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'm not saying I know, but those links from ronnie look pretty suspicious. Roteador appears to be a Portuguese WiFi manufacturer.
Ronnie, can you confirm?
Meanwhile, temperature in Barrow Alaska is 33 F today. Average for October is 22F.
ronnie links are spam. Those links have been posted on multiple topics. flagged.
Andy, thank you for flagging what needs to be flagged.
Silly sabby, here is the 7-day NWS forecast for PABR:
Really nothing striking or unusual about their weather at all.
Here is the September 10-year Northern Hemispheric temperature anomaly north of 50 deg. N.
As you can see, the temperature is below normal in some areas and above normal in others. You global warming zealots only point out where it is above normal as proof of human-caused global warming.
Mainstream scientists dont want to admit there was an impact 12000 years ago that ended the ice age.
@Andy. Nobody is denying that the earth in it's long history has had multiple events that have been devastating . Their have been 5 previous extinctions including the disappearance of the dinosaurs. But just because it has happened before does not mean we should be happy about it. If the earth is going to explode and there is nothing we can do about it there is no point in worrying about it. However the reality is that the earth is presently warming with terrible consequences. And the present increase is directly related to fossil fuels. And yes it is preventable. And needs to be addressed.
"However the reality is that the earth is presently warming with terrible consequences. And the present increase is directly related to fossil fuels."
This statement does not take into account there was some 100 years of warming and glacier recession before human produced greenhouse gasses were even a measurable significance.
Geeze, how many times are we going to have to go through this?
1) This is what NOAA has to say about it:https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-difference-betwee...
2) You're failing to take into account the dramatic increase in the number of human beings on the planet and this increase has been rapid:
The number of people on this planet spewing out greenhouse gases has tripled in my lifetime. Human population has exploded by a factor of 12 since 1700.
3) According to EPA: Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels have significantly increased since 1900. Since 1970, CO2 emissions have increased by about 90%, with emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributing about 78% of the total greenhouse gas emissions increase from 1970 to 2011. Agriculture, deforestation, and other land-use changes have been the second-largest contributors.
4) The Industrial Revolution is credited with starting ~1760 in Great Britain. The main features involved in the Industrial Revolution were technological, socioeconomic, and cultural. The technological changes included the following: (1) the use of new basic materials, chiefly iron and steel, (2) the use of new energy sources, including both fuels and motive power, such as coal, the steam engine, electricity, petroleum, and the internal-combustion engine, (3) the invention of new machines, such as the spinning jenny and the power loom that permitted increased production with a smaller expenditure of human energy, (4) a new organization of work known as the factory system, which entailed increased division of labour and specialization of function, (5) important developments in transportation and communication, including the steam locomotive, steamship, automobile, airplane, telegraph, and radio, and (6) the increasing application of science to industry. These technological changes made possible a tremendously increased use of natural resources and the mass production of manufactured goods.
Glacial retreat, speaking globally, began around following the Little Ice Age starting around 1850. The cause was warming temperatures around the planet as a whole. The Little Ice had three distinct cooling events around 1650, 1770 and 1850. This was NOT a global phenomena. Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population (for example from the Black Death and the colonization of the Americas).Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the twentieth century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this interval, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.... [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late twentieth century levels source: Wikipedia.
Between 1940 and 1980, the northern hemisphere experienced another cooling period where glacier melt slowed. Since then, it's taken off.
Corresponding with this, what do we have?
1. Increased development/industrialization around the world, particularly in Asia.
2. A tripling of global population.
3. The release rate for greenhouse gases has skyrocketed, doubling since 1980.
4. Global temperature has skyrocketed at an astonishing rate recently surpassing 1°C.
Here's one for you. In 1950, Glacier National Park in Montana had 100 glaciers. Twenty-five are left.
If you look at all this, the conclusion is inescapable. There's no need to dive into cherry picked data. The bottom line: There are a lot more humans releasing a lot more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Overall global temperature is increasing at at an astonishing rate. We're seeing extinctions at an unprecedented level. Animal and fish populations are in serious decline.
There is only one reasonable conclusion: Our activities as a species are a direct cause of all this instead of Mother Nature.
To say different, someone is the fat kid who's just downed 10 cherry pies but blames his weight gain on genetics. No, buster, it's all those cherry pies.
We have the technology to address it. The result would be a lot of economic activity. Money sitting in a bank doesn't do anything, if you employ it to build and do things everyone prospers.
As has been shown a gazillion times, it's cheaper to address climate change than it will be to take Mitch's approach which amounts to whistling past a graveyard filled with monsters.
Its been a long time since I have been on here. I totally agree with Mitch. Now 4 teslas and 100k miles later later I see the same wind bags are still crying wolf hysterically. Can you guys show one climate catastrophe that has actually happened that was predicted by models since you guys have been worshiping at the alter of global warming? Please convince me with one actual event that is beyond historical norms.
"those who think the science of the climate is settled clearly do not understand the climate and certainly do not understand science". Dr Richard Lindzen professor of atmospheric science and astrophysics MIT.
A blast from the past. Some hot air from denier Dofpic.
How about the following.https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
You sound like the congressional Republicans.
No evidence of quid pro quo besides Trump’s, Mulvaney’s and Guiliani’s public confessions.
Mega-storms like Hurricane Harvey have gone from occurring once every 100 years, to once every 16 years.
- Union of Concerned Scientists
Gathered as they will be at the Doral in Florida, a real leader would be telling the world that Floridians are already coping with the changes in climate that have come along with 1°C of warming over the past century. That warming shows up in Miami Beach in the form of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to relieve the city’s residents of having to wade through ankle-deep water downtown during high tides rendered higher by sea level rise. It shows up in the form of climate gentrification in Miami as those who can afford to do so move away from flood-prone areas to higher ground inland, making properties there increasingly unaffordable for residents with lower incomes. And it shows up as millions of people scramble to prepare for or recover from rapidly intensifying hurricanes like Irma and Matthew that threaten the state.
Not far from President Trump’s opulent resort are more modest income communities like Opa-Locka, Hiahleah and Shorecrest, whose residents are struggling as their streets regularly flood during storms and even just high tides as water comes up through stormwater drains.
The leadership we need would involve noting that Florida is also facing rapid, widespread increases in extreme heat. Between now and the middle of the century, the frequency of days with a heat index—a combined measure of temperature and humidity–above 105°F is projected to increase twelve-fold in Miami-Dade County, where the resort is located. Historically, the county has experienced an average of seven days per year with these dangerously hot conditions. By midcentury, with no action to reduce emissions, there would be 88 days with a heat index above 105°F in an average year–that’s nearly three months’ worth of days when being outdoors to play golf, to work, or even to take a stroll would present serious health risks. By late century the county would experience a staggering 138 days per year with that level of heat.
- Union of Concerned Scientists
We just endured a summer where the number of 90°+ days averages 37 per year. Atlanta weather shattered that with three times as many 90°+ days. The thermometer hit 97° in early October, the average is 78°.
You asked for one, I gave you several. Ole Mitch himself was a victim of Hurricane Harvey which dropped 4' of rain on his head. Then Houston got another one this year, a mere tropical depression, that dropped several more feet of water on the area though Mitch escaped the flooding this time.
Dofpic, didn't you say something like, "bb0tin, I am your father" a year or two ago?
Hey dim1240, In the US, nothing compared to the 1930s for the number of high temperatures over 100 deg F during the instrument record.
Have fun with the continued flooding Mitch,
The 1930s dwarfs all other decades in the US for record hot temperatures.
More data to show 1930s was the hottest decade -
1930s Warmest Decade on Record -
And guess what? Climate scientists have recently relayed the 1930s warming to climate changehttps://www.climatecentral.org/news/scientists-trace-climate-heat-link-t...
Check it out. This is the average maximum temperatures from January-July for all of the US Historical Climatology Network Stations. Starting in 1895:
Are you global warming zealots beginning to notice a pattern yet?
This is not just summer monthshttps://www.climatecentral.org/news/scientists-trace-climate-heat-link-t...
The Arctic Ice will melt away in a couple of years hoplessly and no care really cares.
https://downloader.vip/vpn/ https://flatwow.in/sai-mannat/ https://anydesk.vip/
Does this look like Arctic ice will melt away?
Lots of 2.5-3.5 meter thick ice in October.
It will take much more than 1 deg. C in the summertime to melt away the Arctic ice!
High resolution Antarctic Ice Core Data shows both earlier Holocene and previous Interglacial temperatures higher than modern day temperatures.
Also note that the previous Interglacial had lower CO2 content than today.
Hi Mitch! I haven’t checked back recently.
Did you ever watch that video of Arctic Ice declining?
Visuals are good. Do you have visuals for the crap you deniers think is “science”?
Here are some current visuals Nikita:
You can see how the Arctic is pretty well below the 1981-2010 median ice edge. But the Antarctic is about as close to normal as you can get.
Of course that is called cherry picking. Ice is not lost uniformly everyone. But indeed ice is significantly down
Check out the ground scarring from massive floodwaters over the basalt plateau. Pretty cool that you can actually see these things.
It’s going to touch 90 degrees here in the Bay Area mid week. It’s almost November!
In the Arctic, compared to the 1981-2010 ice edge mean SCCRENDODO. Consider qualifying your statements some.
Northern Hemispheric Extra-tropical Temperatures show a warming peak around 1000 A.D.
that was then
this is now
Ya thats called the medieval warming period, which preceded the mini ice-age.
What your source does not have, is an explanation for that warming.
The weathermoron has been blabing about the the 30s warming and the medieval warm period ad nauseum. I explained the 30s above. This should clarify the medieval warm period. These periods of warming do not disprove climate change due to fossil fuelshttps://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
All four previous Interglacial periods were warmer than our currently mild Holocene.
Yes, that was then Andy. That is why what is now is so unremarkable.
No appreciation for the complexity and power of our climate that we dont understand. Its so unremarkable that an event could raise the ocean levels by some 200 ft in a matter of 2 weeks. Nothing important to learn from history, please keep shopping.
@andy. Our weathermoron has no idea of weather let alone climate. According to him Alaska is just finehttps://apple.news/ALN92iJbfQ5a4YGU8oYbmCQ
Also just because the earth has sustained previous disasters and survived does not men we want to create a new onehttps://apple.news/ARCq_20FCQM-bVuYcm0k46Q
ya i dont know why it would. I bet if the Tunguska event happened a few hours earlier over Europe instead of over uninhabited areas of Russia, the 20th century would have developed much differently.
SCCRENDODO has no idea that what is happening in Alaska is due to natural climate variation!
dodos are nice
I don’t think Tunguska meteor striking a city in Europe would throttle back the human civilization by all that much.
It was a big event, but the fallout would be like if a very large bomb had gone off in the middle of London. It would have had to strike a big city like London or Berlin, and those size cities are smaller in number and would be harder to strike, probability wise.
Massive iceberg en route to break off the antarctic. Nothing to see here, keep shopping!!!
No i dont think it would have set us back at all. I think it may have had us pay more attention to space debris, and how important it is to be able to know where they are. That event was equivalent to a 1940s nuke. Our inability to detect objects in orbit is scary to me.
Well Andy, it’s life. Humanity is the u,timate keystone species. One day, it may ven protect the earth from an impending asteroid strike.
However, it’s in our nature to destroy ourselves. Major bummer. Line from Terminator 2.
Some scientists think the reason we don’t have contact with alien life is because intelligent life has a limited lifespan...