Severe weather alert!!!!

There is plenty of evidence for AGW at the moment. Denying it is head in the sand.
What isn't known, is the reason for it at this time.

 

I would ask you to watch just an hour or so of weather underground on the weather channel that daily uses their meteorological experts to grind that axe, every day. I know, you'd like to believe what you wrote, the truth, however, is that daily we get experts in climate and weather who claim that these "extreme events" "isolated trends", etc are in fact "evidence" of global warming and are entirely caused by it.

 

What are you saying exactly?

Are you saying that data prior to 1980 refutes the fact that the polar sea ice volumes have been declining for 40 years?

In other words, if I look at data prior to 1980 am I all of sudden going to see a neutral or even positive slope in the data after 1980?

 

How disingenuous can you be? Like there was even a satellite image of the ice caps, prior to the first one, when again? Is this you trying to bully folks with trending lines again? Was there more ice last winter? What does it tell us to expect this year? Or next, or the year after? Oh wait, it doesn't. It just creates a vacuous discussion point.... I keep forgetting that really is the goal, huh?

 

How do you know what the historic volumes over 1,000,000 years have been? How do you know you're not on a short term down trend in the midst of a long term up trend? How will you spot a trend reversal if that's taking place?
Without the long term data, you don't know that we're not just doing short term oscillations that have occurred thousands of times in the past, and are normal

 

The data is what it is. Sea ice extents/volumes have been trending down for decades. It happened for a reason. Just because natural processes modulated sea ice volumes/extents in the past doesn't mean that anthroprogenic processes can't be modulating them today.

 

Ice core data can give us clues.

Because the entire Earth is warming (especially the polar regions) and will continue to warm due to the radiative forcing of GHGs assuming there are no long periods of hyperactive volcanic activity or some other kind of cataclysm both of which are unlikely.

If you disagree then present to me a dataset which you trust that shows 1) sea ice volumes are in a secular uptrend 2) that past trends necessarily predict future trends and 3) that sea ice volumes can increase in regime of significant warming. Be convincing.

Do you think it's necessary to spot a trend reversal to be able to establish the cause of the current trend?

Think carefully before you answer because you know I'm going to start tossing examples from other disciplines of science that show you can determine causation of a trend without witnessing prior reversals.

There have been oscillations in the polar sea ice volumes. No one disputes that. But everyone agrees that these volumes ebb and flow for a reason. Sometimes the reasons can be hard to tease out especially in the past when we must resort to proxy lines of evidence and forensic based analysis. But sometimes the reasons can be obvious like is the case in the modern era. Specifically the polar sea ice is declining (especially in the Arctic) because it is warming there...a lot. We have multiple lines of evidence definitively support this observation.

 

"But what about the Earth, how do we know it's been orbiting the sun for billions of years? Where are the records for all that time? If you don't have them, you don't know." But we do know. We know because we have direct measurements and proxies, and because the laws of physics don't change over time. Same with the ice.

We also know about historical Arctic Sea Ice levels because we do have long term data. A real skeptic would have looked for that data, instead of falling back on confirmation bias to assume there was no such data.

For example, Meier et al (2012) takes it back to 1953 with high accuracy.

https://www.the-cryosphere.net/6/1359/2012/tc-6-1359-2012.html



That's just the first. If anyone insists on moving the goalposts back more, I can keep showing more data sources going progressively further back. Those sources never show low ice levels like today. Quite the contrary, they show remarkable things, such as Baffin Bay not melting out in the summer, or winter sea ice spreading down to the northern coast of Iceland, things that never happen today.

If anyone wants to claim that somehow, the Arctic could have had low ice levels without the higher temperatures we see now, even though it's never happened before, that's an extraordinary claim that will require extraordinary evidence to support it. "But can you prove it didn't happen?" is handwaving, not science. I can't prove that fairy magic hasn't melted the ice in the past, but that doesn't make fairy magic a viable theory.

 

Ok, here's the reason. Because I said so. Sufficient, isn't it? Better questions, does it matter? And do trends ever change? Id say please please don't use your science in the stock market. It will crush you. I would point out that 2018 doesn't seem to be as "low" as 2012. why not? Trend your way into a reason for that....

 

This has happened in the past too. And will repeat in the future.

Are you aware that scientists drilling in the Arctic found fossils of enormous mosquitos that could only have been there during a tropical environment.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-north-pole-once-was-tropical/

 

That's the "Well, climate can change naturally, so humans can't change climate" fallacy. For some reason, deniers think it isn't dopey. It is. It's every bit as stupid as saying "Forest fires used to only occur naturally, therefore humans can't cause forest fires".

We _know_ human activity are what is changing the climate now. The distant past is not relevant to that fact. Worshipping Mother Gaia's natural cycles doesn't change that fact.

 

Here is my challenge to you. Since you place humans in charge of the global climate, solve the problem.

Try things I suggest to all alarmists. I understand ferns are excellent collectors of carbon dioxide. I know that scrubbers have been invented and could be put to good use. I know that this earth could use more plants. When a forest burns, they go out and plant more trees. I think that is marvelous.

So when you put man in charge of climate, man can use technology to solve the problem.

Some of you say you know. Enough of us exist we say you do not know. You do however enjoy the politics of this issue.

Do as i suggest and cure global warming.

 

2012 had a wicked melt out because of the Arctic Dipole Anomaly. 2018 has actually been under a regime that encourages slower ice melt rates. That's concerning because melt rates are still well above average. That is worth repeating. The environment in the Arctic region right now is one that should be encouraging an above average year in terms of the summertime minimum. Yet, 2018 is shaping up to still be well below the interdecile range. What do you think is going to happen when the Arctic Dipole Anomaly activates again?

 

I'll wrote what I wrote in another thread, which caused all the deniers to immediately start with the conspiracy theories about socialism taking over the world.

First, try to understand why you let yourself get bamboozled by denier propagandists, so that it won't happen again.

Second, make the changes in your personal life to help the environment. They're not big. Don't breed uncontrollably. Minimize airplane trips. Don't buy big wasteful vehicles. Recycle intelligently. Plant trees. Don't whine about having to pay a little more to save the biosphere.

Third, support politicians that support rational environmental policy. You can only do so much alone.

 

Camels once inhabited the Arctic as well.

 

2007 is the record low for ice in the Arctic. Thank you for the link that explains this.

 

Denier is such a term. Alarmist right back at you.

I have laid out many times why I believe in climate change. I even explained a lot of evidence. Give you some examples.

Great lakes. Were once not there. A massive glacier was. That glacier went down as far as New York City.
Here in Ca, mid state is Yosemite Valley. This valley was carved, per explanations on park signs, by 3 glaciers. The canyon was stabbed into existence by those 3 glaciers. Humans at the time could not have performed this miracle.

Globally, evidence exists of warmer times that man played no role in. It is stupid on my part to believe that sans man, climate changes, yet it takes man for it to change. Two opposing ideas.

You blamed an old man that does not do the things you blame me for. I do not see it as saving anything but the careers of the democrat politicians. They stay in power using this power trip.

Why am I truly not alarmed?

It is far too little to matter. Even long term, this tiny bit of change does not matter. The sky is not falling.

 

Question to the alarm crowd.

Can man chill the planet? Simple and easy to answer question. Does man manage the climate of Earth?

 

You present the convincing datasets. You are the one attempting to reject the null hypothesis.
You demonstrate that anything you think you are seeing is any different than what has happened during thousands of oscillations over the ages.

Oh by the way, the topic is frequency and intensity of storms

 

This climate thing reminds me of the Volcano thing. We could attempt to prove Earth is warming due to Volcanoes.

Given the daily eruptions of Kilauea, isn't' that proof a warmer Earth explained by Volcanoes? We are talking of minute changes to Earth's temperature, aren't we? Such as about 1.5 F over a span of close to 200 years.

 

How is not believing warmers or coolers predictions picking and choosing?

 

Then present your so called evidence and maybe you can elevate AGW from an unproven hypothesis to a full fledged theory. Nobody has done that yet even though one would think it's scientific law if they listened to you.

 

History for starters and first hand accounts. Beyond that I have experience on desert mountain tops in Utah looking at dinosaur tracks in what was once swamp mud and finding fossilized sea shells in the middle of the desert. Yes, climate changes and sometimes it changes so fast entire species immediately go extinct all before the industrial revolution.

 

I can't stop laughing here. First you say AGW has plenty of evidence and then you say the reason for it is unknown at this time. LOL
You really don't even know what you just said do you. Here's a hint. AGW says man is the reason why.

Still laughing!!!!

 

Why are you worried about it? You and I'll be long dead before any climate change is a major problem. **** the future, eh!