To melt away the Arctic ice, it will take a lot more than 274 deg. K!
See the 2019 summertime temperatures north of 80 deg. North latitude? Same as the 1958-2002 mean!
i found the whole thing interesting. sorry you got bored in the first couple minutes.
Looks like an informative video andy. Definitely shows the sun as the primary driver of climate. When I get to my break from work, I'll watch the entire video. Lots solar physicists think the sun is the main issue - not humans.
Interesting thing about Dr. Roy Spencer is that he doesn't think the sun is the primary driver of short-term climate change. He, along with the late, great Dr. Bill Gray thinks ocean currents are the primary drivers.
"Definitely shows the sun as the primary driver of climate."
I take this as a video explaining the natural climate variation. Greenhouse gasses increase warming, the debate is how much. There is CO2 and there is Methane. There are forest fires and there is permafrost. Lots of things we still dont understand, but this video was very interesting about natural variation.
" There are forest fires and there is permafrost. Lots of things we still dont understand, but this video was very interesting about natural variation."
I guess it's the UNNATURAL variations we are concerned with.
@rxlawdude. +100. Thanks for watching it for us
Greenland ice sheet loss is staggering.
4 trillion tones of loss in ice since 2002.
I think another point to take from that, is how do you measure unnatural variance if the natural variance is not fully taken into account?
Another fact checkhttps://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49483580
Oops Redshift. You beat me to it.
The sun *IS* the primary driver of climate. Agreed. The variation of insolation over the period of recent climate change, has been too small to explain that climate change.
Here's an analogy. The bubonic plague was a/the primary driver of mortality in the fourteenth century. It isn't now.
Insolation variation has been the primary driver in climate change at points in the past. It isn't now.
Unless it was caused by sudden events such as a super volcano or an asteroid strike, the natural variations would be gradual, I would posit.
It was caused by a sudden event. The industrial revolution followed by the automobile.
haha @scc well played.
That is your theory. That is what you global warming zealots are hanging your hats on. Yet, all of your predictions of climate catastrophe in the past have failed to take place. So, what do you do about that? Just keep screaming that the earth is heating up and the polar ice will melt, and the sea level will swamp the coasts.
Funny that the Obamas aren't too concerned about it!
And apparently banks are not concerned about lending money to people to build in areas that will presumably be underwater in a decade or 2. More interesting things. Are they just morons?
First: Detective Sam Spade explains to Brigid why he plans to turn her in to the police for killing his partner, Miles Thursby from “The Maltese Falcon.”
Listen... This won't do any good.
You'll never understand me but I'll
try once and then give it up.
Listen... When a man's partner is
killed, he's supposed to do
something about it. It doesn't make any difference what
you thought of him. He was your partner
and you're supposed to do something
about it. Then it happens we're in
the detective business. Well, when
one of your organization gets killed,
it's bad business to let the killer
get away with it -- bad all around
-- bad for every detective
You don't expect me to think that
these things you're saying are
sufficient reason for sending me to
Wait till I'm through. Then you can
talk. Third. I've no earthly
reason to think I can trust you and
if I did this and got away with it,
you'd have something on me you could
use whenever you wanted to. Next:
since I've got something on you, I
couldn't be sure you wouldn't decide
to put a hole in me some day.
Fifth. I wouldn't even like the
idea of thinking that there might be
one chance in a hundred that you'd
played me for a sucker. And sixth:
But that's enough. All those are on
one side. Maybe some of them are
unimportant. I won't argue about
that. But look at the number of
them. Now, on the other side we've
got what? All we've got is that
maybe you love me and maybe I love
You know whether you love me or not.
Maybe I do. What of it? Maybe next month I won't.
I've been through it before. I'll
have some rotten nights after I've
sent you over but that'll pass.
Let’s do some “expert” counting. The following is a long, long list spread out over several posts due to length.
List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:
Academia Chilena de Ciencias Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Físicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Academia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association fo Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croation Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Sciences and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency (US)
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, USA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Research Council
National Science Foundation (NSF)
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Span
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Science
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole Research Center
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization (WHO)
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
That’s one side of the ledger. I tried to find scientific bodies that dismiss the idea that human action is causing climate change.
THERE AREN’T ANY.
All one can find is a few conservative think tanks like the Heartland Institute (most with connections to the fossil fuel industry and/or the notorious Koch Brothers in particular) that discount the whole notion of climate change and/or that its cause is human activity (burning fossil fuels). Try the Google. They’re not there.
So, playing Sam Spade, we have all these scientists. We have reams and reams of data. We have photo evidence dating back decades showing the decline of glaciers, records of warming termpertures planet wide, weather becoming more irascible by the year, animal migrations, dying coral reefs, declining animal species all over the globe, melting permafrost — you name it, there’s evidence.
That’s one side of the ledger. What’s on the other side? Not much.
I’m going with all the experts. How about you?
hey dim1240, what you posted is ample proof why global warming hysteria has become a multi-billion dollar industry!
By the way dim one, there is data alright.
Polar ice has declined from 24,000,000 km^2 to 22,000,000 km^2 from 1979 to now. So, what silly point are you goofy global warming fanatics trying to make? If it wasn't for humans, the polar sea ice would still be sitting at 24,000,000 km^2????!!!!!!
@dmm. I don't think you have enough facts for him. He seems to think that 2 million square kilometers of ice loss is nothing. Probably would have called the big bang a firecracker accident.
i bet he thinks the earth is 10,000 years old.
or was it 3,000?
@andy. I think 6000.
@mitch. Have you been feeding Trump weather forecasts.https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/04/trump-altered-dorian-map-...
Hes literally showing us this forecast track, and is like "i dont know" when hes questioned why it was so blatantly incorrect. I've been tracking the storm on windy.com and weather channel and the forecast models never crossed over florida.
@RedShift: "Your just an ignorant POS. :-)"
Thank you for your comment. It proves--one sentence--many of my points about how you SJWs interact with those with the temerity to not embrace your fanaticism.
It never fails to amuse, to observe your inability to write a simple sentence, free from gross grammatical errors, while calling someone 'ignorant.'
Yet, you silly global warming zealots will buy hook, line, and sinker that the seal level will rise a few meters in the matter of a few decades!
Still no data. Show us your data, and stop acting the drama queen.
If you don’t have anything credible, go away. Simple.
Dont ask him for data. He will just give you cherry picked .jpg's of NOAA data taken from a broad study.
And you silly global warming zealots cringe when you see events like this. The USS Skate surfacing in open water at the North Pole on 11 AUG 1958!
Yes, the Arctic ice thinned considerably in the early/mid 20th Century before it froze up and thickened in the 1960s and 1970s.
Does this kind of evidence disturb you silly global warming fanatics? Or, Social Justice Warriors as HC calls you?
"Does this kind of evidence disturb you silly global warming fanatics?"
No it doesn't. The denizens of this forum are not important. What's important is the entire scientific community — minus a scattering of flat earther types — discounts little anecdotes like that. If you read the Skate story, like I did, the narrative revolved around the fact that a hole in the ice was extremely rare in 1958. The crew was terrified that their calculations were in error and that the Skate would be crushed by the 10' of ice covering the Arctic sea in 1958. It was the rarity of such a hole that was the novelty and made an otherwise routine surfacing of a submarine global news. It wouldn't be news today because holes in the icecap are no longer rare.
NASA: Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*"
Is that a scientific community based on the actively publishing climate scientists? Are all the climate scientists actively publishing?
@andy. An honest perspective on the numbers. Whether truly 97 % vs 95 % vs 99 % it hardly matters. It is pretty much everyone except Mitch's band of crazies and the Koch brother's scientists who are likely one and the samehttps://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-interme...
Ya i was just wondering, in case it was like 30% of scientists are publishing, but 97% of that 30% agree. Then theres 70% of uninvolved scientists on the consensus percentage.
I recently attended a congressional event where an audience member asked a scientist if the angle of the earth's axis with respect to the sun causes climate change.
It was a rhetorical set up question
The answer is yes.
But the denier who asked it didn't expect the rest of the answer: Not the climate change we are seeing now which is anthropogenic.
And then the denier, duly chastened by the public explanation of a fact that he already know, said, "what about China and India?"
Watch out. This will be the new normal. Not whether climate change is anthropogenic but it's already too late and besides, China and India are the main causes.
"FRAUD ALERT.....FRAUD ALERT....." Warning: Reading the following may cause skin flushing, hives, gastric distress, inappropriately-timed flatulence, more than your usual-intensity psychotic outbursts and erectile dysfunction:
The latter is a (presently) 26-part series penned by 'Manhattan Contrarian'--and begun in 2013--which shines much needed disinfecting sunlight upon the AGW/Climate Change/(aka: 'Weather') hysteria that has been foisted upon us all by a host of self-aggrandizing and unscrupulous pols, 'scientists' and other seekers of grant money--as well as their credulous toadies, many of whom post right here--multiple times per week--for our general amusement.
I know. Truly, I know! Thank me later!*
*After taking the Red Pill, of course.
“Remember, all I’m offering is the truth. Nothing more.”
@andy.connor.e: "Is that a scientific community based on the actively publishing climate scientists? Are all the climate scientists actively publishing?"
IDK, andy, but I'd wager that 99.997#% of actively publishing climate scientists would do anything--take any position, even to insert their heads into their posterior-inferiors after twisting their torsos 180º (thus forming personalized Mobius bands) to keep those fat FedGov grants coming their way.
This would explain much.
"Publish or perish, that's what we cherish."
@HADRON. You should stick to creating quarks with different spins and flavors. You pick a strawman and then draw conclusions. I linked you to the facts on scientists. Scientists are a heterogeneous group. We are not a group of puppets that all get trained in the same place get called to meeting and get told what to do. If you had read any good scientific papers you would see that it takes a lot to get consensus among scientists. This may be different among Trumpists who get all their education and facts from Foxnews.
“You should stick to creating quarks with different spins and flavors.”
I doubt he’d know how to get started with any of that.
His “data” consists of suggestions of conspiracy among an overwhelming majority of scientists from all over the world.
Also, his dumb conspiracy suggestions fall flat hard on their asses because of the great denier in Chief running the government. Yet there is no change in the AGW consensus.
@SC: Too many scientists involved in these issues are conflicted; they are not unbiased and have a vested interest in climate alarmism. Furthermore, so many of the 'facts' I see used as linchpins of the AGM 'settled science' database have been purposefully corrupted, beginning with a deliberate and methodical alteration of temperature data from very early times. so as to create a 'cooler' benchmark against which any newer (and increased) temperature change--no matter how slight--will show the desired (the needed) increase over time.
Meanwhile, sunspot measurements are projecting a version of the Maunder Minimum that, if solar radiation is, as I believe, the primary (and overwhelming) factor in global warming, will take us for an entirely different ride.
And, as the first snows of winter hit Phoenix, AZ, I fully expect the AGM folks to morph SEAMLESSLY into a new and profound Global Cooling/Mini-Ice Age hysteria that will strain all credulity in its attempt to tie future glaciations /etc. to human activity.
"AGM" should read "AGW."
@RedShift: You have already shown yourself to be a boorish, insulting creature, first to resort to invective, ad hominem attacks and demands for opposing posters to 'leave the room.' Basically, you are the worst type of individual to be found bottom-feeding in any public forum.
A hirsute, knuckle-dragging, slack-jawed Neanderthal comes to mind.
With the face of Alfred E. Neuman.
Kindly do your best to ignore me as I will absolutely ignore you--for all time--in three...two...one.
“Too many scientists involved in these issues are conflicted; they are not unbiased and have a vested interest in climate alarmism.”
Proof would be nice. Until then, allow us to ignore your FUD.
“You have shown yourself to be a boorish, insulting creature”
I follow the principle of mimicking the posture employed by one of I’m facing.
*one I’m facing
Agree with Redshift. You make a lot of insulting claims regarding scientists without providing any evidence. Scientists by definition are independent thinkers. And yes their would rightly be financial support towards climate change research. Good scientists do not prejudge the results. They created hypotheses and then test the validity. Disproving hypotheses is as important as proving the hypothesis. Data has to be validated in multiple different ways to gain acceptance. The main fraud is in the denier committee. The funding source is almost always from the fossil fuel industry. Don’t just make claims. So us good evidence. You are a loudmouth and a fake beginning with your handle. I bet you cannot even justify your handle.
None of you here will take a long look through the business end of the telescope:
Did you know that hadron collider is opposed to ad hominem posts?
"A hirsute, knuckle-dragging, slack-jawed Neanderthal comes to mind.
With the face of Alfred E. Neuman."
You can't make this stuff up.
Hadron: Can I ask you a trick question? Do you carry the FOXP2 gene?