Avalanche
Member
Yes, you go from -30 to 0 you are still adding ice. What we need to see is if the outer boundaries surrounding warmer temps are adding up. The core will obviously add.
-
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
- Thread starter Stormlover
- Start date
- Status
Why don’t you bring your argument in here and explain it using whatever graphs you like
MichaelJ
Member
Sorry, I am not going to continue to do your work for you
I’ve brought my argument and shown what I think supports my argument and you just say I’m wrong and to go look up why I’m wrong … if you don’t see the issue with that than that’s on you. Have a good one Michael.
Apparently you jumped in the middle without doing your DD, MichaelJ has offered up tons of info to support his POV for some time. It's rather compelling
pcbjr
Member
As Earth Warms, Human History Is Melting Away
For the past few centuries, the Yup’ik peoples of Alaska have told gruesome tales of a massacre that occurred during the Bow and Arrow War Days, a series of long and often brutal battles across the Bering Sea coast and the Yukon. According to one account, the carnage started when one village...
... so maybe it was warm enough to inhabit where we, sitting here today, think it should forever be too cold to? ...
... just thinkin' ...
Last edited:
weatherfide
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2017
- Messages
- 3,083
- Reaction score
- 4,506
This makes me want to see 1951 to 1980 and 1921 to 1950, going back as far as we can. Too short of a time frame and too small of a sample for any meaningful conclusion. Also, how much of this is from urban heat island effect?
weatherfide
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2017
- Messages
- 3,083
- Reaction score
- 4,506
You need more than 2 kids to replace the parents due to accidents, wars and leaky vaccines and stuff...just say'n.
Thank you Webb where were you when I was getting mauled by the crowd a few weeks ago lol
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
There's a good reason I've muted this thread for several years, you'll get nowhere w/ these people.
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
None of his arguments were compelling whatsoever. Try getting it published in a peer reviewed journal (hint: it won't be).
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
If you've ever looked at a global temperature anomaly map, most of the warming is actually occurring in areas that aren't heavily populated (or populated at all) (*cough* the Arctic) and the actual surface area constituted by urban sprawl is small by comparison to the rest of the globe where warming is also being observed via XBTs, buoy measurements of sea surface temperature, dropsondes, radiance measurements of satellites, etc. So this urban heat island effect doesn't actually explain why it's warming more in areas w/ few-no humans.
LickWx
Member
Peer-reviewed journals are filled with flaws. They only like to publish "positive results" , they don't like publishing anything that repeats an older study though that would be absolutely crucial to help prove the study is replicable. A study conducted on published studies found that a large portion, the majority, in fact, were not replicable at all, and this included studies that were considered groundbreaking.
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
Because... it is?! Human induced climate change is unequivocally real, basically every reputable climate scientist agrees that a majority of the warming we're seeing today is our fault and not natural and the evidence truly is overwhelming. Have u ever tried reading an IPCC report? I think it'd be worth your time even to learn about weather and climate. There's a lot of good tidbits in there and references to some amazing pieces of literature
Last edited:
LickWx
Member
There is no such thing as settled science, not even Einstein's theory of relativity is safe or considered " settled". You do understand science is the practice of attempting to disprove something to see whether it holds or not ?
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
Peer review has its flaws and cliques, but to have experts in the field review against other experts in the field is a whole lot better than average joe on the street that never got a degree in climate science or a related field, and think he knows more than everyone else in the room. Most studies on climate I've read are replicable, not everyone can get easy access to running a climate model on their own computer, because it takes insane amounts of computational power.
WXinCanton
Member
I don't think we know nearly as much as we think we do.
www.cnn.com
Francesco Muschitiello, an author on the study and assistant professor of geography at the University of Cambridge, said the findings were worrisome because the early warming suggests there might be a flaw in the models scientists use to predict how the climate will change.
"The Arctic Ocean has been warming up for much longer than we previously thought," Muschitiello told CNN. "And this is something that's a bit unsettling for many reasons, especially because the climate models that we use to cast projections of future climate change do not really simulate these type of changes
The Arctic Ocean began warming decades earlier than previously thought, new research shows
The Arctic Ocean has been warming since around 1900, decades earlier than observations would suggest, according to new research.
Francesco Muschitiello, an author on the study and assistant professor of geography at the University of Cambridge, said the findings were worrisome because the early warming suggests there might be a flaw in the models scientists use to predict how the climate will change.
"The Arctic Ocean has been warming up for much longer than we previously thought," Muschitiello told CNN. "And this is something that's a bit unsettling for many reasons, especially because the climate models that we use to cast projections of future climate change do not really simulate these type of changes
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
It's pretty settled that climate change is real and we are the most to blame for the warming of the last few hundred years, the rate of which is unprecedented in earth's recent history (yes, earth was warmer in the past, but the rate of warming that's occurring today makes the PETM look extremely modest by comparison. It's the rate of warming that's alarming to scientists (like myself), not the actual temps necessarily because it changes literally everything about adaptation). What isn't settled is how much of the warming we've caused, but it's well beyond any reasonable doubt we've caused more than enough of a fraction even in the lowest possible realistic estimate to have a significant-very significant impact on our climate, and it's also pretty settled that we still haven't fully realized the warming we've already baked into the climate as the oceans take time to catch-up to the atmosphere. When you hear "settled science" that's what they're referring to. That doesn't necessarily equate to the entire field of climate science being settled, which many tend to lose in the interpretation. I can certainly understand this as this is the way I used to think about the term "settled science" for the longest time until I really understood what they were referring to. Climate scientists aren't necessarily the best science communicators (unfortunately)
Last edited:
Nah, I understand the science. My issue is with the notion that is frequently put forth that we pretty much know all there is to know on the subject. That's not true. We will continue learning and though that process discover errors in our current thinking and course-correct along the way, as is the case with virtually everything in science.
EastAtlwx
Meteorologist
It would probably be worth your time investing a couple brain cells into the IPCC reports!
- Status