• 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.
GaWx said:
Why have Arctic met. autumns & winters been so consistently warmer than normal since 2005 but Arctic mid to late met. springs and summers haven't warmed at all? Why hasn't it been even a little warmer than normal in the Arctic May-August since 2005? Shouldn't warmth carry over to some extent? It hasn't been doing that at all!

Does or doesn't this pattern of anomalies by month give us any hint as to the % of GW caused by AGW vs natural causes? JB thinks the summers not being warmer than normal means natural reasons rather than AGW have been the main GW driver but JB is so biased anti-AGW that I don't trust him. Is there any chance he's right? I honestly don't follow his connecting Arctic summers not being warm to AGW not being the main driver but I suppose that could be due to my lack of knowledge vs his. But again, his strong bias makes me quite skeptical.


Here is the link to very easy to see year by year Arctic temperature anomalies since 1958:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

**Edited: added JB related comments.

*Additional edit: By the way, JB has been harping on CO2 rising due to warmer oceans rather than higher CO2 leading to GW. Is there any chance he's right rather than it just being his anti-AGW bias talking?
Click to expand...
Here's the way I see it ..... Climate change is happening. There is nobody in their right mind going to deny that. The question then becomes, how much has been caused by man vs. natural climate variations. There has been so much political involvement into the science, that the data can't be trusted. I have given up on the truth coming out anytime soon.
With higher CO2 levels, it's like solving the "chicken and egg" problem. As for me,I will just sit back, read, and listen to what everyone has to say while we await the effects of the solar minimum. I am curious to know if it will have any effect on the problem we face.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the trend in Summer sea ice is pretty blatantly on the side of disappearing?

'Since 2005...' seems like a small sample size for comparing summer mean temps for such a large area. Not trying to argue, it's an intriguing point..
 
whamby said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the trend in Summer sea ice is pretty blatantly on the side of disappearing?

'Since 2005...' seems like a small sample size for comparing summer mean temps for such a large area. Not trying to argue, it's an intriguing point..
Click to expand...

Yeap. I read an article in this months Scientific American that said it’s looking like it will be gone by 2040. I think it’s already playing havoc with all this blocking going on lately.
 
whamby said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the trend in Summer sea ice is pretty blatantly on the side of disappearing?

'Since 2005...' seems like a small sample size for comparing summer mean temps for such a large area. Not trying to argue, it's an intriguing point..
Click to expand...

I don't think it (12 years), especially because we're considering a large area, is a small sample in this case. Have you clicked on each year since 2005? If you haven't, look at how warm have been the left side and right side of the graphs year in and year out. Then look at how each and every summer returns to near the normal line and hangs around there til until around Sep 1. This pattern looks statistically quite significant to me. I don't see how it could be random.
 
Here's something quite interesting for KATL:
- Only ONE summer hitting 100+ 1888-1924 (3% of the summers)
- 12 summers hitting 100+ 1925-1954 (40%)
- NO summers hitting 100+ 1955-1979 (0%)
- 9 summers hitting 100+ 1980-2015 (25%)

Note the distinct multi-decadal shifts that appear to correlate well with global temperatures! It may or may not be a coincidence, but the sun was fairly quiet overall very late 1800s to very early 1900s. Also, ATL got much more wintry precip. then than in any other period and was colder in Feb. Global temp.'s dipped some then. Then there was distinct global warming 1920's-1950s as well as a big drop in Atlanta snowfall. The 1960s to 1970s also saw a global temp drop. followed by a global temp rise 1980s-2015. Coincidences?

Edit: I'm noting what appears to be a connection to multi-decadal PDO cycles but is that just coincidence? If not, there may be a correlation of ATL 100+ summers with +PDO cycles interestingly enough.

Regardless of the cause, it is fascinating that ATL can go only one summer with 100+ for 37 years followed by nearly every other summer with 100+ for 30 years followed by none the next 25. This almost has to have been caused by multi-decadal cycles.
 
Last edited:
GaWx said:
Here's something quite interesting for KATL:
- Only ONE summer hitting 100+ 1888-1924 (3% of the summers)
- 12 summers hitting 100+ 1925-1954 (40%)
- NO summers hitting 100+ 1955-1979 (0%)
- 9 summers hitting 100+ 1980-2015 (25%)

Note the distinct multi-decadal shifts that appear to correlate well with global temperatures! It may or may not be a coincidence, but the sun was fairly quiet overall very late 1800s to very early 1900s. Also, ATL got much more wintry precip. then than in any other period and was colder in Feb. Global temp.'s dipped some then. Then there was distinct global warming 1920's-1950s as well as a big drop in Atlanta snowfall. The 1960s to 1970s also saw a global temp drop. followed by a global temp rise 1980s-2015. Coincidences?

Edit: I'm noting what appears to be a connection to multi-decadal PDO cycles but is that just coincidence? If not, there may be a correlation of ATL 100+ summers with +PDO cycles interestingly enough.

Regardless of the cause, it is fascinating that ATL can go only one summer with 100+ for 37 years followed by nearly every other summer with 100+ for 30 years followed by none the next 25. This almost has to have been caused by multi-decadal cycles.
Click to expand...
Larry,
We can have agendas (or not, in my case) about cause and effect, but recurring cycles are a truly great indicator,
Thanks for the data!
Best!
Curmudgeon Phil

PS - I bought four $2.00 lottery tix on a whim and won $27.00 (something on each); so I took $8.00 and bought 4 more ... nothing ... everything works in a cycle, IMHO ... :confused:
 
Last edited:
BHS1975 said:
Yeap. I read an article in this months Scientific American that said it’s looking like it will be gone by 2040. I think it’s already playing havoc with all this blocking going on lately.
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough predictions like this were made 10-20 years ago about present day and it hasn’t happened. Also the ice around Greenland and the Arctic is pretty high compared with previous years. Check these out.

Greenland ice anomaly, second image shows it is way above recent years and near the top end of the mean from 1981-2010.
upload_2018-6-22_23-19-25.png

Now check out the arctic sea ice volume. Again it is higher than most recent years except 2014 which it is almost identical to right now.
upload_2018-6-22_23-21-1.png
 
It’s pretty clear to me something globally is going on as ice levels in the Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland have seen nice gains this year. In fact the Antarctic is right at the 1981-2010 average, Greenland is near record levels for the 1981-2010 years and the Arctic is just a smidge behind 2014 and well ahead of other years. I thought all the ice and snow would be gone by now, you know, that’s what the “experts” and climate models said would happen :weenie:
83A11A82-4AEE-421B-AC04-5FF8FEE69AF8.jpeg 2413F9E6-2B0E-4F6F-8110-0C08EB6132BE.jpeg F5F1CA76-576E-46DD-87F6-6CB3412D28F0.png
 
snowlover91 said:
It’s pretty clear to me something globally is going on as ice levels in the Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland have seen nice gains this year. In fact the Antarctic is right at the 1981-2010 average, Greenland is near record levels for the 1981-2010 years and the Arctic is just a smidge behind 2014 and well ahead of other years. I thought all the ice and snow would be gone by now, you know, that’s what the “experts” and climate models said would happen

It's where I haven't mowed in 3 weeks due to the ongoing drought in my backyard. Lawnmower emissions way down lol.
Click to expand...
 
snowlover91 said:
It’s pretty clear to me something globally is going on as ice levels in the Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland have seen nice gains this year. In fact the Antarctic is right at the 1981-2010 average, Greenland is near record levels for the 1981-2010 years and the Arctic is just a smidge behind 2014 and well ahead of other years. I thought all the ice and snow would be gone by now, you know, that’s what the “experts” and climate models said would happen :weenie:
View attachment 5443 View attachment 5444 View attachment 5445
Click to expand...

Cherry pick much? The long term trend which is what matters is still dropping like a rock.

9e68475811576620186d25472e5003ab.png





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
Cherry pick much? The long term trend which is what matters is still dropping like a rock.

9e68475811576620186d25472e5003ab.png





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

You missed my point entirely. There are signs that the melting and loss of ice each year is reversing. Look at your chart for example, from 2009-10 to present there has been little loss if not a small gain in Arctic ice coverage. Greenland is seeing an usually high SMB gain this year and the Antarctic ice is very close to the 1981-2010 average.

It’s clear that the Antarctic ice is normal right now. Greenland has seen far less melting and more SMB gain than usual and the Arctic is showing signs of reversing the downtrend or stabilizing. Ocean currents and solar influences are the main drivers at play IMO. Our climate works in cycles of decades, centuries and even larger scale cooling/warming periods over thousands of years.
 
snowlover91 said:
You missed my point entirely. There are signs that the melting and loss of ice each year is reversing. Look at your chart for example, from 2009-10 to present there has been little loss if not a small gain in Arctic ice coverage. Greenland is seeing an usually high SMB gain this year and the Antarctic ice is very close to the 1981-2010 average.

It’s clear that the Antarctic ice is normal right now. Greenland has seen far less melting and more SMB gain than usual and the Arctic is showing signs of reversing the downtrend or stabilizing. Ocean currents and solar influences are the main drivers at play IMO. Our climate works in cycles of decades, centuries and even larger scale cooling/warming periods over thousands of years.
Click to expand...
Agree, we have seen some very encouraging signs this year. Question is ..... can we continue this trend or is it just a blip on the radar?
 
snowlover91 said:
It’s pretty clear to me something globally is going on as ice levels in the Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland have seen nice gains this year. In fact the Antarctic is right at the 1981-2010 average, Greenland is near record levels for the 1981-2010 years and the Arctic is just a smidge behind 2014 and well ahead of other years. I thought all the ice and snow would be gone by now, you know, that’s what the “experts” and climate models said would happen :weenie:
View attachment 5443 View attachment 5444 View attachment 5445
Click to expand...

The uptick in Greenland snow/ice is attributable to the strong vortex that's persisted over the Arctic and this area for the last several months, the strong winter +NAO is a hallmark of a warm climate because the expanded HCs push the storm track and wave activity fluxes further north & also favor the E Hem monsoon which thwarts El Nino events (NINA forcing favors +NAOs) (see medieval warming period). The stormier/cloudier conditions underneath this +NAO have allowed for less shortwave radiation to reach the surface. The long-term trend however is still clearly downward and doesn't show any signs of a significant reversal or appreciable deceleration over the arctic as a whole in spite of the best wishes of many who have been expecting a sudden reversal for the last decade or so (see JB's predictions when he was at accuweather nearly a decade ago, many skeptics shared his line of rationale (including myself at one point)) which has not come to pass.
 
Last edited:
Webberweather53 said:
The uptick in Greenland snow/ice is attributable to the strong vortex that's persisted over the Arctic and this area for the last several months, the strong winter +NAO is a hallmark of a warm climate because the expanded HCs push the storm track and wave activity fluxes further north & also favor the E Hem monsoon which thwarts El Nino events (NINA forcing favors +NAOs) (see medieval warming period). The stormier/cloudier conditions underneath this +NAO have allowed for less shortwave radiation to reach the surface. The long-term trend however is still clearly downward and doesn't show any signs of a significant reversal or appreciable deceleration over the arctic as a whole in spite of the best wishes of many who have been expecting a sudden reversal for the last decade or so (see JB's predictions when he was at accuweather nearly a decade ago, many skeptics shared his line of rationale) which has not come to pass.
Click to expand...

Yeap we are actually terraforming our own planet to make it less habitable and folks are just in denial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
Yeap we are actually terraforming our own planet to make it less habitable and folks are just in denial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Give it a break dude. You are starting to sound like Al Gore. Some of us are glad to see any signs of retaining the sea ice. Webb, would you explain your thoughts behind the Antarctic uptick.
 
Cad Wedge NC said:
Give it a break dude. You are starting to sound like Al Gore. Some of us are glad to see any signs of retaining the sea ice. Webb, would you explain your thoughts behind the Antarctic uptick.
Click to expand...
Webb already did in the post above. And I agree, the world isn't ending in 50 years because of what has been ongoing. Yes, the sea is very slowly rising, yes, there has been a general warming, but it's not like there will be 0 ice on out planet anytime soon. Each year the ice isn't dropping lower than the previous several adds more time to the arctic I'm sure too. Only time will tell if we have slowed down or not.
 
Webberweather53 said:
The uptick in Greenland snow/ice is attributable to the strong vortex that's persisted over the Arctic and this area for the last several months, the strong winter +NAO is a hallmark of a warm climate because the expanded HCs push the storm track and wave activity fluxes further north & also favor the E Hem monsoon which thwarts El Nino events (NINA forcing favors +NAOs) (see medieval warming period). The stormier/cloudier conditions underneath this +NAO have allowed for less shortwave radiation to reach the surface. The long-term trend however is still clearly downward and doesn't show any signs of a significant reversal or appreciable deceleration over the arctic as a whole in spite of the best wishes of many who have been expecting a sudden reversal for the last decade or so (see JB's predictions when he was at accuweather nearly a decade ago, many skeptics shared his line of rationale (including myself at one point)) which has not come to pass.
Click to expand...

It’s not just Greenland though, the Arctic is neck and neck with 2014 and the Antarctic is close to normal. The past 10 years have seen a stabilization if not slight gain in the Arctic ice levels. Prior to that, yes the trend was down but there are signs that indicate things are stabilizing for now. It could be temporary or we could be seeing a shift in how the various factors set up, only time will tell.

There are other unusual things going on as well. The MDR cooling this year has been one of the strangest I’ve ever seen since following the weather. There are new areas of research that open up a better understanding of the complex factors that affect our climate not to mention the short timescale of reliable global satellite data and temperatures we have to go off of. Solar influences, ocean currents, the effects of increasing freshwater as ice melts, atmospheric forces in play, etc are just a few complexities that work to warm or cool our climate. I don’t think any Arctic reversals will be sudden but gradual instead. IF the current global ice recovery continues for several years then there will need to be research into the factors contributing to such a shift.
 
any link to a scientific study supporting this? Not trying to be an ass, but willing to learn... "The past 10 years have seen a stabilization if not slight gain in the Arctic ice levels."
 
All I see is a bunch of wishful thinking and grasping at straws. It’s human nature to look for a silver lining. There would have to be rapid and massive changes in our civilization for us to fix this mess. Just grab the popcorn and watch the carnage unfold. See what happens to the economic system as trillions of dollars of coastal property becomes worthless from sea level rise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
All I see is a bunch of wishful thinking and grasping at straws. It’s human nature to look for a silver lining. There would have to be rapid and massive changes in our civilization for us to fix this mess. Just grab the popcorn and watch the carnage unfold. See what happens to the economic system as trillions of dollars of coastal property becomes worthless from sea level rise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
At the rate its rising, it will be the early 2100s before it rises close to a foot at the incredibly slow rate of 0.1" a year. And what's not to say we can't find a solution before then? I'm sure the "carnage" that will occur between now and then along coastlines will be from hurricanes and tsunamis mainly due to their higher frequency. If you want a dramatic change you'll have to make China disappear first or have them wipe their CO2 emissions down even further as they produce the most a year not to mention they pollute their environment horribly.
 
whamby said:
any link to a scientific study supporting this? Not trying to be an ass, but willing to learn... "The past 10 years have seen a stabilization if not slight gain in the Arctic ice levels."
Click to expand...

Look at the chart below, since 2010/11 there has been an overall stabilization in the ice levels. It remains to be seen if this is a short term blip or start of a new trend but it's worth looking at and asking questions to further investigate and promote study.
Arctic Sea Ice.jpg

Look at the Antarctic vs the pace we are at so far in 2018. Not only are we pretty close to the 1979-1990 average but notice how the average from 2001-2010 is actually higher than the 1979-1990 average by a small margin. A NASA article addressed some of the challenges with explaining this and did also conclude that there has been an overall positive increase in the Antarctic ice levels. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Antarctic.JPG
 
BHS1975 said:
All I see is a bunch of wishful thinking and grasping at straws. It’s human nature to look for a silver lining. There would have to be rapid and massive changes in our civilization for us to fix this mess. Just grab the popcorn and watch the carnage unfold. See what happens to the economic system as trillions of dollars of coastal property becomes worthless from sea level rise.


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

No, science seeks to ask better questions and evaluate all possible options that may or may not explain the changes we see going on. Science is always uncovering new data and there are plenty of factors that we likely do not understand at all or have a poor grasp on due to the limited amount of time that we have been able to measure changes with satellites and other modern technologies. There always have been and will be economic disasters like hurricanes, the Dust Bowl, floods, etc it's just a part of life and dealing with what happens in nature.

Another interesting note, if indeed the oceans were to warm up significantly over time this would likely decrease tropical activity (in the Atlantic) since El Nino would be more common and it typically brings high shear values that are detrimental to TC development and growth, no matter how warm the waters are.
 
snowlover91 said:
No, science seeks to ask better questions and evaluate all possible options that may or may not explain the changes we see going on. Science is always uncovering new data and there are plenty of factors that we likely do not understand at all or have a poor grasp on due to the limited amount of time that we have been able to measure changes with satellites and other modern technologies. There always have been and will be economic disasters like hurricanes, the Dust Bowl, floods, etc it's just a part of life and dealing with what happens in nature.

Another interesting note, if indeed the oceans were to warm up significantly over time this would likely decrease tropical activity (in the Atlantic) since El Nino would be more common and it typically brings high shear values that are detrimental to TC development and growth, no matter how warm the waters are.
Click to expand...

It’s pretty stupid to run an experiment on our own planet when we don’t even know the outcome when we have a very good understanding of the climate with a CO2 level around 270 for hundreds of thousands of years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
It’s pretty stupid to run an experiment on our own planet when we don’t even know the outcome when we have a very good understanding of the climate with a CO2 level around 270 for hundreds of thousands of years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean by running an experiment on our planet. Scientists run tons of them all the time and do studies and evaluations to figure out what's going on all the time. The way you're talking sounds like the only experiments that are being considered are massive movie like ones that in reality aren't realistic. We aren't going to just start bombing the atmosphere with things in the name of science. That's fiction. As far as understanding on CO2, we may or may not know as much as we will 30 years in the future. Technology that allows us to observe and study the environment and climate change changes all the time. Saying we are all doomed is like when people believed the Earth was flat and you would sail off the edge.
BHS1975 said:
Very alarming

8c529e12d47e7e77e8d6db22d8d2cf2d.png



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
This goes with what I was saying about China and their pollution. The country relies so much on their industry and doesn't seem to have any commitment to changing their pollution issues.
 
I'm not saying that where all doomed. I'm saying that it's just gonna get very difficult in the years and decades ahead as the effects continue to ramp up stressing governments and economies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
It’s pretty stupid to run an experiment on our own planet when we don’t even know the outcome when we have a very good understanding of the climate with a CO2 level around 270 for hundreds of thousands of years.


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

Why do you suppose the Antarctic ice has been gaining mass and long term averages creeping up at the same time the Arctic has been averaging down? If man-made global warming was truly the cause, wouldn’t you expect both the Arctic and Antarctic to decline at the same time rather than with the current inverse relationship?

I think the rhetoric is way overdone. Natural disasters have and always will happen. The dust bowl for example happened well before any global warming. Floods have ravaged our country and places all over the world throughout history. Hurricanes were destructive 100 years ago just like they are today. Much climate change rhetoric is exaggerated and meant to target human emotions like fear and promote a sense of panic.

The article you shared a few days ago indicated temperatures in the mid-Pliocene periods were as much as 19C higher than today and CO2 levels were similar yet somehow humans and animals managed to survive all that and ice levels recovered. Something else to think about, extreme cold can be just as if not more damaging to world economies than warmth. A colder climate shortens growing seasons, can kill crops in areas that normally stay warmer, etc. The Little Ice Age was particularly destructive due to the impact it had on economies and food at the time, wiping out crops and causing great suffering and hardship. People starved, shipping lanes were closed, glaciers destroyed farms and towns, and many other destructive outcomes were seen due to the level of cold experienced in several regions.

I say all this to say our atmosphere is not static; it operates on cycles lasting decades, centuries and even thousands of years warming and cooling. More than CO2 emissions, I believe a greater danger is the deforestation that goes on worldwide. Reduce the rainforests and amount of trees/plant life and there is much less to absorb the carbon dioxide.
 
snowlover91 said:
Look at the chart below, since 2010/11 there has been an overall stabilization in the ice levels. It remains to be seen if this is a short term blip or start of a new trend but it's worth looking at and asking questions to further investigate and promote study.
View attachment 5498

Look at the Antarctic vs the pace we are at so far in 2018. Not only are we pretty close to the 1979-1990 average but notice how the average from 2001-2010 is actually higher than the 1979-1990 average by a small margin. A NASA article addressed some of the challenges with explaining this and did also conclude that there has been an overall positive increase in the Antarctic ice levels. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

View attachment 5499
Click to expand...

Yawn, the long term trend is still downward and significantly at that, just like how many were fooled into thinking the global warming pause after 1997-98 was somehow legitimate, the climate system established yet a new warmer equilibrium. Very warm arctic winters and mild summers still result in a net decrease in sea ice.
 
snowlover91 said:
Why do you suppose the Antarctic ice has been gaining mass and long term averages creeping up at the same time the Arctic has been averaging down? If man-made global warming was truly the cause, wouldn’t you expect both the Arctic and Antarctic to decline at the same time rather than with the current inverse relationship?

I think the rhetoric is way overdone. Natural disasters have and always will happen. The dust bowl for example happened well before any global warming. Floods have ravaged our country and places all over the world throughout history. Hurricanes were destructive 100 years ago just like they are today. Much climate change rhetoric is exaggerated and meant to target human emotions like fear and promote a sense of panic.

The article you shared a few days ago indicated temperatures in the mid-Pliocene periods were as much as 19C higher than today and CO2 levels were similar yet somehow humans and animals managed to survive all that and ice levels recovered. Something else to think about, extreme cold can be just as if not more damaging to world economies than warmth. A colder climate shortens growing seasons, can kill crops in areas that normally stay warmer, etc. The Little Ice Age was particularly destructive due to the impact it had on economies and food at the time, wiping out crops and causing great suffering and hardship. People starved, shipping lanes were closed, glaciers destroyed farms and towns, and many other destructive outcomes were seen due to the level of cold experienced in several regions.

I say all this to say our atmosphere is not static; it operates on cycles lasting decades, centuries and even thousands of years warming and cooling. More than CO2 emissions, I believe a greater danger is the deforestation that goes on worldwide. Reduce the rainforests and amount of trees/plant life and there is much less to absorb the carbon dioxide.
Click to expand...

It’s actually been well established that the Antarctic increase in sea ice is related to the stronger Antarctic vortex that was in fact spurred mainly by man’s release of CFCs which destroyed copious amounts of ozone, cooling the stratosphere and the circulation anomalies propagated down into the troposphere year after year, Antarctic sea ice really hasn’t changed that much overall and the relatively weaker decrease compared to the arctic is both a function of the vortex’s isolation from extratropical wave breaking and CFCs, it will take several decades or more for this to recover
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top