• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Thunderbomb1982

  • Rank
    Math and Science high school/college teacher
  • Birthday October 1

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
  • Interests
    Severe storms with hail and tornadoes, math and most science.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. As you all know, I am not a believer as greenhouse gasses being the sole property of global warming. I think our Earth goes through cycles with sunspot activity. Will a warming or cooling cycle last hundreds of years like the medieval warm period or the mini ice age? Who knows. But what I have a hard time believing is the data that scientist today pull back form the 1800's and early to mid 1900's. They say this data is accurate and yet they claim to have accurate maps of sea ice but yet there was no satellite until 1979. But yet many global warming activists seem to prove the ice cover and temperature globally before then. Why would people want to believe this? I mean if a scientist wants to make an ASSUMPTION that's one thing but to show data that seems to be nearly accurate before this time is another thing. How can we think that global temperatures or ice cover taken in the year 1900 is even close to accurate? If someone can give me proof I am all up to opinions but I just don't see how someone logically in the year (let's say 1920) could make an accurate assumption of sea ice cover or global temperatures. I understand that many colleges and congress wants everyone to believe in global warming and would be ousted if there was belief otherwise, but where is the real proof? I mean I've seen where they say glaciers in Alaska have receded but yet to find the pictures were taken in different areas over years to make it seem true. Hopefully I don't hear any of the members saying that there needs to be a "posting minimum" because that shows lack of intelligence and fear. If you don't agree say why but please don't say there needs to be a posting minimum because I don't have a PHD or believe in the current global warming.
  2. I laugh easily too about things but do you find this amusing?
  3. I agree Bacon Strips!! Thank you!! That's true we have had a quiet year tornadoes but interesting storms with quite heavy rainfall.
  4. Thank you for the sources!! I could see how the ocean would have risen a little bit after the mini ice age ended and during times of cooling. I unfortunately don't have the sources but I can remember watching weather shows/climate shows that all talked about the north pole being free of ice by 2010, cities would be flooded, and what not. And from opinion, pre 1950 data just seems so uneasy to me to truly believe it. I know there were forecasters, data collectors, and all that going way back but how accurate were these. I just don't think anything was nearly as accurate or reliable before 1979 when satellite could record sea ice and or before internet became widely available.
  5. You say you are so unimpressed. I agree with the original poster that ice fluctuates at intervals from time to time during our current climate. Were you around before the 20th century? The why don't you have the correct maps and justification?? If you are so unimpressed? I agree with the original poster and once again you have no logical justification.
  6. Thanks for the comment. One thing especially I want to say is thank you for being respectful and to show data. A good scientist finally and not one that puts me down. However, I'm one that might disagree a bit... One year they say it's 10 years coastal cities will be flooded, the next year they say within 20 years, then they say a different time frame from a variety of scientists on the news and where I've read. Then they try to falsify their past incorrect predictions because they think most of America is dumb or naïve to believe this stuff. It's never consistent so I was making a point about what let's the "average" of all global warming activists believe. Annapolis may be flooding but New York isn't covered in ocean water. Neither is New Orleans or other cities right near the coast but yet since we are loosing so much ice our oceans should be rising. I'm talking about oceans rising, not about increase in storms that cause flooding that all global warming activities want to believe.
  7. To the response of the member of Littleton above. How accurate were these maps? How were they able have the whole arctic sea iced mapped out accurately?? So people in the 1700's were able to completely and accurately map the entire ice coverage? So in Greenland the natives or the visitors bravely made their way marched all up and down around the coast and saw what part was frozen in early March when the extent is greatest? They had brave ones that would go out on ships and risk getting bombarded by an iceberg to monitor data during these times in the arctic circle when temperatures are deadly cold in the 1700's?? Seems really logical to me. Heck, they weren't even very good at going around glaciers in 1912 when the Titanic sunk. But I bet those people that inhabited the arctic circle had all the time in the world to go exploring the north pole and monitor ice and temperature data. They didn't have to hunt for food, watch their families, or keep warm in their villages did they. I'm sure they had some kind of satellite or internet in their mind to do all of this data gathering. And I bet you also think they were able to accurately and globally gather temperatures as well. I'm not in denial I just find it so hard that people had time to do this, the funds, and the data monitoring equipment to be accurate. So during the dead of winter planes flew everywhere across the arctic back in the 1950's without risking being taken out by at storm?? I agree they had planes that flew up there during the 1950's but how in the world could they map the entire ARCTIC? Every month, even during the winter when it's dark?? To me it just seems rather exaggerated. So they had computer type and internet weather station gathering data during these times??? And you say "millions", my grandpa was the head of Boeing in Kansas for a long time back in the 1950's and 1960's and they didn't send weird losers out to the north pole to prove climate was changing without any facts or data that you perceive. Back then they didn't pay or listen to mean and weird losers like you that don't logically disagree with an opinion. You were quite condescending with your comments above and you said my post isn't worth reading which shows you have little or no understanding of others viewpoints.. I wanted some comments and opinions, not someone condescending and trying to say I'm stupid like your statement above. You were rude and mean with your above comments. When you act like that it's hard to have someone to want to take your side. Well thanks for your opinion in a rude way. Maybe you could do some more research yourself before saying everybody knew the ice cover in the 1700's. . As we can see were don't agree.
  8. From what I understand, Trump wants to cut funding for scientists who want to say all coastal cities will be flooded in 50 years. Also to those scientists who say we won't have winter in five years, and to those scientists who will try to get politicians to pass laws so cut carbon emissions. Our tax dollars go to these PHD's that make up data and theorize all day long that will are going to heat up.. If we do warm up, cool down, or stay the same, what can we do about it??? How about give more money to meteorologists that want to research more when tornados occur or other short term catastrophic events to help save lives! Rather than pay those who sit around all day, make up past temperature data/ ice maps and temperature data pre-1960, and tell the world were going to bake it we don't cut our carbon emissions. I'm studying meteorology and it would be awesome to better predict when tornadoes/deadly hailstorms that what's going to happen years from now. I would rather money go to predicting droughts/floods in areas as well within a couple of months. The predictions are not that accurate these days three months out and it would be nice if we could have more funding to do research in these areas rather than "global warming".
  9. Here is what I think and feel free to comment because I want to hear your thoughts. I will tell everyone that I do not believe man-made increase carbon results in global warming. What about all the fires before 1900 that used to burn millions of acres and cities? What about the volcanoes? These produce more carbon dioxide and junk in the atmosphere than any city ever could. Just my belief. From the research I've studied, my theory is the sun's fluctuations have the biggest play in our climate. They say sea ice is so low now but I've heard and read (I don't have the sources unfortunately) about ships being able to nearly get to the north pole back in the late 1950's (years of more heat and drought". I can't remember the magazine a I read but I do recall reading. I've also heard many stories from my grandparents and other relatives saying how the 1950's were very hot and dry with just a few colder winters hear and there during that decade. They lived in Kansas and Missouri at the time. Also, what about the summer of 1980? Didn't St. Helen's blow in May of 80' big time that clouded many cities? We would think that would of cooled us off for a little with all the extra ash. It makes me wonder how hot it would have gotten without the volcano. They say the ice was so much more widespread in the N Pole in 1980 but yet many areas had such a heat blasted summer in the lower 48. The winter wasn't that cold in 1980-1981 either. Several ski areas were barely able to open that year from locales I've talked to where I currently live in Colorado. They say that satellite has been able to measure sea ice since 1979. Yet all global warming activists prove that there was much more ice, even in the 1930's and 1950's when there was no satellite. So the US and Canada had the money and equipment to fly all around the north pole, Greenland, Alaska, 3-4 times every month and prove there was more ice during these times? I bet during the great depression there was loads of money to buy monitoring equipment and to hire people to monitor the entire ice field constantly.. To me that is a contradiction. We did not have satellite date until 1979 but yet the ENTIRE arctic circle and north pole region had more ice pre 1979 NEARLY EVERY year before this with very little fluctuations??? I don't get it. We also had tons of available opportunity to send people and talk to natives of the arctic to monitor ice in every area each year??? And during the dark of the winter and too!! I'm sure if I wanted to believe in global warming I could come up with maps that looked 1930's and people would believe there was more ice. I could probably get paid a lot too and just say I lost the original 1930's maps and scanned them on the computer and edited them a bit to make them look nice. The other alarming issue is the data we get from climatologists that say the earth has been warming globally since 1890 by these temperature charts/graphs. So we had accurate temperature monitoring tools in the year 1900?? We could monitor the North Pole Temperature yearly, as well as all of Canada, the US, Europe, South Pole, and every other country accurately?? All records were kept each year and distributed across the world??? It's more accurate now but I don't see how anybody could believe these temperature graphs that show we have been warming since 1890 accurately. If we have there is no proof. If someone "thinks" we have been warming that's fine but these graphs are not accurate and there is no reliable data to back them up. Sun cycles with the mini ice age/climatic medieval period reference could show us how temperatures can change. Maybe our sun fluctuates a little more than it did during the during the warm period/mini ice age times. Many readings describe absence of sun spots 1400-pre-1900 during long intervals from astronomers that studied sunspots during this time. Could it be that our sun can be every so slightly intense or a bit dimmer to cause fluctuations? My theory is when we get big heat waves like 1980, 1998/1999, the very warm fall we've had this year may be due to brief increase solar energy. Could the very cold December of 1983, winter 2013/2014 result be due to the sun's energy turned down a little? It just is so interesting to me how things can change from just a couple of years. I think we are in between of what was called the mini ice age/medieval warm period. I would have thought by reading articles in the early 1990's that we wouldn't have winter anymore by 2010. To me, it's kind of like people in the 1960's saying that we would all be riding in cars that fly by 2000. I didn't happen just like we didn't loose our winters. All in all, I respect our climatologists but I think they could be better of use of studying how and when tornadoes will form, hailstorms, rather than tell the US that we won't have ice 20 years from now. Even if we do not have ice 20 years from now, how can we stop that?? How could we stop a climatic change that could happen to cause the Bering Straight to freeze again? It's not in our power. We need to use the funds and resources to study more short term weather events to help save lives. Please don't pay someone 100 k a year with our tax dollars to tell us our cities will be flooded in the next 50 years and to make up data that isn't true because they think the north pole melting. If this is so true why aren't we moving the coastal cities to higher ground? Or why aren't we building a huge ocean levy to prevent flooding across all of North America? They tried to pull "global cooling" in the 70's and that wasn't true either. We were apparently suppose to be in an ice age by now.