Jump to content

snowlover91

Members
  • Content count

    1,182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About snowlover91

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. snowlover91

    Hurricane Lane impacts Hawaii

    The problem with this graph is the Euro has been bad at the time where it matters most. Euro has shifted from it's solution of keeping Lane a good distance from landfall to the near landfall solution the GFS has been showing for days. It has gone from this... To this... Compared with the GFS 120 hour forecast (and many others with similar results) To this for the Euro now in agreement with the GFS... that's pretty bad performance if you ask me, especially since it's at a critical time where people are at a higher risk. In summary I would say those statistics are pretty meaningless in this scenario since the Euro has consistently been to the south/west of the actual track whereas the GFS has by and large been ahead of the game with picking up the Hawaii threat whereas the Euro just caught on to this recently.
  2. snowlover91

    Avoiding Hothouse Earth

    I would certainly agree with the bolded portion here and this is why I believe all avenues of research that agree with AGW AND skeptical research proposing alternative explanations for some or all of the warming are worth exploring. We have much to learn about our climate and how it operates and I have no doubt that we will continue to discover new data that will shape the way we view the warming we have seen. I've taken this topic OT a bit too much now though so I won't get into this any further, we'll just have to agree to disagree on some things @chubbsI guess we will have to agree to disagree on the various research which has been done regarding the "hockey stick graph" as well. I've taken this topic OT a bit much so will let this get back to the point of discussion! Carry on!
  3. snowlover91

    Avoiding Hothouse Earth

    Does it matter where the newspaper clippings come from? It’s much easier to link from existing sources than pull up the archives, pay for access, etc. The point is equally valid that past newspapers hyped the changes in climate just as we see today and also corroborate the low ice coverage that is seen in reconstructions, one of which I posted. The reconstruction also nicely shows ice extent levels then are similar to what we see now. Assuming the reconstruction is accurate, the ice levels we have currently have been seen in the past 80-100 years. I’m not sure why you call the info about Hansen “fake news” as you can find multiple articles citing that he made this claim. Here is one such article. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-06-23-1642922053_x.htm I also never claimed the scientific consensus predicted an ice free arctic. I said that there have been multiple claims of this going back a LONG time and they have proven false as many alarmist predictions have been. It’s hype and part of the AGW scare that scientists and the news media are using to try to get people to accept it. The Holmes and Lasner papers are just a few. There are plenty of others with similar ideas and conclusions based on their data and research. I don’t find the papers from Tony Heller’s site if that what you’re implying. My guess is he cites those on his blog since they provide a skeptical POV. Mann’s hockey stick graph may have some research corroborating it but that doesn’t mean it’s correct. The Medieval warm period and Little Ice age are well documented as are the changes those brought. There is plenty of evidence for them existing, far more than the “hockey stick” graph which has rightly received a good deal of criticism. I take it from your line of reasoning you would deny that there were warmer periods in the past and accept Mann’s work as true. If so, then that’s unfortunate.
  4. snowlover91

    Avoiding Hothouse Earth

    You would do well to come up with a better argument for your position than statements like this I find that those who are not able to articulate their arguments and believe whatever they read without questioning the validity of it or researching alternative viewpoints usually make similar statements.
  5. snowlover91

    Avoiding Hothouse Earth

    To each his own I have no problem with people who accept AGW as the primary or complete cause of the warming we've seen since there is good research out there pointing to that possibility. I personally am a skeptic based on the research I've done but enjoy reading both sides so long as they are well reasoned, thought provoking and consistent. I look forward to seeing how things evolve in the next 20 years, much will be revealed in that time. With the AMO possibly going negative for an extended period it will certainly be interesting to see the effects of that.
  6. snowlover91

    Avoiding Hothouse Earth

    Yeah, thinking for yourself and being willing to change your mind is such a bad thing
  7. snowlover91

    Avoiding Hothouse Earth

    So in theory if we saw between 6-8C in global warming, how would that kill off billions of people? What are your thoughts?
  8. snowlover91

    Avoiding Hothouse Earth

    My username was created when I was an ardent AGW proponent, but nice try.
  9. snowlover91

    Avoiding Hothouse Earth

    Who referenced him as a credible source? Last I checked no one cited him in this thread as one. Unfortunately I'm afraid oftentimes skeptics and AGW proponents are guilty of the above accusations as is the news media. As mentioned in my previous post, the Mann "hockey stick" graph is one of many examples of AGW proponents manipulating the data to fit their agenda as well.
  10. snowlover91

    Avoiding Hothouse Earth

    Sorry but AGW proponents always use the "cherry picking" argument anytime they have something they can't debate or for data they don't like. If you're going to use it that way though I will also add that AGW proponents cherry pick their data too, one infamous example is the Mann hockey stick graph that was cited in IPCC and later subjected to scrutiny because it "erased" the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age and was based on a small data set. I can cite plenty of other "cherry picking" by AGW proponents but if you really want to find that out I would recommend you do some digging, it's easy to find even within IPCC reports. The evidence for AGW has plenty of people who argue for it and there are also quite a few who would argue strongly against AGW and point to natural variables that explain part or all of AGW. Just so you know, I used to believe in AGW and changed my views on it as I started reading articles on both sides of the issue, historical data, news media bias/alarmism (both present and past, look at newspaper articles from the 1920s-50s when they said our ice caps would disappear similar yet later we saw a peak of ice in the 1970s), how $$ influences science research and opinion, etc. It's fine if you disagree but my conclusion is based on an analysis of all these factors and is the reason I switched from AGW believer to a skeptic who thinks the primary factors at play are natural cycles. My outlook for the future? First of all I do think it is our responsibility to use our resources wisely and carefully. Deforestation is a big concern for me, where I live entire forests have been wiped out due to logging with only a barren wasteland of stumps, dead trees and some weeds/bushes growing back. Pollution and destruction of the environment is something all of humanity needs to certainly do what is possible to eliminate or restrict. Having said that, my outlook for the future is based off past history. There will be droughts, hurricanes, flooding, etc that will cause problems for humans as they always have but increasingly so as the human population grows and more people are affected by the same type of natural disasters. At the same time I don't see a "catastrophic tipping point" occurring where everything goes haywire and millions or billions of people die as the alarmists predict and the original article posted here tries to scare people into believing the end of the world, the "tipping point," is close. The "Arctic is melting and the end of the world is coming" has been going on for 80+ years now. Archives of old newspaper articles reveal this quite well and the general "alarmism" portrayed in the news media is nothing new. The same type of scare tactics and even language used is similar to what you see today. At the time these articles were written, sea ice extent is similar to what we have now... yet as we know within about 30 years the levels recovered to the peak in the 70s before another downtrend cycle started. It's almost like the extreme heat in Europe has happened before and the news media hyped things like they always do. And here was the drought index for 1934 per NOAA, at a time when PPM levels were around 310ppm. If this happened today the alarmists would declare the end of civilization about to occur... I'm still waiting for the ice free Arctic predictions to materialize since at least 1923. Hansen's claims of an ice free Arctic still haven't materialized. Neither have claims for an ice free Artic by 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, or 2017. So far 2018 looks on track to at least keep some ice up in the Arctic Meanwhile, in the 1970s when the ice reached the peak levels we've seen in the past 100 years, the tone shifted to an "Ice Age is Coming" fear.
  11. snowlover91

    Avoiding Hothouse Earth

    See my above post dealing with some of what you and chubbs mentioned. There are plenty of additional datasets that I have seen which call into question various temperature profiles, but I feel like that is a separate topic of debate. I think there is sufficient evidence and theories out there showing natural cycles that explain most of, if not all, the current warming we've seen both now and in past warming cycles hundreds and thousands of years ago. The theories abound from solar irradiance to ocean currents (as Dr Bill Gray points out) to various other possible factors or combination of them. We have much to learn and I have no doubt science will uncover additional data that sheds light on natural variables influencing the warming. Do I think CO2 has contributed some to the warming? Yes, I would agree with this. My belief based on all the data I've read from both sides is that CO2 has added to a natural warming cycle that we are in the process of trying to better understand and study. I certainly respect those who would disagree with my conclusion but I feel there is ample evidence out there to cast doubt on AGW as the only source or primary source of the warming.
  12. snowlover91

    Avoiding Hothouse Earth

    Not cherry picking, offering other points of views. It's up to the reader to decide what they believe and you've chosen to believe in AGW no matter what other alternative theories and research is presented. As mentioned, the papers I cited are a small portion of alternative views out there that look at other possible explanations for the warming with solid reasoning for their arguments. If you had read the articles and abstracts I posted you would have seen that. You choose to call them "cherry picking" simply because they don't agree with your point of view and what you consider settled science but the fact is there are scientists and climatologists who believe the science isn't settled and are exploring the complex dynamics in search of answers. Your main point of contention was " You are repeating denier talking points in this thread not science. The role of CO2 in the current warming is well established, no natural "cycle" fits the pattern of warming." I offered scientific research done by people who attribute the warming to other possible factors, whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant, the point still stands that there are those conducting scientific research that leads to alternative conclusions. Here is some additional scientific research which looks into other possibilities and deals directly with CO2. Davis et al., 2018 [T]he contemporary global warming increase of ~0.8 °C recorded since 1850 has been attributed widely to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Recent research has shown, however, that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been decoupled from global temperature for the last 425 million years [Davis, 2017] owing to well-established diminishing returns in marginal radiative forcing (ΔRF) as atmospheric CO2 concentration increases. Marginal forcing of temperature from increasing CO2 emissions declined by half from 1850 to 1980, and by nearly two-thirds from 1850 to 1999 [Davis, 2017]. Changes in atmospheric CO2 therefore affect global temperature weakly at most. The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis has been embraced partly because “…there is no convincing alternative explanation…” [USGCRP, 2017] (p. 12). … The ACO [Antarctic Centennial Oscillation] provides a possible [natural] alternative explanation in the form of a natural climate cycle that arises in Antarctica, propagates northward to influence global temperature, and peaks on a predictable centennial timetable. … The period and amplitude of ACOs oscillate in phase with glacial cycles and related surface insolation associated with planetary orbital forces. We conclude that the ACO: encompasses at least the EAP; is the proximate source of D-O oscillations in the Northern Hemisphere; therefore affects global temperature; propagates with increased velocity as temperature increases; doubled in intensity over geologic time; is modulated by global temperature variations associated with planetary orbital cycles; and is the probable paleoclimate precursor of the contemporary Antarctic Oscillation (AAO). Properties of the ACO/AAO are capable of explaining the current global warming signal. A primary rationale for invoking anthropogenic emissions of CO2 as the cause of contemporary global warming has been the perceived lack of alternative explanations, particularly the absence of a natural climate cycle that might account for the current global warming signal of ~0.8 °C since 1850. The 2017 US Global Change Research Program Report on climate [41] concluded, for example, that “For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence” [41] (p. 12). The empirical documentation here of a natural paleoclimate climate cycle that impacts temperature in the NH and that is probably homologous with the contemporary AAO, namely, the ACO, provides such a possible alternative explanation. By this alternative explanation, the global temperature profile since 1850 is caused in whole or part by a natural climate cycle (the ACO/AAO) that is approaching or has reached its temperature peak. The peaking of this natural warming cycle would also explain the recorded deceleration of warming over the last two decades, termed the “warming hiatus” [80,81,82]. http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/1/3/htm Dr. Bill Gray writes an interesting paper on climate change. Certainly he is well respected within the scientific community but I guess he's "cherry picking" data too and has his head in the sand? See below for excerpts and the full PDF link if you're interested. https://tropical.colostate.edu/media/sites/111/2018/01/Bill-Gray-Climate-Change.pdf The earth is covered with 71% liquid water. Over the ocean surface sub-saturated winds blow which force continuous surface evaporation. Observations and energy budget analysis indicate that the surface of the globe is losing about 80 Wm2 of energy from the global surface evaporation process. This evaporation energy loss is needed as part of the process of balancing the surface’s absorption of large amounts of incoming solar energy. Variations in the strength of the globe’s hydrologic cycle are the way that the global climate is regulated. The stronger the hydrologic cycle, the more surface evaporation cooling occurs, and greater the globe’s IR flux to space. The globe’s surface cools when the hydrologic cycle is stronger than average and warms when the hydrologic cycle is weaker than normal. The strength of the hydrologic cycle is thus the primary regulator of the globe’s surface temperature. Variations in global precipitation are linked to long-term changes in the MOC (or THC). I have proposed that any additional warming from an increase in CO2 added to the atmosphere is offset by an increase in surface evaporation and increased precipitation (an increase in the water cycle). My prediction seems to be supported by evidence of upper- tropospheric drying since 1979 and an increase in global precipitation from reanalysis data. I have shown that the additional heating that may be caused by an increase in CO2 results in a drying, not a moistening, of the upper troposphere that results in an increase of outgoing radiation to space, not a decrease as proposed by the most recent application of the greenhouse theory. Deficiencies in the ability of GCMs to adequately represent variations in global cloudiness, the water cycle, the carbon cycle, long-term changes in deep ocean circulation, and other important mechanisms that control the climate reduce our confidence in the ability of these models to adequately forecast future global temperatures. It seems that the models do not correctly handle what happens to the added energy from CO2 IR blocking. Or how about this paper which offers reduced cloudiness as a possible explanation? Holmes, 2018 In short, there is unlikely to be any significant net warming from the greenhouse effect on any planetary body in the parts of atmospheres which are >10kPa. Instead, it is proposed that the residual temperature difference between the effective temperature and the measured near-surface temperature, is a thermal enhancement caused by gravitationally-induced adiabatic auto compression, powered by convection. A new null hypothesis of global warming or climate change is therefore proposed and argued for; one which does not include any anomalous or net warming from greenhouse gases in the tropospheric atmospheres of any planetary body. … A decline of 6% in lower tropospheric tropical cloud cover (15°N–15°S) occurred 1984 – 2000 according to the international satellite cloud climatology project’s data [29]. These years are contained well with the 1975-2000 period of warming, and an observed 0.4°C rise in global temperatures occurred over the same period. Scatter diagrams [55] of low cloud cover vs global surface air temperatures indicate that a 1% fall in low clouds equates to a 0.07°C rise in surface air temperatures – hence this change in cloudiness accounts for the entire observed rise in global temperatures during the 1975-2000 period, leaving no room for any effect from growing greenhouse gases.
  13. snowlover91

    Avoiding Hothouse Earth

    No one who is skeptical of AGW denies the role of CO2 in the warming. Those who are skeptical attribute CO2 as enhancing a natural cyclical warming cycle but look at other factors which may explain the warming. Below is some food for thought to consider from various papers and research. This is just a tiny sampling of those who are offering alternative explanations for various changes we are seeing globally. Antarctic and the surrounding ocean is cooling according to these studies. Solar influence has a big role Shi et al., 2018 The results show that during periods of strong solar activity, the solar shortwave heating anomaly from the climatology in the tropical upper stratosphere triggers a local warm anomaly and strong westerly winds in mid-latitudes, which strengthens the upward propagation of planetary wave 1 but prevents that of wave 2. … The Sun is the most important source of energy in the Earth’s climate system and variations in the intensity of solar radiation influence both the weather and climate (Chen et al., 2015; Rind, 2002, 2008; Shang et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2015; Zhao et al., 2012). Gray et al. (2010) showed that there are two main mechanisms, bottom-up mechanism and top-down mechanism, by which solar activity affects the Earth’s climate. The top-down mechanism is connected to solar ultraviolet radiation. Solar ultraviolet radiation is mainly absorbed by ozone in the tropical stratosphere, which changes the meridional temperature gradient and wind field in the atmosphere. This further affects the propagation of stratospheric planetary waves in the winter hemisphere (Balachandran and Rind, 1995). Therefore, the solar radiation change can affect the interaction between the stratospheric circulation and the planetary waves (Haigh, 1996, 1999; Kodera and Kuroda, 2002; Shindell et al., 1999, 2006). Lubin et al., 2018 Over the past decade there has been increasing realization and concern that the steady and high solar luminosity of the past century may transition to greater variability later this century (Abreu et al. 2008; Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010; Lockwood 2010). Specifically, the Sun may descend into a period of low magnetic activity analogous to the historical Maunder minimum (MM; circa 1640–1715; Eddy 1976). A resulting decrease in total solar irradiance (TSI) impacting the terrestrial lower atmosphere energy budget is linked to changes in high-latitude circulation patterns that strongly influence the climate of Europe and the Atlantic sector of the Arctic and subArctic (Song et al. 2010; Meehl et al. 2013), and may also influence Antarctic climate (Orsi et al. 2012). Studies have also shown the importance of stratospheric response to a grand minimum (e.g., Gray et al. 2010; Bolduc et al. 2015; Maycock et al. 2015). Over a solar cycle and certainly in response to a future grand minimum, irradiance variability at middle ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths that drive oxygen photolysis and ozone chemistry is much larger that that of the TSI. Resulting changes to stratospheric ozone abundance alter the stratosphere–troposphere temperature gradient and feed back to tropospheric planetary wave refraction, further altering climatically relevant circulation patterns (Maycock et al. 2015). With this realization that both direct radiative and indirect stratospheric influences affect terrestrial climate under a solar grand minimum, it is important to understand how UV irradiance would respond to such a large and prolonged change in solar magnetic activity. Fleming, 2018 The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate. … Many believe and/or support the notion that the Earth’s atmosphere is a “greenhouse” with CO2 as the primary “greenhouse” gas warming Earth. That this concept seems acceptable is understandable—the modern heating of the Earth’s atmosphere began at the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850. The industrial revolution took hold about the same time. It would be natural to believe that these two events could be the reason for the rise in temperature. There is now a much clearer picture of an alternative reason for why the Earth’s surface temperature has risen since 1850. … There is no correlation of CO2 with temperature in any historical data set that was reviewed. The climate-change cooling over the 1940–1975 time period of the Modern Warming period was shown to be influenced by a combination of solar factors. The cause of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age climate changes was the solar magnetic field and cosmic ray connection. When the solar magnetic field is strong, it acts as a barrier to cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere, clouds decrease and the Earth warms. Conversely when the solar magnetic field is weak, there is no barrier to cosmic rays—they greatly increase large areas of low-level clouds, increasing the Earth’s albedo and the planet cools. The factors that affect these climate changes were reviewed in “Solar magnetic field/cosmic ray factors affecting climate change” section. The calculations of “H2O and CO2 in the radiation package” section revealed that there is no net impact of CO2 on the net heating of the atmosphere. The received heat is simply redistributed within the atmospheric column. This result is consistent and explains the lack of CO2 correlations with observations in the past. The current Modern Warming will continue until the solar magnetic field decreases in strength. If one adds the 350-year cycle from the McCracken result to the center of the Maunder Minimum which was centered in 1680, one would have a Grand Minimum centered in the year 2030. Some postulate the role of the Antarctic (ACO/AAO) for explaining the warming. Davis et al., 2018 [T]he contemporary global warming increase of ~0.8 °C recorded since 1850 has been attributed widely to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Recent research has shown, however, that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been decoupled from global temperature for the last 425 million years [Davis, 2017] owing to well-established diminishing returns in marginal radiative forcing (ΔRF) as atmospheric CO2 concentration increases. Marginal forcing of temperature from increasing CO2 emissions declined by half from 1850 to 1980, and by nearly two-thirds from 1850 to 1999 [Davis, 2017]. Changes in atmospheric CO2 therefore affect global temperature weakly at most. The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis has been embraced partly because “…there is no convincing alternative explanation…” [USGCRP, 2017] (p. 12). … The ACO [Antarctic Centennial Oscillation] provides a possible [natural] alternative explanation in the form of a natural climate cycle that arises in Antarctica, propagates northward to influence global temperature, and peaks on a predictable centennial timetable. … The period and amplitude of ACOs oscillate in phase with glacial cycles and related surface insolation associated with planetary orbital forces. We conclude that the ACO: encompasses at least the EAP; is the proximate source of D-O oscillations in the Northern Hemisphere; therefore affects global temperature; propagates with increased velocity as temperature increases; doubled in intensity over geologic time; is modulated by global temperature variations associated with planetary orbital cycles; and is the probable paleoclimate precursor of the contemporary Antarctic Oscillation (AAO). Properties of the ACO/AAO are capable of explaining the current global warming signal. For the climate alarmists, polar bear population isn't going extinct, it's stable or increasing. Laforest et al., 2018 A majority of participants indicated that the local polar bear population was stable or increasing. … [Participants] indicated that polar bear body condition is stable; they cited the fact that polar bears are capable of hunting seals in open water as a factor contributing to the stable body condition of the bears. … None of the participants explicitly linked the effects of a warming climate to specific impacts on polar bears. … Five participants indicated that polar bears are adept swimmers capable of hunting seals in open water. Residents of communities along Baffin Bay have also expressed this viewpoint (Dowsley and Wenzel, 2008), whereas Inuvialuit of the Western Arctic had variable perceptions of the ability of bears to catch seals in open water (Joint Secretariat, 2015). The view of polar bears as effective open-water hunters is not consistent with the Western scientific understanding that bears rely on the sea ice platform for catching prey (Stirling and McEwan, 1975; Smith, 1980). The implications of this disagreement are paramount, given that scientists suggest that the greatest threat to polar bears associated with a decrease in sea ice is a significant decrease in access to marine mammal prey (Stirling and Derocher, 1993; Derocher et al., 2004) … A recent aerial survey of the Southern Hudson Bay subpopulation concluded that the abundance of polar bears has remained steady since 1986 (943 bears; SE: 174) (Obbard et al., 2015). The survey included the entire coastal range and offshore island habitat of the Southern Hudson Bay subpopulation, except for the eastern James Bay coast. Taken together, the results of the aerial survey and the participant responses from Wemindji and Chisasibi indicate that the local population has remained stable. However, the unanimous responses from participants in Whapmagoostui/Kuujjuarapik suggest that there has been a localized increase in the number of bears near Whapmagoostui/Kuujjuarapik. The coral reef bleaching off Australia? Based on a new study, this has been going on for 400+ years. Remember when they said the Coral Reefs off Australia were bleaching at an alarming rate and this never happened prior to 1979? Well now research is showing that there are cyclical cycles of bleaching that have been occurring for 400+ years. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00283/full
  14. snowlover91

    Avoiding Hothouse Earth

    Points 1 and 2 are implied, the article mentions ecosystems being destroyed and other disastrous results. Those who are AGW alarmists commonly use arguments like drought, crop failure, polar bears disappearing, etc and I provided some points addressing that line of reasoning. Point 3 likewise follows with some of the extreme “weather events” that alarmists say will happen like increasing hurricanes, severe weather, etc. Point 4 is also applicable because Michael Mann is mentioned (and the opinion article was based on his research). He has rightly been criticized for his extreme methods, hype, and manipulation of data (see the hockey stick graph) among many other issues he’s had.
  15. snowlover91

    Avoiding Hothouse Earth

    What serious changes have impacted humans lately outside of the normal natural disasters that always occur?
×