Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[k2skier112]

That's predicting the future. Nobody has ever been able to do that.

Nope, it's weather basics 101. If you increase or decrease the water or air temperature, the storms will be much different

[k2skier112]

That sounds like a typical Joel Gratz forecast.

yup, I gave up on opensnow, if I wanted overly optimistic weather forecasting in the mountains, I'll just look at noaa

[splittin]

Remember the Nazi's using kids to force their agenda.

Greta is a useful idiot.

[goldengatestinx]

what about:

6. CO2 is 0.04 percent of the atmosphere.
7. human activity contributes 0.01% of the 0.04%

I like those two, those are my favorites.

Arctic sea ice mean thickness hasn't changed appreciably in 10 years...it's actually higher in last data than previous data points. Interesting

The plot below shows the timeseries of Monthly mean sea ice thickness calculated from CryoSat precise and near real time (NRT) data over the whole Arctic area of sea ice extent.

http://www.cpom.ucl.ac.uk/csopr/seai...&thk_period=28

[goldengatestinx]

When politicians aren't in the mix and science can bleed through the rhetoric, truth comes out...

Russian Research Institute of Arctic and Antarctic forecasts Arctic temperature decrease cycle beginning 2020, decrease will last until 2030-2040, causing ice cover growth. During last decade average temperature in Arctic rose some 3C degrees, which is explained by 60-year cyclic climate fluctuation.
http://ru.arctic.ru/climate/20170221/559893.html
http://www.aari.ru/

Maybe because Russian State bodies and enterprises trust this renown Institute more, than they trust Global Warming proponents, they’re building now a series of most powerful in the world nuclear icebreakers, and design super powerful icebreaker, all to be ready in 20-th. By that time, according to Global Warming theory, Arctic ice is to melt, making Arctic seaways ice-free. Something is definitely wrong either with theory, or with Russia, which, being deep in economy crisis, found nothing better to do, than to waste billions on building unnecessary icebreakers.

The world was shocked by Nov 2016 news on Arctic average temperature being 20C above what it should be. It’s, to put it mildly, a small misinterpretation. Powerful cyclone brought warm air masses from the Atlantic to some areas in Arctic in November 2016, and temperature rose to about – 5C, well above seasonal average temperature. It was record high until cyclone died, i.e. it lasted several days. That was quite natural weather phenomenon, while exactly in this time Siberian regions reported record low November temperatures, down to – 40-45C. Siberia is a region which borders Arctic, or is part of Arctic, in case somebody doesn’t know it.
But nevertheless, that record high temperature in some areas in Arctic, which lasted at most, several days, and was caused by cyclone, was immediately declared as average temperature in all of Arctic, as one more indisputable proof of Global Warming.

I was born and grew up in Komsomolsk-on-Amur city, Russian Siberia and Far East, with average winter temperature around – 25C, often down to -30C, sometimes to – 40-45C. No warming in sight, I was told by my friends living there all their lives.

Check anything you’re told on Global Warming apocalypses, and you’ll be surprised by the number of misinterpretations like the one described above.

[goldengatestinx]

Seems things are simply fine in the arctic these days.

Pelosi has your panties in a bunch.

NOAA says “the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year” – about half what NASA is claiming from their satellite data. Sea level has risen 400 feet in the last 20,000 years – almost all of that before 8,000 years ago. It has nothing to do with humans.

NOAA has recently released a study that shows the climate hasn't warmed AT ALL in 15 years, and the raw data shows the global temperature was the same as it was in 1930.

NASA and the US Navy have shown that the arctic ice cap is as thick (if not thicker) than at any time since they started recording it in 1979 - at the end of "global COOLING".

Antarctic glaciers are calving at record rates, because the glaciers are growing at record rates, according to NOAA and NASA.

Biologists agree that if we were to have a truly thriving environment, we should increase the carbon dioxide content in the air to around 1,500 ppm - about 3 times what it is now. Climate scientists note that any increase over 600 ppm will have no effect on any warming - indeed, they agree that CO2 has no real effect on our atmosphere in the small amounts we have now.

In fact, the small amount is barely above the survival minimum of 260 ppm.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl...tml?id=050-141

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/...ice-than-1922/







Change the measurement methods and all of a sudden politicians want you living in a tent and not using your car.

https://realclimatescience.com/corru...rature-record/

And best for last, change the data...and oooohhhh nooooooo it goes ballistic!

[Benny Profane]

Nope, it's weather basics 101. If you increase or decrease the water or air temperature, the storms will be much different

But, much different than, what? I'm not a denier, but, I've always felt that when we talk about changes over time, we have very little to work with as far as data from the past. Meterorlogical science is young, just as many other sciences, but, when you're trying to paint a macro picture, you should at least know about storm frequency over the past millenia, not, the last fifty years, which is when data collection really started happening, because, more than anything, satellites. Before that, eh, who knows. In 1938, which isn't that long ago, a really bad storm, probably class 5, slammed into Long Island, and cruised over the sound to do damage in Providence. We had no idea it was coming until it was there, and we had manned weather stations with teams around the country at that point.

[goldengatestinx]

Please point to a time in that past 3.5 million years in which there was such a large population of humans on this planet that were releasing this much Carbon into the system. Hell, show me me a time AD. that this has been the case.

I will give you the benefit and wait for an answer before I put you on ignore.

Carbon isn't being released. Carbon dioxide is being released. More CO2, better growing atmosphere for plants. Easier to grow food for the rampant population growth so many people want.

If ya'll are so afraid of CO2, why do you keep buying all your marijuana that's grown in coal/gas heated & lighted green houses with CO2 pumped in non stop?

[MultiVerse]

Arctic sea ice mean thickness hasn't changed appreciably in 10 years...it's actually higher in last data than previous data points. Interesting

The plot below shows the timeseries of Monthly mean sea ice thickness calculated from CryoSat precise and near real time (NRT) data over the whole Arctic area of sea ice extent.

http://www.cpom.ucl.ac.uk/csopr/seai...&thk_period=28

Seems things are simply fine in the arctic these days.

lol. Here's what your own source (cpom) has to say about the matter:

On March 17 2018 the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) called the maximum extent for the year of 14.48 million square kilometres (5.59 million square miles). This was the second lowest of the 39-year passive microwave satellite record behind March 2017. The Arctic sea ice volume from CryoSat-2 (24,160 cubic kilometres) was just 20 cubic kilometres greater than 2017, so tied as the lowest volume of the 8-year radar altimeter record.

If you want to cherry pick a relatively short time frame and then say everything is fine, that's up to you, but over the preceding forty years, from 1979 to 2010, the volume of sea ice in the Arctic declined by between 55% and 65%.

Now, the area of ice covering the Arctic ocean is hovering around record lows. Sure, go ahead and say the low occurred in 2014 or 2017, or whenever over the past ten years, but each of those years is considerably lower then the 150 years that came before.

[NWFlow]

Carbon isn't being released. Carbon dioxide is being released.

Oh dude come on

[iceman]

why do you keep buying all your marijuana?

the smell keeps people like you away.

[ron johnson]

Perhaps if you a had some training in Atmospheric Physics. I do not but I do understand the basics.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-war...nd-hurricanes/

study up.

Did you even read your link?

"In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm activity support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. While one of our modeling studies projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, we estimate that such an increase would not be detectable until the latter half of the century, and we still have only low confidence that such an increase will occur in the Atlantic basin, based on an updated survey of subsequent modeling studies by our and other groups."

[ron johnson]

"How climate change is making hurricanes more dangerous ---Stronger wind speeds, more rain, and worsened storm surge add up to more potential destruction."

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...ore-dangerous/

The headline shows how hard they are trying to make a connection between global warming and hurricanes. From your link:

"In terms of frequency, studies have consistently shown “no discernible trend in the global number of tropical cyclones.” In addition, authors of a 2013 study found no human-caused signal in annual global tropical cyclone or hurricane frequencies."

"So while the team cannot attribute the rapid intensification gains to human-caused warming, they do say human-caused warming significantly increases extreme tropical cyclone intensification rates in the HiFLOR model."

"In a comprehensive 2015 paper, lead author Thomas Knutson of NOAA GFDL and co-authors examined a middle-of-the-road warming scenario using computer model simulations. Along with many other studies, their projections show a general future decrease in the overall number of tropical cyclones."

"When asked about the conflicting research findings on cyclone frequency, Emanuel said by email: “My own view is that we really do not know at this point whether the overall global frequency of [tropical cyclones] will increase, decrease, or stay the same. It is an area of active research.”"

[neufox47]

GGS brings the stupid as usual. How dumb do you have to be to think that anyone was forecasting no more sea ice in any season in the 2020s?

[ron johnson]

Nope, it's weather basics 101. If you increase or decrease the water or air temperature, the storms will be much different

Don't you think given how EXTREME the temperatures of the 21st century are we might expect to see some worsening hurricane trends at this point?

[old goat]

Lists of all the Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tic_hurricanes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tic_hurricanes
look at the lists and decide for yourselves

[byates1]

i'm worried. no, sort of really..

[SumJongGuy]

Lists of all the Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tic_hurricanes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tic_hurricanes
look at the lists and decide for yourselves

Hurricane frequency (Cat 4)
Period Number Number per year
1851–1900 13 0.26
1901–1950 29 0.58
1951–1975 22 0.88
1976–2000 24 0.96
2001–present 24 1.4

[Elkhound Odin]

Lists of all the Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tic_hurricanes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tic_hurricanes
look at the lists and decide for yourselves

Everyone knows Wikipedia is THE authority on everything / roll eyes/


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[SumJongGuy]

Everyone knows Wikipedia is THE authority on everything / roll eyes/


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Data doesn't care what source it comes through. Every data point, every hurricane name and data point is correct. When you don't like what the data says, attack the source instead of the facts because that's what hecklers do. Finding legitimate problems with the content of those pages might be a better approach..

[SkiCougar]

Data doesn't care what source it comes through. Every data point, every hurricane name and data point is correct. When you don't like what the data says, attack the source instead of the facts because that's what hecklers do. Finding legitimate problems with the content of those pages might be a better approach..

to that, the infamous Dr. Mann:

"A climate Alarmist Sued a Skeptic for Defamation – and Lost"

https://www.libertynation.com/a-clim...tion-and-lost/

"Canadian engineer Stephen McIntyre spent several years after the publication of the hockey stick graph trying to prove that it was faulty. He ultimately prevailed – but, during this debacle, Mann engaged in what many have described as intellectually dishonest or even fraudulent behavior. He refused to release the full data and source files that he used in his infamous 1999 publication.
In 2011, Tim Ball summarized this by stating that Michael Mann “belonged in a pen, not in Penn University.” This statement was the basis for Mann’s defamation lawsuit."

[ron johnson]

Data doesn't care what source it comes through. Every data point, every hurricane name and data point is correct. When you don't like what the data says, attack the source instead of the facts because that's what hecklers do. Finding legitimate problems with the content of those pages might be a better approach..

Why do you still post in this thread? Even when it comes to assessing data you still fail. From the wikipedia page: "The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes appears to have nearly doubled in occurrence in from 1970 to 2004.^[5] It is likely that the increase in Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane frequency is primarily due to improved monitoring."

[old goat]

Everyone knows Wikipedia is THE authority on everything / roll eyes/


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

It's impressive to me what a reliable and impartial source wikipedia is. I know that when it comes to medical subjects that I know a lot about it's very good. If you want to learn about a new subject it's a good place to start.

to that, the infamous Dr. Mann:

"A climate Alarmist Sued a Skeptic for Defamation – and Lost"

https://www.libertynation.com/a-clim...tion-and-lost/

"Canadian engineer Stephen McIntyre spent several years after the publication of the hockey stick graph trying to prove that it was faulty. He ultimately prevailed – but, during this debacle, Mann engaged in what many have described as intellectually dishonest or even fraudulent behavior. He refused to release the full data and source files that he used in his infamous 1999 publication.
In 2011, Tim Ball summarized this by stating that Michael Mann “belonged in a pen, not in Penn University.” This statement was the basis for Mann’s defamation lawsuit."

How did I miss that? I must have missed an issue of Liberty Nation. Better call customer service so I can get caught up.

[SumJongGuy]

Why do you still post in this thread?

Why do you still post on this forum? You've been banned under at least one other screen name.

[::: :::]

Why do you still post on this forum? You've been banned under at least one other screen name.

Which one?