powerful engines, unexceptional designs and high technologies to support your sustainability journey.
vinfastauto.us vinfastauto.us
Click to expand...
Im just curious if we all drive enough ev cars, will we get to see snow again. I'm no Godfather, but I can get some people to drive them if it makes up the difference.
 
I have never contributed to this thread. Simply put, I try to avoid the arguments. Is the globe warming ... yes. Have we as humans caused problems for the environment? Again, yes. Should we do what we can to try to take care of the planet? Yes. Are humans the cause of this global warming? In my opinion ... debatable. And I am not trying to debate anyone on it ... there are folks on both sides of the issue smarter than me. However, this article was on the front page of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution website today:

www.ajc.com

Winter weather in Georgia forecast to be warmer and drier than normal

A warmer and drier than normal winter is likely in store for most of Georgia, a new federal forecast released Thursday shows.
www.ajc.com www.ajc.com

Basically, this article refers to the recent NOAA projections for winter ... stuff we post here all the time.

This is the 3rd paragraph after a brief introduction:

The expected warmth reflects the influence of human-caused climate change, which is raising the odds for above-normal temperatures around the world, experts say.

Lines like that, stated as fact, irritate me. Is it accurate? Maybe. Is it a proven fact? No.

The AJC has a pay wall ... but that article was made available as a "public service."

I have probably said too much. The article just hit me the wrong way.
 
k0skinne said:
I have never contributed to this thread. Simply put, I try to avoid the arguments. Is the globe warming ... yes. Have we as humans caused problems for the environment? Again, yes. Should we do what we can to try to take care of the planet? Yes. Are humans the cause of this global warming? In my opinion ... debatable. And I am not trying to debate anyone on it ... there are folks on both sides of the issue smarter than me. However, this article was on the front page of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution website today:

www.ajc.com

Winter weather in Georgia forecast to be warmer and drier than normal

A warmer and drier than normal winter is likely in store for most of Georgia, a new federal forecast released Thursday shows.
www.ajc.com www.ajc.com

Basically, this article refers to the recent NOAA projections for winter ... stuff we post here all the time.

This is the 3rd paragraph after a brief introduction:

The expected warmth reflects the influence of human-caused climate change, which is raising the odds for above-normal temperatures around the world, experts say.

Lines like that, stated as fact, irritate me. Is it accurate? Maybe. Is it a proven fact? No.

The AJC has a pay wall ... but that article was made available as a "public service."

I have probably said too much. The article just hit me the wrong way.
Click to expand...
Some things Id like to know are if urban heat island warmth is cumulative, or is there a cap on how much heat it can gather. For instance, I can leave Raleigh with a temp of 70, but it decreases rapidly to 64 just outside the city.

Now, can that heat grow year after year or is there simply a max that it can get and go no further, and where is that max. Also, does it lead to warming outside of the area?

We have created warmer areas, and thus maybe a warmer climate, but is there a point that no matter what we do it just can't get any warmer? I'd like to think we can only do so much at creating warmth where we simply can't make it hotter.

Hopefully we are there now. Sorry I know this isnt relative to your post it just got me thinking.
 
Avalanche said:
Some things Id like to know are if urban heat island warmth is cumulative, or is there a cap on how much heat it can gather. For instance, I can leave Raleigh with a temp of 70, but it decreases rapidly to 64 just outside the city.

Now, can that heat grow year after year or is there simply a max that it can get and go no further, and where is that max. Also, does it lead to warming outside of the area?

We have created warmer areas, and thus maybe a warmer climate, but is there a point that no matter what we do it just can't get any warmer? I'd like to think we can only do so much at creating warmth where we simply can't make it hotter.

Hopefully we are there now. Sorry I know this isnt relative to your post it just got me thinking.
Click to expand...
I imagine if you were to urbanize large swaths of land in the mid-latitudes you would eventually create deserts. Would it not be funny if the scientists were completely wrong and the "fix" to global warming is to remove all of the concrete, asphalt and brick from the surface of our planet? I guess you could paint it all white. In general, though, that heat that is retained in the cities will radiate out at night. It gets removed rather quickly under a strong northwest flow cold front or easterly wedge, for instance, in Atlanta. The heat island works best under clear skies and calm winds.
 
Revealing? All political. Hardly addresses the real science except doing the same political propaganda as the “leftists”.
 
Addressing the real science is hardly necessary to point out the political garbage that is called science today. He does address scientific procedures and protocol being absent. he does address the ever changing world disaster targets and never ending money grabbing which is just politics for money, not science. The truth, I guess can be seen as propaganda?
 
Stormdoc said:
Revealing? All political. Hardly addresses the real science except doing the same political propaganda as the “leftists”.
Click to expand...
The article is not all political. The writer suggests the "science" is very often wrong about the future, even about the near future. It is terrible at predicting outcomes. When you link up climate to "give us all of your freedoms and property so we can save you", you have invited "politics" to the party and it would be improper to shout him out of the room - "This "politics" needs to go somewhere else, he doesn't belong here" - but you invited him?
 
The real problem is we have left the way of science by definition.....Webster's dictionary- knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. The scientific method for the global ice age/ global warming /now global climate change has proven over and over again that these "possible doomsday forecast" are never close to accurate . This should tell any reasonable, logical, sane individual, that either the data they collect is erroneous or incomplete , or the algorithms used to make their computations faulty or even impossible to design. Also, given the short length of time widespread records have been made, makes for too short of a period to expect any kind of accurate assessment. The difference in localized environments make in recording and the changing of these environments over time can cause there to be several degrees difference in proximate readings. there is simply no way to perform any kind of evaluation of how climate will change over the next 50years, 40years, 20years......heck, this multimillion dollar Gfs model can't make it's mind up on 5 days. look at the tropical forecast, the fall and winter forecast, they are in continual flux. They expect people to sacrifice their livelihood, their lifestyle, all their logic for their so called science? If you don't see they are selling you a bill of goods, shame on you! Don't blame it on science, cause it's not based on science!
 
MichaelJ said:
Has any prediction that AGW catastrophic warming adherents made come true? Inquiring minds want to know! Also is a "tipping point" similar to "cow tipping"?
Click to expand...
Umm massive droughts in Central America, tremendous increase in wildfires out west? Hurricane strength increasing? Huge spike in heat waves in Europe? Can it all be tied to AGW? No, but to say there is nothing that has been predicted that has started to come true is false.
 
WEATHERBOYROY said:
The real problem is we have left the way of science by definition.....Webster's dictionary- knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. The scientific method for the global ice age/ global warming /now global climate change has proven over and over again that these "possible doomsday forecast" are never close to accurate . This should tell any reasonable, logical, sane individual, that either the data they collect is erroneous or incomplete , or the algorithms used to make their computations faulty or even impossible to design. Also, given the short length of time widespread records have been made, makes for too short of a period to expect any kind of accurate assessment. The difference in localized environments make in recording and the changing of these environments over time can cause there to be several degrees difference in proximate readings. there is simply no way to perform any kind of evaluation of how climate will change over the next 50years, 40years, 20years......heck, this multimillion dollar Gfs model can't make it's mind up on 5 days. look at the tropical forecast, the fall and winter forecast, they are in continual flux. They expect people to sacrifice their livelihood, their lifestyle, all their logic for their so called science? If you don't see they are selling you a bill of goods, shame on you! Don't blame it on science, cause it's not based on science!
Click to expand...
No climate change scientist worth his salt would say future predictions can be accurately measured, that is what makes these projections very difficult. But to say you cannot predict what is a possible or likely outcome based on current knowledge is also not accurate. There is a difference between the science and what alarmists are proposing, but to also simply dismiss it is potentially very dangerous and is not good common sense.
 
Stormdoc said:
Umm massive droughts in Central America, tremendous increase in wildfires out west? Hurricane strength increasing? Huge spike in heat waves in Europe? Can it all be tied to AGW? No, but to say there is nothing that has been predicted that has started to come true is false.
Click to expand...
I always find the wildfire stat interesting. If 85% of forest fires are stated by humans is that really useful? Its a shame I have to use qualifiers here but I'm not arguing for or against just saying
 
Stormdoc said:
Umm massive droughts in Central America, tremendous increase in wildfires out west? Hurricane strength increasing? Huge spike in heat waves in Europe? Can it all be tied to AGW? No, but to say there is nothing that has been predicted that has started to come true is false.
Click to expand...
You do know these things are cyclical and has happened in the past many times before CO2 started increasing right?
 
SD said:
I always find the wildfire stat interesting. If 85% of forest fires are stated by humans is that really useful? Its a shame I have to use qualifiers here but I'm not arguing for or against just saying
Click to expand...
I was amazed this summer at the amount of debris in the forest out west. We fight the fires and let that build up and are surprised when the fires are bad. Bad policy and letting people build in fire zones lead to this crap. We also settled the west during a historical wet period.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top