Jump to content
The Weather Forums

Is Global warming a myth?


Recommended Posts

Glaciers have been retreating worldwide since ~ 1700. I think it's safe to say the planet has warmed.

 

#NotAChineseHoax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glaciers have been retreating worldwide since ~ 1700. I think it's safe to say the planet has warmed.

 

#NotAChineseHoax

 

On a geologic time-scale, the warming has been momentary. It will subside and go in the opposite direction in a big way. By then, everyone living today will be long dead.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt it has been warming, but what has caused it is far from certain.  No doubt there are natural cycles that have taken us from ice age cold to conditions warmer than present in the past.

  • Like 1

Death To Warm Anomalies!

 

Winter 2021-22 stats

 

Total Snowfall = 12.5"

Day with 1" or more snow depth = 11

Total Hail = T

Coldest Low = 15

Lows 32 or below = 24

Highs 32 or below = 5

Lows 20 or below = 4

Highs 40 or below = 16

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a geologic time-scale, the warming has been momentary. It will subside and go in the opposite direction in a big way. By then, everyone living today will be long dead.

These bond cycle rebounds rarely last more than 350yrs without setbacks. We've been warming for about 350yrs now. With or without AGW, I think it's safe to say we're about to experience a cooling episode (especially given the recent trends in the Walker/Hadley intensity ratio, and what it says about the future of global heat transport).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is global warming a myth? I don't know, is MANBEARPIG A MYTH?! No it is not. This is super cereal you guys!

  • Like 4

>1" snowfalls at KFAR in 2021-22: 11/11-12 (1.0"), 11/13 (1.8"), 12/2 (1.0"), 12/4-5 (4.8"), 12/21 (3.1"), 12/25 (3.2"), 12/26-27 (8.6"), 12/28 (2.9"), 1/4-5 (3.2"),

 

Total 2021-22 snowfall at KFAR: 31.7"                                                  Coldest Minimum: -28*F (1/1, 1/7)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No idea why all of these scientists bothered with years of school to get their PhDs when we could have just asked you.

I’m not going to argue it on here. It’s all up to interpretation as well as being relative. I believe what I believe, and it doesn’t fit with the mainstream popular belief.

 

If things were the complete opposite and human induced global cooling was the “thing” and I randomly came along with a narrative that opposed that, saying global warming is happening and it’s not human induced, I would get the same reaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Natural climate change isn’t. Human induced climate change is. I’ll argue it till I die.

Humans are part of nature, and we're certainly contributing to what was *initially* a natural global warming following the depth of the LIA. It's a safe bet that we've added ~ 0.25C +/- 0.05C to global temperatures since 1950, in my opinion.

 

However, that doesn't mean anthropogenic forcing is powerful enough to sustain this warming going forward. Very much like ENSO et al, this global warming regime is structurally unstable, and in fact could be considered self-destructive by nature when one considers the natural conduits to changes in the planetary energy budget(s). If anything, I'd argue that excess CO^2 will bring about a faster conclusion to the warming regime, even as it amplifies the intensity of the warming beforehand.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not going to argue it on here. It’s all up to interpretation as well as being relative. I believe what I believe, and it doesn’t fit with the mainstream popular belief.

If things were the complete opposite and human induced global cooling was the “thing” and I randomly came along with a narrative that opposed that, saying global warming is happening and it’s not human induced, I would get the same reaction.

Robert Filex from ice age now would agree with what you are saying as he speaks to natural cycles of warming and cooling.I do have his book which I bought a few years ago.Geos is also quite a fan of his and has posted on his blog quite a few times.I don't disagree that we do have some influence on climate as we do but the real debate is if we control it which I think is where the bad science aspect is with this.as even with our influence we just can't and won't control the natural climate cycles .I don't disagree that we should find ways to make our Earth a cleaner place pollution wise man's influence or not.but we should find solutions that work for everyone not ones that wrast which is another topic all togeather.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not going to argue it on here. It’s all up to interpretation as well as being relative. I believe what I believe, and it doesn’t fit with the mainstream popular belief.

 

If things were the complete opposite and human induced global cooling was the “thing” and I randomly came along with a narrative that opposed that, saying global warming is happening and it’s not human induced, I would get the same reaction.

 

No offense, but why did you create this thread then?  :)

A forum for the end of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Filex from ice age now would agree with what you are saying as he speaks to natural cycles of warming and cooling.I do have his book which I bought a few years ago.Geos is also quite a fan of his and has posted on his blog quite a few times.I don't disagree that we do have some influence on climate as we do but the real debate is if we control it which I think is where the bad science aspect is with this.as even with our influence we just can't and won't control the natural climate cycles .I don't disagree that we should find ways to make our Earth a cleaner place pollution wise man's influence or not.but we should find solutions that work for everyone not ones that wrast which is another topic all togeather.

We should practice cleaner emissions and control our pollution, I’m all in on that.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wanted to have a discussion, but you created a bogus thread title (anyone who pays attention knows that the planet has warmed) and you linked to Breitbart. Good luck. 

I'm not arguing that, I am arguing the man made warming aspect. I don't buy it and I never will. Its all cyclical. For those who are die hard believers that it is purely man made, then please explain how the warm ups occurred before the dawn of the industrial age. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing that, I am arguing the man made warming aspect. I don't buy it and I never will. Its all cyclical. For those who are die hard believers that it is purely man made, then please explain how the warm ups occurred before the dawn of the industrial age. 

 

I would change the thread title, since it's misleading and really makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about. No offense or anything. 

 

It sounds like you have a beef with people who understand nothing about the climate. People in the climate science community certainly understand natural climate variability, which includes warming without man's help. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing that, I am arguing the man made warming aspect. I don't buy it and I never will. Its all cyclical. For those who are die hard believers that it is purely man made, then please explain how the warm ups occurred before the dawn of the industrial age. 

 

Of course, you do realize that in categorically rejecting the possibility of there being a man-made component to climate change, you're being precisely as narrow-minded and arrogant as the most hysterical AGW proponent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would change the thread title, since it's misleading and really makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about. No offense or anything.

 

It sounds like you have a beef with people who understand nothing about the climate. People in the climate science community certainly understand natural climate variability, which includes warming without man's help.

I think we have more to learn, in that department.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true. What I mean is that climate scientists understand that natural climate variability exists.

Ah, gotcha. And yeah, I think it's silly to deny that we're at least contributing to the warming.

 

It's evident through the spectral dampening observed in the satellite data (which matches up perfectly w/ both of CO2's non-sarurated primary molecular absorption lines) that we're having at least some impact on the planet's radiative budget.

 

However, so far it looks pretty modest, and there's no evidence of a positive feedback response (namely H^2O loading in the upper troposphere and a slackening of the tropical lapse rate). If anything, there's been an acceleration of the upper level mass circulation and ventilation efficiency, which explains why the upper troposphere is cooling in addition to the lower stratosphere (enhanced upward transport = faster parcel expansion/cooling = faster photodissociation of O^3/N^2O = additional upper level cooling = more upward motion through said upper level convection/mass flux, rinse/repeat). This would be actually be a negative feedback response.

 

So, verbatim, this leaves the majority of the observed warming since the LIA unexplained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, the majority of the predicted warming arises from self-perpetuating positive feedback loops in the modeling, rather than from the initial CO^2 increase. This is where I think we've made a mistake, as neither the paleoclimate data or today's observations suggest anything close to a positive feedback response to CO^2 forcing. If anything, the paleo data suggests a negative feedback response, probably through mechanical conduits including the Z-cells and altered photochemistry at/above the tropopause, which would fit in with today's observations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't run the exact numbers lately, but if the compilation of CERES/AIRS/ERBS is to be believed (hard to find reasons to doubt it), then I'm estimating between 45-65% of the immediate radiative forcing from CO^2 has been compensated for through mechanical and photochemical processes. It's the only way to explain the modest radiative changes we've observed to date.

 

However, whether these negative feedbacks *continue* to work their magic is another story altogether. I'm not sure these "feedbacks" are stable/linear to begin with. The climate system as a whole certainly isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With people who only agree with you?

I guess I could answer yes to that question. Because either you believe it’s primarily human induced or you don’t. Whether or not one agrees with another is beside the point. We’ve had the carbon dioxide pollution narrative crammed down our throats for so long, that’s it’s what the majority of the masses believe. How dare someone come along and question it?

 

This is a weather forum on the internet, therefore I’m not as motivated to discuss it deeply as what I would be in an actual face to face setting. Internet usually = sarcasm and conjecture. Neither of which I have much patience for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, you do realize that in categorically rejecting the possibility of there being a man-made component to climate change, you're being precisely as narrow-minded and arrogant as the most hysterical AGW proponent?

If that’s how it’s perceived...... sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I could answer yes to that question. Because either you believe it’s primarily human induced or you don’t. Whether or not one agrees with another is beside the point. We’ve had the carbon dioxide pollution narrative crammed down our throats for so long, that’s it’s what the majority of the masses believe. How dare someone come along and question it?

 

This is a weather forum on the internet, therefore I’m not as motivated to discuss it deeply as what I would be in an actual face to face setting. Internet usually = sarcasm and conjecture. Neither of which I have much patience for.

 

I think it's a little more complex than that. Anyone with an open mind is capable of changing it, or at least moving to a different point on the spectrum.

  • Like 1

A forum for the end of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh lordy.

 

You know, most climate scientists aren't alarmists, but for whatever reason, those with the most alarmist viewpoints tend to get promoted to the highest positions (at least in the public arena, like NOAA/NASA et al). Probably because they're the most skilled when it comes to appealing for funding.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh lordy.

 

You know, most climate scientists aren't alarmists, but for whatever reason, those with the most alarmist viewpoints tend to get promoted to the highest positions (at least in the public arena, like NOAA/NASA et al). Probably because they're the most skilled when it comes to appealing for funding.

 

You make it sound like the collaborative effort that produced that report is a joke, and that you're right. Doesn't pass the smell test. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I noticed this on wunderground as well. Interesting stuff. I'm actually lining up to start a Masters next fall here at PSU in the Climate Science Lab. NASA/JPL funded work on downscaled regional modeling. I'll be trying to model the synoptic-scale conditions that lead to thunderstorm formation here in the PNW, in order to model possible fire starts from lightning in the future. The work will go toward the regional component of the National Climate Assessment (NCA). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed this on wunderground as well. Interesting stuff. I'm actually lining up to start a Masters next fall here at PSU in the Climate Science Lab. NASA/JPL funded work on downscaled regional modeling. I'll be trying to model the synoptic-scale conditions that lead to thunderstorm formation here in the PNW, in order to model possible fire starts from lightning in the future. The work will go toward the regional component of the National Climate Assessment (NCA). 

 

Sounds fascinating. Keep us updated on the research. I'll be interested to hear about your findings.

 

It looks like we will both be embarking on research that tangentially relates to wildfire soon. I just got an internship with the hydrology program at WSU as an undergrad. They have a study site on the south side of Mount Adams (near the Cascade Creek fire and Cougar Creek Fire areas) where we will be looking at the impact wildfire has on snow pack (depth and soil absorption in burned areas versus unburned) as well as water table (oils from burnt vegetation can often make a hydrophobic layer within the soil horizon). Should be really enjoyable as I like that area a lot, having done a lot of hiking around there. We'll be snowshoeing up to replace the batteries in some of the cameras later this month!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed this on wunderground as well. Interesting stuff. I'm actually lining up to start a Masters next fall here at PSU in the Climate Science Lab. NASA/JPL funded work on downscaled regional modeling. I'll be trying to model the synoptic-scale conditions that lead to thunderstorm formation here in the PNW, in order to model possible fire starts from lightning in the future. The work will go toward the regional component of the National Climate Assessment (NCA). 

 

Sounds awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, when referencing Annapolis et al, that report conveniently fails to mention isostatic rebound and other local geologic processes which are responsible for at least 40% of the observed "SLR" across the Chesapeake Bay domain since the end of the LIA.

 

The wetlands around here have been sinking for thousands of years now, and this will probably continue to occur until the Laurentide Ice Sheet re-establishes itself, which won't occur for another several thousand years (it took over 4000 years for the Laurentide Ice Sheet to expand from its inception point over Baffin Island/NE Canada into what is now the Northern US).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congrats to both Demitri and Jesse. I look forward to reading and learning from your research.

Thanks man. Dmitri’s is probably more impressive since it’s for his Master’s, and right now I’m just tagging along as an undergrad. But appreciate it nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds fascinating. Keep us updated on the research. I'll be interested to hear about your findings.

 

It looks like we will both be embarking on research that tangentially relates to wildfire soon. I just got an internship with the hydrology program at WSU as an undergrad. They have a study site on the south side of Mount Adams (near the Cascade Creek fire and Cougar Creek Fire areas) where we will be looking at the impact wildfire has on snow pack (depth and soil absorption in burned areas versus unburned) as well as water table (oils from burnt vegetation can often make a hydrophobic layer within the soil horizon). Should be really enjoyable as I like that area a lot, having done a lot of hiking around there. We'll be snowshoeing up to replace the batteries in some of the cameras later this month!

 

That's really cool. I can put you in touch with a professor here at PSU who specializes in ecological disturbance. He's done a lot of wildfire-related work. The experience you're talking about would be exactly what he would look for in a graduate student. Just an option you can keep in mind in case you want to pursue a Masters in this stuff, down the road.

 

This is the same guy from the Mt. St Helens succession study and the central Cascades tree ring study, both of which I am/was involved in as an undergrad. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's really cool. I can put you in touch with a professor here at PSU who specializes in ecological disturbance. He's done a lot of wildfire-related work. The experience you're talking about would be exactly what he would look for in a graduate student. Just an option you can keep in mind in case you want to pursue a Masters in this stuff, down the road.

 

This is the same guy from the Mt. St Helens succession study and the central Cascades tree ring study, both of which I am/was involved in as an undergrad.

Thanks. I may have to take you up on that. I definitely haven’t ruled out getting my Master’s or even going further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...