Forums

Arctic Temperature Data

Arctic Temperature Data

To melt away the Arctic ice, it will take a lot more than 274 deg. K!

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

See the 2019 summertime temperatures north of 80 deg. North latitude? Same as the 1958-2002 mean!

MitchP85D | 26. november 2019

Yes Nikita. CA has a dry climate. Rain is good.

RedShift | 26. november 2019

Mitch, I noticed you could not answer my question : do you accept he got fossil fuel money? Yes or no?

You keep braying the same old crap as if that somehow makes his unholy association go away.

RedShift | 26. november 2019

And a full frontal lobotomy is good for you, Mitch. Your cranium has lots of dead tissue.

andy.connor.e | 27. november 2019

@SCC

No thats the opposite of what im talking about. All of those links are about global warming science. Greenhouse gasses effect on warming. Im interested in the climate science thats not laser focused on that one issue. I guess the basis of why thats what im interested in, is because how do we as a species expect to live and adapt to our planet efficiently if we do not understand the natural variation of our climate? It would at least for me, be very logical for our species to understand our climate to the extent that we know where the natural trends are going to go so we can better prepare.

Like this is hypothetical but i hope helps relay the point. That lets say in 100 years the climate is going to shift towards that of a new ice age because historical data suggests that every 100k years there is a ice age. That would at least hold the foundation of our global society to at least agree that this is whats going to happen, so we at least know what to expect and can have a rough idea of how we need to adapt.

But like i had asked previously, it seems like when it comes to climate science, studies are incapable of separating global warming/CO2 effects on warming to learning what happens to the planet.

If i were to compare the two, its very similar to funding research on volcanoes but the research is devoted to the effects of what is released from the volcanoes on global human society. And not devoted to figuring out why they are here, how they work, and what signs to look for that could be an impending eruption.

MitchP85D | 27. november 2019

RedShift, Lindzen received NO fossil fuel money for his atmospheric research. He was paid by Peabody Energy to help defend them in a court case. Who in the hell is going to defend Peabody? Trenberth? Mann? Lindzen was paid to cover his travel/lodging expenses and preparation time for the court case. I laughed at the "breathtaking" sums of money either you or somebody else brought up that Lindzen "made" from Peabody.

Peabody Energy is doing fine after bankruptcy. Apparently, that was their final solution in dealing with the stupid-ass environmentalist wacko lawsuit filed against them.

https://www.peabodyenergy.com/The-Case-for-Coal/

MitchP85D | 27. november 2019

Peabody even has a statement on climate change.

https://www.peabodyenergy.com/Sustainability/climate-change

RedShift | 27. november 2019

Mitch,

I showed not just Peabody, but others too in that link.

And yeah, Peabody could have found someone else. And Lindzen chose to defend them. This isn’t some ‘he isn’t the last person on earth’ kind of thing.

What a weak, weak defense you have Mitch. Do you realize how weak your response was?

Lastly, what do Peabody, Exxon, et al know that you don’t?

RedShift | 27. november 2019

*he is the last

dmm1240 | 27. november 2019

@Andy. The heat trapping properties of CO2 in the atmosphere have been known and proven for 150 years. There are several books available. Diisassociating it from heating of the earth's oceans and surface doesn't work. If CO2 was not a heat trapping gas then no-one would be concerned. Here's a link to one explanation. If you google "CO2 heat trapping properties" you'll find a ton of links to various articles of all kinds.

https://www.livescience.com/58203-how-carbon-dioxide-is-warming-earth.html

dmm1240 | 27. november 2019

@Andy. Here is a short explanation for the University of North Carolina:

Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Some time later, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide molecule stops vibrating.

This animation is somewhat of a simplification. Molecules are constantly in motion, colliding with other gas molecules and transferring energy from one molecule to another during collisions. In the more-complex, real-world process, a CO2 molecule would most likely bump into several other gas molecules before re-emitting the infrared photon. The CO2 molecule might transfer the energy it gained from the absorbed photon to another molecule, adding speed to that molecule's motion. Since the temperature of a gas is a measure of the speed of the molecules in the gas, the faster motion of a molecule that eventually results from the IR photon that was absorbed by a CO2 molecule raises the temperature of the gases in the atmosphere.

This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.

Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect play an important role in Earth's climate. Without greenhouse gases, our planet would be a frozen ball of ice. In recent years, however, excess emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities (mostly burning fossil fuels) have begun to warm Earth's climate at a problematic rate. Other significant greenhouse gases include water vapor (H2O), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3).

© 2012 UCAR

dmm1240 | 27. november 2019
HADRON COLLIDER | 27. november 2019

Here's another long view of "climate change" fanaticism/hoaxism. Happy Thanksgiving, peeps!

_______________________

November 27, 2019
The Climate Con
By Dave Ball
Beware Global Warming! Not because it will consume our planet in fire but rather because it is a Trojan horse concealing a much more real threat, one that will consume our economy, our democracy and our way of life.

Ever since Michael Mann’s fantasy “hockey stick” temperature graph was thoroughly discredited and since Climategate outed institutional scale phony climate data a decade ago, the existence of actual global warming has been rendered null. The same is true for the impact of CO2 on climate. No experiment can confirm its impact, models can’t predict its influence and collateral data (sea level, animal populations etc.) do not confirm a correlation.

The conclusion must be that man-made climate change and the need to eliminate carbon emissions to avoid climate change simply do not exist. None of the narrative is based on objective science. It is a massive hoax and maybe the biggest con job in history. All the classic elements of a con job are present; the victim (mostly liberals and other virtue signalers), the play (appeal to environmental issues), the rope (emotional foundation and persuasion – the world is coming to an end), the convincer (the way it will work to your benefit – eliminate carbon and all is well) and so on. The dangled payoff is saving the world. As in all con jobs, the con artist gets what he wants and the mark gets nothing.

Like all cons, this one looks good to the rubes. Who doesn’t want to save the world and breathe clean air? The basic problem, even if the basic mechanism of eliminating CO2 to stop increasing temperatures were real, is that it would not achieve what its adherents think it would. Let’s look at some facts.

What if we could reduce CO2 emissions? The U.S. produces only 15 percent of the carbon emissions in the world. The rest we have no control over. That leaves 85 percent of emissions in place after spending trillions of dollars.

Most, if not all, of the big proposals for reduction of Carbon emissions by reducing CO2 are simply impossible, impractical or ineffective. Eliminating coal fired electrical generating plants in the US is just one example. The cost of shutting down the US coal industry with the attendant loss of jobs and downstream business would be astronomical. What impact would it have globally? Seventy three percent of India’s electricity is generated from coal fired power plants. India has no plans to reduce its production and consumption of coal. Coal India Ltd. will produce 660 million tons of coal next year, increasing to one billion tons by 2022 - 2023.

In other words, if the U.S. destroyed its economy and eliminated all coal fired electricity production, whatever CO2 reduction that might net would be offset by the increase in coal consumption by India alone. The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, the largest civil engineering project in the world, will include 700 new coal fired power stations. When they are all in operation, these plants could consume an incredible 1.8 billion tons of coal a year. So why are the US and the UK risking catastrophe in their economies when whatever they eliminate will be more than replaced elsewhere?

This, then, brings us to the final piece of the global warming con – what role do the Green New Deal and related decarbonization programs play?

The components of the GND are staggering in magnitude, cost and audacity. They include such “modest” proposals as shutting down the entire coal, oil and natural gas industry, requiring all housing and buildings to be rebuilt and reinsulated, eliminating all gasoline cars and trucks, forcing populations to relocate to urban areas, controlling population by selective abortion and it just goes on.

The reality of many variants of the Green New Deal and all the other absolutely preposterous proposals is that they are not even intended to address environmental issues. Note how often you see the word “justice” associated with certain proposals. Social justice, environmental justice, economic justice and racial justice to name a few. These are code words that lead one back to One World Government socialist theology and redistributive economics. The idea, in a nutshell, is to transfer enormous sums of money and other resources from first world countries in the West to third world and developing nations. Rest assured that a significant portion will find its way into the pockets of the charlatans promoting this con through choking the energy needs of the industrialized nations and transferring that wealth to developing nations. This is done by socialist redistribution in the name of the nebulous concept of sustainable development.

It was, and is, necessary to create the “existential crisis” of global warming in order to scare the multitudes into following the socialist elites blindly down the path of economic destruction to global governance.

Only in the recent round of hysteria have the concepts of Marxist redistribution been introduced and the whole concept of environmental concern been taken over by a political agenda.

If one is to examine the GND closely, it speaks of five goals and three of them are solely focused on some type of social or economic “justice” rather than an environmental outcome. The two environmental goals use language quoted from UN literature. Much of the current virulently Marxist bent of the GND is related directly to the 1992 UN Earth Summit from which came the infamous Agenda 21 that pledged “to change the way people live, eat, learn and communicate, all in the name of saving the earth from mankind’s mistakes, particularly global warming.” So, tying all of what we have said together let’s see what we have.

There is no demonstrable or provable pattern of net temperature change over a millennium so it cannot be said that we’re confronted by catastrophic global warming or cooling.
While CO2 may have some impact on global temperature, its exact influence is not known and cannot be accurately modeled. In any case, CO2 is not the sole or dominant driver of global temperature so that controlling CO2, if it could be done, would have little predictable impact on temperature.
No accurate predictive model of global temperature exists because the system is too complex and too many variables are either unknown or their influences and relationships are not understood.
If spending untold trillions of dollars on reducing CO2 in this country actually did reduce CO2 output, that reduction would be offset many times over by increases from developing nations such as China and India that have every intention of dramatically increasing their CO2 output.
Reliable engineering calculations show very convincingly that the chance of replacing carbon energy sources with renewable energy is exactly zero.
The current global warming narrative has been hijacked by Marxist One World Order extremists to press their revolution to destroy industrialized nations and to redistribute wealth to developing nations and create a world government.
Within the above context, we can see much more clearly that powerful Marxist forces forces are using the construct of a manufactured climate crisis, populist environmental language, and public fear to prosecute their political agenda which is to destroy the Western world and create a One World Order, nirvana to a Marxist, where a group of elites run the world. That’s the con.

Graphic credit:Pixabay

Dave Ball is the author of conservative political commentary, a guest on political talk shows, an elected official and a county party official.

Beware Global Warming! Not because it will consume our planet in fire but rather because it is a Trojan horse concealing a much more real threat, one that will consume our economy, our democracy and our way of life.

Ever since Michael Mann’s fantasy “hockey stick” temperature graph was thoroughly discredited and since Climategate outed institutional scale phony climate data a decade ago, the existence of actual global warming has been rendered null. The same is true for the impact of CO2 on climate. No experiment can confirm its impact, models can’t predict its influence and collateral data (sea level, animal populations etc.) do not confirm a correlation.

The conclusion must be that man-made climate change and the need to eliminate carbon emissions to avoid climate change simply do not exist. None of the narrative is based on objective science. It is a massive hoax and maybe the biggest con job in history. All the classic elements of a con job are present; the victim (mostly liberals and other virtue signalers), the play (appeal to environmental issues), the rope (emotional foundation and persuasion – the world is coming to an end), the convincer (the way it will work to your benefit – eliminate carbon and all is well) and so on. The dangled payoff is saving the world. As in all con jobs, the con artist gets what he wants and the mark gets nothing.

Like all cons, this one looks good to the rubes. Who doesn’t want to save the world and breathe clean air? The basic problem, even if the basic mechanism of eliminating CO2 to stop increasing temperatures were real, is that it would not achieve what its adherents think it would. Let’s look at some facts.

What if we could reduce CO2 emissions? The U.S. produces only 15 percent of the carbon emissions in the world. The rest we have no control over. That leaves 85 percent of emissions in place after spending trillions of dollars.

Most, if not all, of the big proposals for reduction of Carbon emissions by reducing CO2 are simply impossible, impractical or ineffective. Eliminating coal fired electrical generating plants in the US is just one example. The cost of shutting down the US coal industry with the attendant loss of jobs and downstream business would be astronomical. What impact would it have globally? Seventy three percent of India’s electricity is generated from coal fired power plants. India has no plans to reduce its production and consumption of coal. Coal India Ltd. will produce 660 million tons of coal next year, increasing to one billion tons by 2022 - 2023.

In other words, if the U.S. destroyed its economy and eliminated all coal fired electricity production, whatever CO2 reduction that might net would be offset by the increase in coal consumption by India alone. The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, the largest civil engineering project in the world, will include 700 new coal fired power stations. When they are all in operation, these plants could consume an incredible 1.8 billion tons of coal a year. So why are the US and the UK risking catastrophe in their economies when whatever they eliminate will be more than replaced elsewhere?

This, then, brings us to the final piece of the global warming con – what role do the Green New Deal and related decarbonization programs play?

The components of the GND are staggering in magnitude, cost and audacity. They include such “modest” proposals as shutting down the entire coal, oil and natural gas industry, requiring all housing and buildings to be rebuilt and reinsulated, eliminating all gasoline cars and trucks, forcing populations to relocate to urban areas, controlling population by selective abortion and it just goes on.

The reality of many variants of the Green New Deal and all the other absolutely preposterous proposals is that they are not even intended to address environmental issues. Note how often you see the word “justice” associated with certain proposals. Social justice, environmental justice, economic justice and racial justice to name a few. These are code words that lead one back to One World Government socialist theology and redistributive economics. The idea, in a nutshell, is to transfer enormous sums of money and other resources from first world countries in the West to third world and developing nations. Rest assured that a significant portion will find its way into the pockets of the charlatans promoting this con through choking the energy needs of the industrialized nations and transferring that wealth to developing nations. This is done by socialist redistribution in the name of the nebulous concept of sustainable development.

It was, and is, necessary to create the “existential crisis” of global warming in order to scare the multitudes into following the socialist elites blindly down the path of economic destruction to global governance.

Only in the recent round of hysteria have the concepts of Marxist redistribution been introduced and the whole concept of environmental concern been taken over by a political agenda.

If one is to examine the GND closely, it speaks of five goals and three of them are solely focused on some type of social or economic “justice” rather than an environmental outcome. The two environmental goals use language quoted from UN literature. Much of the current virulently Marxist bent of the GND is related directly to the 1992 UN Earth Summit from which came the infamous Agenda 21 that pledged “to change the way people live, eat, learn and communicate, all in the name of saving the earth from mankind’s mistakes, particularly global warming.” So, tying all of what we have said together let’s see what we have.

There is no demonstrable or provable pattern of net temperature change over a millennium so it cannot be said that we’re confronted by catastrophic global warming or cooling.
While CO2 may have some impact on global temperature, its exact influence is not known and cannot be accurately modeled. In any case, CO2 is not the sole or dominant driver of global temperature so that controlling CO2, if it could be done, would have little predictable impact on temperature.
No accurate predictive model of global temperature exists because the system is too complex and too many variables are either unknown or their influences and relationships are not understood.
If spending untold trillions of dollars on reducing CO2 in this country actually did reduce CO2 output, that reduction would be offset many times over by increases from developing nations such as China and India that have every intention of dramatically increasing their CO2 output.
Reliable engineering calculations show very convincingly that the chance of replacing carbon energy sources with renewable energy is exactly zero.
The current global warming narrative has been hijacked by Marxist One World Order extremists to press their revolution to destroy industrialized nations and to redistribute wealth to developing nations and create a world government.
Within the above context, we can see much more clearly that powerful Marxist forces forces are using the construct of a manufactured climate crisis, populist environmental language, and public fear to prosecute their political agenda which is to destroy the Western world and create a One World Order, nirvana to a Marxist, where a group of elites run the world. That’s the con.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/the_climate_con.html#ix...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/the_climate_con.html#ix...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/the_climate_con.html#ix...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/the_climate_con.html#ix...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/the_climate_con.html#ix...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/the_climate_con.html#ix...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/the_climate_con.html#ix...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/the_climate_con.html#ix...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/the_climate_con.html#ix...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/the_climate_con.html#ix...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/the_climate_con.html#ix...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/the_climate_con.html#ix...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/the_climate_con.html#ix...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/the_climate_con.html#ix...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

SCCRENDO | 27. november 2019

Our Hadron Collider has changed flavor and increased his spin. Imagine if we used him as the Hadron Collider. We could be denying the existence of dark matter, gravity and even the Higgs boson.

MitchP85D | 27. november 2019

Happy Thanksgiving HC. Anything that annoys SCCRENDODO makes my day!

teslu3 | 27. november 2019

Professor Emeritus LIndzen has gone emeritus. All of his 22 colleagues in the MIT Programs in Atmosphere, Oceans and Climate strongly disagree with him:
http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/mit-faculty-working...
The risks of increasing CO2 are real.

Happy Thanksgiving to all of you.

MitchP85D | 27. november 2019

Lindzen's response to the PAOC letter -

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/09/lindzen-responds-to-the-mit-lette...

Trump agreed with Lindzen. A win for America!

MitchP85D | 27. november 2019

Happy Thanksgiving teslu3.

jimglas | 27. november 2019

Derp Derp Derp

SCCRENDO | 27. november 2019

If Trump agrees with Lindzen he must be a fraud.

jimglas | 27. november 2019

they are both owned by fossil fuel

MitchP85D | 27. november 2019

Nobody owns Trump or Lindzen! Need I remind you silly Green New Dealers that Lindzen was employed by MIT for most of his professional life? Goofy liberals!!

Now, let's take a look at the Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover since 1972.

http://www.climate4you.com/SnowCover.htm#Northern hemisphere weekly snow cover since 1966

Holding steady at 25,000,000 km^2 since 1972! Does that look like to you the world's snow is melting away to oblivion? Goofy liberals!!!!!

RedShift | 27. november 2019

Lindzen takes fossil fuel money. It’s undisputed.

Mitch can keep whining like a girl tying his depends in a bunch. Doesn’t change a thing. Lindzen is a sell-out.

MitchP85D | 27. november 2019

Not whining about anything RedShift. I'm just laughing at all of you silly Green New Dealers because all of you are running around like chickens with your heads cut off because Al Gore's ManBearPig is gonna git us all!

RedShift | 27. november 2019

Yeah, that’s not what we are doing. But you keep laughing. It’s supposed to help with mental illness.

andy.connor.e | 28. november 2019

No one is listening to what i am saying, and i know this because everyone keeps posting greenhouse gas research. Literally NOT what i am talking about.

SamO | 28. november 2019

GOP is a death cult.

Expect the shitshow of Texas if they are allowed to export their deadly brand of regulation.

https://www.chron.com/news/article/SE-Texas-chemical-plant-fire-continue...

Texas looks like Christian HELL imagined by Dante.

SCCRENDO | 28. november 2019

@Andy. Perhaps none of us have a clue as to what you are asking. Try posing a straightforward simple question and we will try oblige you

NKYTA | 28. november 2019

I think Andy is asking who/what funding is there for climate research without looking through the lens of AGW.

Which is fine, but we know we are changing the climate, and we know what to do. We just need the political will.

SCCRENDO | 28. november 2019

There are options for many different kinds of funding for different projects. However I think most rational organizations prioritize what they fund. We cannot research everything. Let’s research what’s important

MitchP85D | 28. november 2019

I have a challenge for all of you who advocate for the idea that humans are changing the climate, and we must stop fossil fuels now. My challenge is to see if any of you are capable of challenging ideas and data, and leave the person out.

RedShift and me have more or less kept our promise not to name-call each other anymore. Now I am challenging all of you to see if you can debate the data and ideas only, and leave all insults and name-calling out. I know I can debate ideas and data without insults. Can any of you? I don't think any of you can! So, let's see if you all can prove me wrong.

Let's wipe the slate clean and debate only the data. Explain why you think the data is valid or faulty. Never mind who posts the data. Just look at the data and explain why you think the data is valid or faulty. Andy, I hope this is something you can appreciate. I don't think any of the other AGW advocates will though.

Let's start with data from my previous post.

http://www.climate4you.com/SnowCover.htm#Northern hemisphere weekly snow cover since 1966

Just click "Northern Hemisphere weekly snow cover since 1972" in the list of contents.

There you can see the average annual snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has remained nearly constant at 25,000,000 km^2. If the earth is warming as fast as many of you human-caused global warming theorists believe, don't you think the snow cover would be showing a decline by now?

Go ahead. Challenge the data and the idea only if you can.

SCCRENDO | 28. november 2019

Looks like they were serving cheap Thanksgiving plonk at Mitch’s house.

andy.connor.e | 28. november 2019

Climate science has reached a level of political that is so deep rooted that there is no chance it can have any relevance to humanity that does not involve greenhouse gasses. This topic is equivalent to talking about Trump. Impossible to be productive, and impossible to separate from the politics. Enjoy arguing with mitch.

SCCRENDO | 28. november 2019

@Andy. So you are finally getting it. Yes the relevance of climate science today are greenhouse gases and how to ameliorate them.

SamO | 28. november 2019

Nobody is going to debate if the world is flat. It's fucking ridiculous. Releasing CO2 increases global temperatures. The evidence is overwhelming. Sorry if that hurts you financially.

MitchP85D | 29. november 2019

So far, 3 failures. Not a single one of you had the ability to challenge Northern Hemispheric snow cover data. SCCRENDO defaulted to "cheap Thanksgiving plonk." Andy defaulted to "Trump," SamO defaulted to "world is flat," and "fucking ridiculous."

I was a little surprised at Andy. But my prediction about the likes of SCRENDO and SamO were spot on!

andy.connor.e | 29. november 2019

Surprised? Not sure how you can be surprised. All everyone talks about is greenhouse gasses. Its like being surprised that all media talks about is Trump. Dont understand why anyone would be surprised, thats all thats been happening for the last 4 years.

andy.connor.e | 29. november 2019

When it comes to the climate, the only thing people talk about is greenhouse gasses. Like thats the only thing that there is to worry about. Maybe people allowed themselves to become consumed with propaganda and fear tactics that people actually think greenhouse gasses are the primary driver of climate change.

sabbia | 29. november 2019

The temperature in Barrow Alaska is 18F today. Average high for this time of year is around zeroF. And the sun will not rise in Barrow for about another two months (January 22).

SCCRENDO | 29. november 2019

Nobody responds to your drunken statements weathermoron. I just checked my calendar. It’s late Novemeber. Guess what it’s snowing in the Arctic. What do want us to say “WOW”

MitchP85D | 29. november 2019

Andy, out of the human-caused global warming activists here, I thought you would at least comment on the average annual Northern Hemisphere snow cover of 25,000,000 km^2 holding steady since 1972. There has been no snow cover decline in the Northern Hemisphere since 1972. I think that perplexes all of you, so you avoid it.

The challenge is now over. My experiment verified. Back to normal now. SCCRENDODO was the first to knee-jerk. And he demonstrated his inability to comment rationally on climate data. 60cc SamO is still off in the ozone hole with mike. Andy was the only one who did not resort to insult. But he did not address the climate data.

SCCRENDO | 29. november 2019

It snows in winter. Who would have thought??

MitchP85D | 29. november 2019

Hey SCCRENDODO, 25,000,000 km^2 is the average annual snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere. Not the winter time extent. Got it now? Or is the concept too advanced for you to grasp!

SCCRENDO | 29. november 2019

Are you still drinking that cheap plonk? Look at your own graphs. Snow coverage can reach 50,000,000 km2 in winter. And look at the article ice extent. As bad if not worse than 2012. You truly are a moron
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

andy.connor.e | 30. november 2019

Not sure why you think i'd comment on something that i've never commented on before. Snowcover or ice coverage has never been the centerpoint of my argument. Its been yours though. So im not sure why that would be mine.

MitchP85D | 30. november 2019

Talking about morons!!! That is sea ice extent SCCRENDODO. That has nothing to do with Northern Hemisphere snow cover. SCCRENDODO can't even distinguish the difference between Northern Hemisphere snow cover and sea ice extent!!!!

Allow me to explain the difference for you because you are having difficulties with that concept. Sea ice extent is a measurement of ice formation over the ocean. Snow cover is measured by the surface area of snow observed over land.

You made some comment about the Northern Hemispheric snow cover reaching 50,000,000 km^2 in the winter. Then you made a pointless comment about the sea ice extent which has nothing to do with snow cover.

I have been making the point all along that sea ice extent is more of a function of wind, weather patterns and ocean currents than global mean temperature anomaly. If the global mean temperature was the primary factor, then you would see the results in a declining Northern Hemispheric snow cover. That isn't happening!

So SCCRENDODO, you are right about the 50,000,000 km^2 Northern Hemisphere snow cover peak in winter. I have no idea what your point is about that. In the summer, it melts down to a 3,000,000 km^2 minimum. I don't care about the maximums or minimums. What is important is the average. And the average snow cover has been holding steady at 25,000,000 km^2 since 1972. If you global warming fanatics think the earth is warming as fast as you think it is, it would show up in the snow cover data. Instead, snow cover has been stable. And this data supports the idea that global temperature change has been quite small. And any effects humans have on the climate are likewise small and insignificant.

sabbia | 30. november 2019

Temperature today in Barrow Alaska is 17 F. The sun set for the winter about two weeks ago. Normal temperature this time of year is around 0 F.

MitchP85D | 30. november 2019

Andy, the Northern Hemisphere sea ice decline since the 1979 peak has been the front and center parameter for the global warming fanatics during the past few decades. I have been taking this issue head on in the Tesla Forum. This is the parameter the fanatics use for their hysterical warnings of drastic sea level rise, threatening millions of people worldwide.

If one is to blame the CO2 molecule for drastic effects on the climate, then we need to examine some real physical data to support such a theory. CO2 is a GHG. We all agree on that. How much of an effect does the increasing CO2 in our atmosphere actually have on our climate? Well Andy, that is what the entire debate is about. As Lindzen correctly stated, "when a climate scientists makes the claim that the debate is over, that person has stepped out of the science."

MitchP85D | 30. november 2019

Make that, "when a climate scientist makes the claim.."

MitchP85D | 30. november 2019

Silly sabby, I've noticed you now have a favorite data point.

Here is my prediction. When the Chukchi Sea freezes over, the PABR temperatures will normalize this winter.

andy.connor.e | 30. november 2019

You're correlating total area snow coverage with surface temperatures.

Pages