• 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.
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