.......

[blizzard1024]

Its because I understand radiative transfer and physics is why I am skeptical.  You guys are clueless and brainwashed. You can't refute that clouds are a big unknown and could cancel a small radiative effect of CO2. 1C for a doubling is known...duh...yes I took undergrad and graduate level radiative transfer. My professor, Dr Craig Bohren from PSU, who is now retired was a nuclear physicist and an expert in radiative transfer and thermo. He was an awesome professor and a GREAT teacher.  He is skeptical of all this horse**** and after retiring has stated that basically you can't get any funding if you don't "believe" in the CAGW scenario. Other more senior professors that have tenure locked up or are retired have stated the same thing. You guys can live in your fantasy world all you want.  The earth's climate will always be changing...always. Even an increase in 1-2C over 100 years won't be that big of a deal. Sea levels will rise and fall...people will have to adapt. In fact, a human species that can adapt to any climate change is good because when the next ice age comes...it is going to be real bad. Happy New Year and good luck. 

 

This has gotten way off topic. I am done on this thread. 

[WeatherRusty]

Its because I understand radiative transfer and physics is why I am skeptical.  You guys are clueless and brainwashed. You can't refute that clouds are a big unknown and could cancel a small radiative effect of CO2. 1C for a doubling is known...duh...yes I took undergrad and graduate level radiative transfer. My professor, Dr Craig Bohren from PSU, who is now retired was a nuclear physicist and an expert in radiative transfer and thermo. He was an awesome professor and a GREAT teacher.  He is skeptical of all this horse**** and after retiring has stated that basically you can't get any funding if you don't "believe" in the CAGW scenario. Other more senior professors that have tenure locked up or are retired have stated the same thing. You guys can live in your fantasy world all you want.  The earth's climate will always be changing...always. Even an increase in 1-2C over 100 years won't be that big of a deal. Sea levels will rise and fall...people will have to adapt. In fact, a human species that can adapt to any climate change is good because when the next ice age comes...it is going to be real bad. Happy New Year and good luck. 

I can't prove there are not 20 fairies dancing on the head of a pin either, ...... Bethesda.

 

You talk out of both sides of your mouth. Glad to see you agree with the radiative physics. Yet you deny the science? That is the science which is accepted. It's the consensus. Climate sensitivity is not settled science and no one suggests that it is. However, even a low sensitivity will bring the world into a state it has not experienced for millions of years, and we have no confidence climate sensitivity is low.

Stop listening to individual opinion, even from that of professors, and listen instead to what the world of science understands...because no one individual can know it all.

 

When the world was 10C warmer than today way back when, why didn't negative feedbacks prevent that from being the case? As little as 20 million years ago when the continents were in nearly the same position as today and the Sun was no more radiant than today, it was 3-4C warmer. No northern ice sheets. No strong negative feedbacks...why not then but now?

[blizzard1024]

I can't prove there are not 20 fairies dancing on the head of a pin either, ...... Bethesda.

 

You talk out of both sides of your mouth. Glad to see you agree with the radiative physics. Yet you deny the science? That is the science which is accepted. It's the consensus. Climate sensitivity is not settled science and no one suggests that it is. However, even a low sensitivity will bring the world into a state it has not experienced for millions of years, and we have no confidence climate sensitivity is low.

Stop listening to individual opinion, even from that of professors, and listen instead to what the world of science understands...because no one individual can know it all.

 

When the world was 10C warmer than today way back when, why didn't negative feedbacks prevent that from being the case? As little as 20 million years ago when the continents were in nearly the same position as today and the Sun was no more radiant than today, it was 3-4C warmer. No northern ice sheets. No strong negative feedbacks...why not then but now?

 

Man you people are relentless. When the earth was 10C warmer the continents were in different places. There were different boundary conditions at those times. 20 million years ago the isthmus of Panama was not closed off. Therefore the ocean currents were different, specifically there was no North Atlantic MOC like today. Hence it was drier at the NH higher latitudes and much less snow fell. Big ice sheets could not form. They began to from ~ 2.6 million years ago when the isthmus closed off and formed the North Atlantic current which encompasses the gulf stream. Then it began to snow at high latitudes triggering glaciations. That is pretty basic paleoclimatology.  Therefore with less moisture, less ice and snow, lower albedo, less cloud cover could easily explain why it was warmer 3-4C 20 million years ago if that was indeed the case. Again different boundary conditions. Totally different planet from what we see today. 

 

I have never doubted the radiative physics. I am not a radiation expert. But I do believe CO2 leads to some warming. Beyond that is where I disagree. we have been through this before. I don't believe in CAGW...even 2C is not much if it is warmer. If it was cooler by 2C that would be a BIG problem. Cooler = bad for humans. warmer = good for humans. Look at history. 

 

What in the world is the "world of science"? Group think can lead you down the wrong path and scientists have been guilty of this many times. Heck us weather forecasters sometimes get caught with this. Some of the smartest, best scientific minds I know have doubts about the CAGW scenarios. Some of these folks I don't want to name because they could see ramifications because of the culture in climate science these days.  That is just the way it is.

 

This thread has gone way off topic....  

[WeatherRusty]

Man you people are relentless. When the earth was 10C warmer the continents were in different places. There were different boundary conditions at those times. 20 million years ago the isthmus of Panama was not closed off. Therefore the ocean currents were different, specifically there was no North Atlantic MOC like today. Hence it was drier at the NH higher latitudes and much less snow fell. Big ice sheets could not form. They began to from ~ 2.6 million years ago when the isthmus closed off and formed the North Atlantic current which encompasses the gulf stream. Then it began to snow at high latitudes triggering glaciations. That is pretty basic paleoclimatology.  Therefore with less moisture, less ice and snow, lower albedo, less cloud cover could easily explain why it was warmer 3-4C 20 million years ago if that was indeed the case. Again different boundary conditions. Totally different planet from what we see today. 

 

I have never doubted the radiative physics. I am not a radiation expert. But I do believe CO2 leads to some warming. Beyond that is where I disagree. we have been through this before. I don't believe in CAGW...even 2C is not much if it is warmer. If it was cooler by 2C that would be a BIG problem. Cooler = bad for humans. warmer = good for humans. Look at history. 

 

What in the world is the "world of science"? Group think can lead you down the wrong path and scientists have been guilty of this many times. Heck us weather forecasters sometimes get caught with this. Some of the smartest, best scientific minds I know have doubts about the CAGW scenarios. Some of these folks I don't want to name because they could see ramifications because of the culture in climate science these days.  That is just the way it is.

 

This thread has gone way off topic....  

 

Yes, you are correct in regard to the impact the opening of the isthmus of Panama had on NH climate. I second that as a teaching moment as well. Good stuff.

 

I don't "believe" in CAGW either...however it remains as viable an outcome as the lesser potential scenarios. We just don't know...and that is the essence of the problem. We definately disagree on the impact that 2C or greater warming would have on the environment however.

 

Now if someone wants to pick up the ball and continue with the thread topic?

[nzucker]

Same story again this winter with the dominant blocking setting up near the Kara and Barents regions

and the coldest NH temperatures on the Eurasian side.

 

500.gif

 

temp.gif

 

612.png

 

612t.png

 

 

Same story again this winter with the dominant blocking setting up near the Kara and Barents regions

and the coldest NH temperatures on the Eurasian side.

 

500.gif

 

temp.gif

 

612.png

 

612t.png

Great observation as usual, Bluewave. It's interesting how some thought this might be the winter in which the cold shifted over to the North American side, but it really only lasted a few weeks, from around January 20th through the February 8th blizzard. After that, the cold air has moved back to Eurasia, and the PV on the Asian side looks to become even more dominant in the next few weeks, particularly in early March. Canada is going to torch again with the huge block over Hudson Bay. The PV over Asia has helped the sea ice in the Sea of Okhotsk build, but it's once again deprived us of the chance for extreme cold. NYC has seen another winter without a low temperature below 10F. 

 

It seems to me that 04-05 and 03-04 were the last winters when we really had extreme cold on the North American side, particularly 03-04. 

[Jonger]

Great observation as usual, Bluewave. It's interesting how some thought this might be the winter in which the cold shifted over to the North American side, but it really only lasted a few weeks, from around January 20th through the February 8th blizzard. After that, the cold air has moved back to Eurasia, and the PV on the Asian side looks to become even more dominant in the next few weeks, particularly in early March. Canada is going to torch again with the huge block over Hudson Bay. The PV over Asia has helped the sea ice in the Sea of Okhotsk build, but it's once again deprived us of the chance for extreme cold. NYC has seen another winter without a low temperature below 10F. 

 

It seems to me that 04-05 and 03-04 were the last winters when we really had extreme cold on the North American side, particularly 03-04. 

 

2008-2009 was below normal for much of the northern teir of states. It was said that the blocking would bring cold to north America, it has been Asia for the past 5 years mainly.