Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,611
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

Factors of Climate Change

Thunderbomb1982

By Thunderbomb1982,
in Climate Change

Recommended Posts

Thunderbomb1982

Thunderbomb1982

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skierinvermont

skierinvermont

Posted
Posted

I think you need to read more scientific information on the subject rather than relying on anecdotes and your own obvious biases.

I know you asked for opinions but it's not worth responding to anything you said because it is so unscientific and conspiratorial. For example, you imply "activists" are making up data about sea ice prior to the satellites because you doubt that they had the money to fund airplanes over the arctic. It's almost comical what a narrow world view you deniers consistently have, as if scientific research didn't begin until the 1980s. People have been keeping detailed maps of sea ice since the 1700s for navigation. There were millions of flights across the world in the 1950s many of which went over or near the arctic. Millions of ships. The idea that people didn't have an idea of where the edge of sea ice was until the 1980s is comically naive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thunderbomb1982

Thunderbomb1982

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sophisticated Skeptic

Sophisticated Skeptic

Posted
Posted

Thunder ,  I'm a strong believer of Sun Effects as well....even though it's a relatively new area of intrigue for the mainstream.  If u asked me 10 years ago ,that minor changes on the sun's surface (sunspots , coronal holes) , could effect our weather, and even earthquake potential... I'd think that's nuts.  But I'm now a firm believer. The problem is the evidence isn't always solid.  And when bringing up new theories (especially here) people will basically ignore if they don't see their raw data and charts.   It's definitely an area of science that needs more attention though.

Co2 wise , I'm still on the fence with. But storms are definitely stronger , precipitation wise (rate per hour ) , even tho we've had one of the quietest tornado years on record. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skierinvermont

skierinvermont

Posted
Posted

There's a lot of smart people here and most of them aren't bothering to respond.. and to the rest of us this thread is just a joke. Little pretend scientists playing dress-up. Very little data or facts, no objective analysis, some anecdotes, lots of assumptions and false reasoning. And an obvious bias. No wonder nobody has bothered to respond to the substance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blizzard92

Blizzard92

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

There's a lot of smart people here and most of them aren't bothering to respond.. and to the rest of us this thread is just a joke. Little pretend scientists playing dress-up. Very little data or facts, no objective analysis, some anecdotes, lots of assumptions and false reasoning. And an obvious bias. No wonder nobody has bothered to respond to the substance.

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blizzard1024

blizzard1024

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

There's a lot of smart people here and most of them aren't bothering to respond.. and to the rest of us this thread is just a joke. Little pretend scientists playing dress-up. Very little data or facts, no objective analysis, some anecdotes, lots of assumptions and false reasoning. And an obvious bias. No wonder nobody has bothered to respond to the substance.

You are the one that is very biased and unable to see other viewpoints on this topic. A lot of climate science is anecdotal (proxy data) and model driven (lots of uncertainties) so to be so certain about such a complex system is very naive. Why do you have to be rude and condescending to others?    

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hazwoper

hazwoper

Posted
Posted
On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 0:55 AM, Thunderbomb1982 said:

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.

 

I stopped reading after this gem.  We still have forest fires and volcanoes.  The difference now is that WE are extracting large quantities of carbon from beneath the earths crust that have been locked up for ages AND we are releasing that carbon into the atmosphere.  Please take the time to read more and post less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
blizzard1024

blizzard1024

Posted
Posted

Look at these cloud reanalysis data especially the ERA40. This is for 1000 mb level, or low clouds. Low clouds are thought to be more reflective and leads to net cooling. meanT_2016.png

There is a 5% increase in cloud cover peaking in the cool late 1970s. A 5% increase leads to an extra 18 w/m2 of reflected solar radiation when looking at energy balance diagrams and adding the extra albedo. That dwarfs anything that CO2 can do by far. Also look at the longer term...

imageproxy.php?img=&key=20fe2b78d4e66dfftseries_3_14_0_12_0.png

Obviously there is something going on in 1950 that is most likely due to a different reanalysis technique or additional dataset but the overall trend of decreasing low clouds from the late 1950s to present looks reasonable. From this longer term data set you could say that we have lost about 1.5% of the low clouds (1000 mb) since the late 1950s. That would mean a 1.5% decrease in albedo roughly. So looking at the energy diagrams, clouds reflect about 22.5% of incoming solar radiation(Kiehl and Trenberth 1997). So subtract 1.5% from that and you get 21%. So the incoming solar radiation after geometric adjustments is 342 w/m2. 21% of 342 = 71.82 w/m2. 22.5% of 342 = 77 w/m2.  That's a difference of about 5 w/m2 and exceeds anything CO2 has done so far.  5 w/m2 of added forcing + about 2w/m2 of CO2 forcing = +7 w/m2 which is a lot more than what a doubling of CO2 would provide. Temperatures have warmed about .7C since the late 1950s so obviously there are either strong negative feedbacks and/or the oceans are absorbing the heat and damping the effect on the climate system.  If this is the case a mere 3.7 w/m2 of added forcing from CO2 really is well within the range of what variations in cloud cover do. If the cosmic ray theory holds, then we might see more clouds in the future which will easily damp out the added forcing of CO2. 

 

tseries.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BillT

BillT

Posted
Posted
On 11/27/2016 at 9:15 AM, HailMan06 said:

Yeah I was thinking something similar. Where are all these new posters coming from all of a sudden?

i have been around for years but do limit my posting because of the hateful attitudes and condescension of a FEW around here.....seems attempts to discuss actual science are NOT accepted by some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BillT

BillT

Posted
Posted
On 12/3/2016 at 5:03 PM, skierinvermont said:

There's a lot of smart people here and most of them aren't bothering to respond.. and to the rest of us this thread is just a joke. Little pretend scientists playing dress-up. Very little data or facts, no objective analysis, some anecdotes, lots of assumptions and false reasoning. And an obvious bias. No wonder nobody has bothered to respond to the substance.

false reasoning = the claim we can measure a single temperature for the entire globe to accuracy within hundredths of a degree, and THAT is what the claims of warming are based upon entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pazzo83

pazzo83

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, BillT said:

false reasoning = the claim we can measure a single temperature for the entire globe to accuracy within hundredths of a degree, and THAT is what the claims of warming are based upon entirely.

Um, what?  That is what the global mean temperature is.  We have more tools than ever to help us measure that - ground-based obs, satellites, weather balloons, etc.  There is no "false reasoning" in actual numbers and data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blizzard1024

blizzard1024

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, pazzo83 said:

Um, what?  That is what the global mean temperature is.  We have more tools than ever to help us measure that - ground-based obs, satellites, weather balloons, etc.  There is no "false reasoning" in actual numbers and data.

This is so true. We have much more to help us measure global temperature. BUT we didn't have this back in the late 19th or early 20th century. How can you possibly thread this into an accurate climatic dataset with .01 degree accuracy??? Its apples to oranges...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pazzo83

pazzo83

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

This is so true. We have much more to help us measure global temperature. BUT we didn't have this back in the late 19th or early 20th century. How can you possibly thread this into an accurate climatic dataset with .01 degree accuracy??? Its apples to oranges...

I'm assuming you've taken a stats course before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blizzard1024

blizzard1024

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, pazzo83 said:

I'm assuming you've taken a stats course before?

come on. if you have a very course data set with different instrumentation and methods 100 years ago and a much more comprehensive dataset like now statistics cannot rectify this.  The error bars are larger than the trends....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...