dseagull

On 3/10/2023 at 4:03 PM, Wxdood said:

Likewise on the other side of the political spectrum. However, on the red side, I can compile a list of “conspiracies” that were censored, put people in jail, among other negatives that actually were true all along! The cc conspiracies have all but fallen flat on their faces, but the goal posts keep moving years down the line… The government lies. The fact that there is no healthy scientific debate on cc makes me think we are going down the c o vid path with it. Meaning the “science” wasn’t to be debated, questioned, we had to do what we were told and believe everything that was said to us and if not, we would face consequences. It’s your choice to go along with it. Seems like you’re hook lined and sinkered with it, after reading your whiny posts in the mid Atlantic forum.. for example, the oceans are “saunas”.  How descriptive…
 

I may question cc, but I am very concerned about the environment from every negative, oil rigs included. When the deep water horizon disaster happened I was beside myself. When I see what happened in east palenstine happen, but all the “environmentalists” and mayor Pete were either too busy in bed with Ukraine, or for mayor Pete, too busy worrying about how diverse our work force is, instead of going to at least SHOW UP pissed me off to no end, and should piss everyone off after seeing what that creek bed looked likeYou must question the response to that, right?  On the subject of oil rigs vs windmills - research the wind farm in Hawaii and how it is functioning today. Hint - it isn’t even operational and the power it generates, or generated, was peanuts. Oil has been around for a long time. Without oil we would be energy starved. Practices have come a long way. 
 

The article above, how earth will be “unlivable” is absolutely ridiculous. Earth has gone through way, way WAY worse conditions. Earth has gone through so many changes it’s laughable that humans think we know what is going on. Live and let live, enjoy your lives, your offspring and their offspring will be fine. 
 

 

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. 

6 hours ago, TimB said:

Why do they always play the “children” card when they’re losing? 

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

27 minutes ago, fujiwara79 said:

I'm not sure about that.  Seems like that statement is an article of personal faith, not anything based on evidence.  If the world were to unleash all the nuclear weapons in existence, I'm sure the climate would change pretty quick.  Man can affect climate.  Urban heat islands are anthropogenic.  The Dust Bowl was anthropogenic.

Hundreds of years of continuously releasing CO2 that is deeply sequestered underground is a radical experiment that hasn't happened before.

 

Modern civilization began around 5000 years ago.  Our modern industrial society began about 170 years ago.  All of these things occurred within the bounds of a relatively stable and hospitable climate and a very short geological timespan.  Humans have been around for millions of years, and yet modern civilization only began 5000 years ago.  Some people think a inhospitable climate is the one of the reasons it took so long.  Simply claiming that there were rainforests in the North Pole back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth is, frankly, a dumb argument that doesn't prove or disprove anything.

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

55 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

The abundance and consilience of evidence says otherwise. Right now anthropogenically modulated forcings are about 30x higher than naturally modulated forcings. See IPCC AR6 WG1 Annex III for details.

See Peterson et al. 2008 for details on this topic.

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. 

5 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Thanks dseagull! great to have some diversity of thought and opinions on this topic!!

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.

13 hours ago, fujiwara79 said:

Where is this documented?  Man being the center of the universe and the most prized, special creation tends to be a prevailing view amongst most organized religions.  But I'm not aware of scientists viewing the world that way.  If anything, they're the ones who push back against that philosophy.

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. 

On 2/3/2023 at 10:50 AM, wkd said:

I believe one of the events predicted was increased flooding events due to a warmer atmosphere.  Maybe it's just news coverage (which I doubt), but it seems to me that in the U.S as well as numerous other parts of the world,  this prediction has certainly proved valid.  Even here in NJ, rainfall events of over an inch seem fairly normal.  I don't remember that being the case in my past.

"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.  

On 2/5/2023 at 10:43 AM, ChescoWx said:

Hi CSNavyWx I am simply showing actual data - with supporting documentation and references.  I unlike some I have met on the other side of this debate... can have calm rational discussions on the data without anger. I have no expectation of changing your views - that is your right.  See answers below.

Doesn't matter what ya throw at him. It won't work. The only thing that matters is this when engaging in this sort of discussion:

What would it take to invalidate your position?

• Actual climate data with a longer period or record than only since 1970.
• Data and analytics should include at the very least data from the 1890's without post observation adjustments for the 1930's-1950's
• A forecast model that has been proven to accurately predict 2m temperatures for decades ahead of today. The fact our models today still struggle with 2m temps for even 1 month ahead call this into question.  One can't test a model prediction until we have future data to validate the forecast, Unfortunately this makes it unfalsifiable and clearly outside of the scientific method. So we should really pay little attention to data derived from climate models.
• That said - Irrespective of any modeling if 50 years from now we are reviewing actual real un-adjusted data and every single decade has continued to warm - I will be on board with this non-stop warming hypothesis that has not yet been proven as we stand here today in 2023. The non-stop warming hypothesis is of course not the famed "settled science" we too often hear as a response to debate.

If he can't state it clearly at this point -- block and move on. This is a very sad statement and sentiment but so  very common today in our society that simply shuts down and does not wish to debate any topic. This is why we now have "safe spaces" in our colleges and universities - let's just shut off and cancel or block any dissenting opinions - so sad to see!!

Tired of the years of coddling this shit on this board. It's tiring.

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?

5 hours ago, Winterweatherlover said:

The storm next week being halfway out in the atlantic on the GFS and CMC is probably where we want it at 180 hours out the way the winter is going. 

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. 

3 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

Ya know, analogs that refer to winters that sucked here are always annoy me, lol

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. 

51 minutes ago, Allsnow said:

Looks like 2-3 inches more of rain down by your location yet to come. Models started picking up on this prolonged storm at the end of last week but I agree, it has definitely been more impactful then originally forecasted 

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.  

1 hour ago, Big Jims Videos said:

Parts of Forked River Ocean County showing up now on radar with 6 inches of rain totals. 

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.  

46 minutes ago, Big Jims Videos said:

And now moderate coastal flooding likely 

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

7 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

12 hour event?

 

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.  

21 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

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 ...

29 minutes ago, brooklynwx99 said:

this is a significant amplification trend on the NAM... the entire trough has been tilting more favorably for an entire model cycle. something to watch for coastal peeps as that's really close to an interesting outcome

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.  

24 minutes ago, EasternLI said:

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

29 minutes ago, NEG NAO said:

an ice storm can  shut things down faster and more dangerous than a snowstorm-time to start stocking up on various ice melt.....

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

44 minutes ago, NEG NAO said:

GFS 12Z Clown Snow Map

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

9 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

Gfs with a big shift south

Euro is also trending south 

You have the GFS qpf?