dseagull

I've attempted to have conversation and debate on the subject with folks here. I applaud your efforts, but it's probably not going to amount to much. Common sense has gone out the window. I know you probably have the same logical counter arguments that you didn't see necessary to post to fuji. There comes a time when the double standards and selective research results just become laughable. As someone who lives, works, and relies on the ocean... And as an American than is against the tyrannical globalist narrative that is being fed to hungry sheep, I find the construction of windmills and the entire "green plan," to be nothing more than an extremely harmful power grab. Most folks that can use logic and actually live a based life, do as well.

...Because they follow a narrative, and refuse to look at grounded facts. They do the same thing with "gun control" and "equity and inclusion."

You are describing an argument as "dumb." This is not an argument that I made. You bring nuclear detonations into the conversation. I did not even begin to go in that direction. (Although, I would think our species would have bigger concerns at that point.) You then go on to list examples of how anthropogenic warming is real. I never argued that it isn't. As you listed, there are certainly many examples. All honest individuals agree. The extent of contributable warming is up for debate, simply because too many variable exist. It is OK for everyone, regardless of opinion or level of education on the subject matter, to say, "I don't know." And if we do not know, it is perhaps a wise idea to approach the situation with care. Mitigation efforts must not do more harm to society than the effects of the change in climate. I absolutely agree that we should push forward with clean energy. I believe we should do so carefully. However, I stand by my statement and scientific fact that natural forces will always be greater than anthropogenic. This has been proven through core samples. This is not a hypothesis. If you wish to use nuclear war as an example, you are dealing with hypothetical predictions. One would have to operate under the assumption that full-scale nuclear war is an inevitability. It is not. An asteroid impact is 100% an inevitability. I don't wish to argue or name call or have this escalate into something unproductive. Having said that, there are evidence based scientific facts that must be considered before mankind attempts to address a problem that may not be as severe as an agenda-driven collective asserts. "Crisis," loses it's value as a descriptor when it is used in abundance. We should be responsible when addressing POSSIBLE calamity. Humans are susceptible to being controlled via fear, and "leaders" and authority are both well aware of this. We need to tread lightly and continue to have scientific and philosophical debate. We must first acknowledge that opposing ideas seem to be silenced now at an alarming rate/frequency. This is dangerous, especially in the field of science. I'm sure we can both agree with that.

The biggest issue with using sea ice extent as a measurement of warming cycles is the obvious one. Reliable records in the arctic only began in the mid 1950s. Then, with satellites later on, we were able to begin continuously measuring ice extent fairly accurately. GPS has allowed for extremely accurate measurements. The problem with this data is that it only goes back an extremely short while into history. To state, "the ice is at an all-time record low," must be put in context. Record keeping is incredibly important, and in another 100 years, VERY SMALL trends may be apparent. It will take thousands, mayne tens of thousands of years of records to make sound predictions, concerning climate trends. It is of my opinion that one cannot honestly draw significant conclusions from such a short duration of records. Core samples already tell us more, as radio isotopes can be used to make deterministic conclusions about climate history. Predictions based on short term assessment are not of sound science.

Crickets

Thank you for the information. It is of my opinion that the IPCC is inherently biased. I have listened to several scientists that have resigned from the IPCC because of the panel's directors circumventing the scientific method, under the guise of selective peer reviewed journals. We can agree to disagree, or healthy debate can be had. Many scientists do not agree with the agenda that is outlined in the framework of the IPCC. Being called a skeptic in the scientific field should be interpreted as a compliment. I will continue to do my own research, and be appreciative of others' opinions and links to where I can do further research. Thanks.

Without differing stances and debate, there is no progress. We are evolving into a society where if opposing views are shared and disliked, they are silenced. This is both unhealthy and unproductive. Echo chambers are fine for entertainment and social purposes, but they are generally frowned upon in professional scientific debate. (I'm no professional in climatology. I have an oceanography degree, and only work as a hydrographic survey vessel captain. I have zero other credentials, but enjoy looking at raw data and attempting to understand it. Insults don't bother me, so long as I am learning. I don't have to agree with you, and you don't have to agree with me. That's what makes life in a civil society so fun and interesting.) Having said that, there is much I don't understand. In my own case, I simply do not understand the "crisis-mode" that folks resort to. Sure, I think we can all agree that we are in a warming phase. But, that is only true if we look at a relatively short geological scale. There a tens of thousand of warming and cooling oscillations over a given period of time. This has happened throughout the history of the earth. We have had swings of nearly 10 degrees centigrade over relatively short geological time spans. Looking at 100 year charts, how can we accurately predict where we will wind up in another 100 years? How can we HONESTLY assign blame to anthropogenic forces? We can mitigate our impact, sure. But we shouldn't go backwards in progress as a species. The hysteria, without feasible solutions is what trips me up. I am watching the evolution of our windfarm projects, and it is clear to most folks that the projects are being rushed through for financial gain of many politicians. The climate agenda is something I have an issue with. Many people are opening their eyes to this now.

Thanks for the responses. I did a poor job articulating myself. I'm simply doing a lot of reading while on bed rest, and wanted to dig into the topic again while recovering from surgery and stuck working off the water for a months. I should have explained that until recently, this was a prevailing view. And you are correct that this is driven mostly by religious groups. For a whole host of reasons, this has rapidly shifted over the past few hundred years. Different anthropology discussion I suppose. I believe that I just have an issue with the mass politicization of climate "news," which only harms the actual field of climatology. I often like to refer to the radio isotope studies in glacial ice cores. Doing so is only useful if one really grasps the concept of geological timescales. Extreme views are never beneficial to society as a whole. There is no debate that anthropogenic forces have lead to an increased rate of warming. I can accept that. However, I am still fascinated by the extreme measures being suggested to slow the RELATIVELY small jumps in even forcecasted rising temperature. The climate and temperature oscillations have been very small over the past 10-15 thousand years... whereas the shifts were much more extreme in ages prior. Its a fascinating scientific field, as it intersects with many other aspects of life (politics, sociology, economy, etc...) I guess I have a difficult time understanding how man believes that any solutions they come up with will have any significant impact on the current warming. Natural forces will always far exceed the anthropogenic. (That doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt solutions, so long as we don't go backwards. The cure shouldn't be worse than the problem.) If this is about survivability of the human race, it would be wise to continue with studies without political agendas interfering from both sides of the aisle. Eventually, if we are honest with ourselves, we will have to expand to other planets if we wish to survive. It's frustrating to watch extreme views on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, money drives agendas, and society is easily fooled by those in power.

"My past" Those two words should not exist in any discussion of climate. Again, 50 years ago.... "global cooling," "the next ice age..." We must be responsible and remain cognizant of political contributions to "popular opinion." The data simply does not exist to make any sound predictions. Flipping the world upside-down in order to combat "man-made global warming" is foolish. We can have mature and scientific debate, but hysteria is not good for anyone. Keep in mind, most folks are not well versed in weather. To expect mankind to understand climate, simply by viewing short clips of media and social media propaganda, would also be foolish.

Thank you.

Knowing that the earth has and always will go through warming and cooling cycles... How can we appropriately assign the current and very real warming over a very small timescale to anthropogenic forces? I'd like to believe that the current warming is at least moderately associated with carbon output by man, but our ability to measure such contributions is extremely limited. How can we determine the extent of man-made global warming and/or cooling? A mere 50 years ago, the scientific community (sans political contributions) was convinced that we were entering another large-scale cooling period, correct? In addition, we are also in the beginning stages of exploring effects of solar forces and cycles on our planet's weather. Would it not be foolish to jump to conclusions, based on data sets that only go back to the late 1800's, when only primitive data collection methods existed? Very curious as to what folks on here would say, as the meteorological field seems very divided on where we lay in the current evolution of climate on the planet. What are the risk/reward ratio conclusions for minimizing carbon output? What strategies exist that are feasible to offset man-made contributions to warming? It's fascinating, and not just from a scientific approach. From a sociological vantage, its absolutely mind blowing. Mankind operates under an assumption that "we" are at the center of the universe. That's well documented. Should we not take that into consideration when studying climate change, anthropogenic or not?

I guess it's a good thing we are only about 5 hours into winter so far.

From a meteorological perspective, it's an absolute beast of a system that may set some records in regards to pressure drops in Canada. When people don't see the outcome and extremes in their own backyard, of course they will downplay the system and call it a bust. This has been a fun system evolution, especially useful in regards to how the models handled it. It's still l, for all intents and purposes, a bust for the NE. But what a fun system to learn from and watch evolve.

That's sheer depression setting in...

Current storm is overperforming in terms of wind and rain (and tidal flooding), down here on Barnegat Bay. First post since the blizzard last year. This upcoming setup has me stoked. Hoping for a 2015/2016 winter repeat, in terms of coastals. If any of these storms materialize into something worth documenting, I'll do so once again.

I agree that some of the models sniffed it out. This is a really interesting system that was wonky on the models with energy being held back on only a few. I pray for this type or setup in February. I tow and salvage vessels as one of my jobs, and I fully expect bilge issues and dock line failures to ruin some people's day over the next 36 hours. The evening's tide cycle (high for me at 1724) will be telling. Thank God we don't have spring tides.

Getting pummeled here in Barnegat. Coastal flooding is our biggest concern right now. Thank God this is occurring with half moon near tides. Much stronger and prolonged event than initially anticipated.

Just imagine if we weren't sitting with neap tides and a half moon.

Wildcard. If you buy into the short term solutions, anywhere from 6-10 hours. Those who cool quickly can absolutely recieve 3-5. Look at this thing digging. Someone is going to do REALLY well. I'm saying 40 miles to my NW will crush it with 6 inch lollies. Delaware Watergap special.

I cannot believe it, but that actually looks like an accurate assessment. The heavier QPF will wind up closer to the coast, (as it always does in these progressive systems...) but the ground temperature will dictate any accumulation totals I'm on board with it. Shift the axis of accumulation about 20-30 degrees counter clockwise and maybe a 15 mile shift east, and that is it.... seen this scenario play out enough. Wilmington "Dela WHERE?"- Burlington county, NJ- NYC will jackpot.... this system is juiced on WV. I'll put 4-5 inches on black, please ...

Exactly. Once this started trending early this morning, I became excited. Some of the most memorable "surprise" coastal mini-events have come out of similar setups. (Ill post some examples shortly.) This has the potential to crank for 2-4 hours during early morning hours. A 3-5 inch paste to powder event is not a far stretch. 2014-2015 provided quite a few of these to the sub forum.

Dangerously close to being an ice storm for both philly and NYC.

Finally a use for that pesky "not-a-flamethrower" flamethrower, made by Elon Musk. Collecting dust without barbecue weather.

I think the GFS may need an intervention, although I believe it has it's time and place.

You have the GFS qpf?