true mojo, but at the same time Texoz has pointed out that we need both poles to be frozen in order to reflect sun back into space and keep the planet more cool. time will tell, but we only have 30 years of good records and these cycles are at minimum twice that (from my reading) and possible within cycles much longer than that.
North pole to melt this year?
- Thread starter hornpharmd
- Start date
Instead of Dr. Roy Spencer's graph perhaps it's better to go with the agency that monitors global temperatures??The Link
Call me crazy, but these numbers indicate warming, not cooling.
RANK OF MONTH GLOBALLY
Jan 7th warmest
Feb 9th warmest
Mar 10th warmest
Apr 5th warmest
May 4th warmest
RANK OF PERIOD GLOBALLY
Jan-Feb 8th warmest
Jan-Mar 8th warmest
Jan-Apr 6th warmest
Jan-May 6th warmest
Data indicates warming. An El Nino is forming, which ensures a warm 2nd half of the year so temps will NOT be going down.
The world is getting cooler bs is just that. Actually, it's worse. It's malicious and it's a threat to the future of this country.
If a CAT 3 hurricane was bearing down on the Texas coast and you had Dr. Roy Spencer telling you it wasn't, it wouldn't be any different. If temps keep rising we have major consequences to face and ******** like "Dr. Spencer" are screwing with my kids' future and I don't like it.
Call me crazy, but these numbers indicate warming, not cooling.
RANK OF MONTH GLOBALLY
Jan 7th warmest
Feb 9th warmest
Mar 10th warmest
Apr 5th warmest
May 4th warmest
RANK OF PERIOD GLOBALLY
Jan-Feb 8th warmest
Jan-Mar 8th warmest
Jan-Apr 6th warmest
Jan-May 6th warmest
Data indicates warming. An El Nino is forming, which ensures a warm 2nd half of the year so temps will NOT be going down.
The world is getting cooler bs is just that. Actually, it's worse. It's malicious and it's a threat to the future of this country.
If a CAT 3 hurricane was bearing down on the Texas coast and you had Dr. Roy Spencer telling you it wasn't, it wouldn't be any different. If temps keep rising we have major consequences to face and ******** like "Dr. Spencer" are screwing with my kids' future and I don't like it.
well Texoz, i am sorry to tell you that Dr. Spencer is in charge of the UAH data set which is one of the 2 satellite monitoring systems accepted worldwide. there are generally 4 data sets accepted as worldwide temperature indices.
1. NASA (GISS is their land based temperature set)
2. HadCrut (this is the british set which is roughly the same)
3. UAH (This is Dr Spencer's set of which I showed his graph)
4. RSS (another satellite based temperature set).
these are all very well-respected sets, although i don't put much stock in NASA's set as they have shown time and time again a willingness to distort the data in the favor of warming, but when you have Dr Hansen in charge, this isn't terribly shocking. Still NASA is well-respected. UAH is equally well respected and some prefer it because it is Satellite based and not as inclined to errors from placement (Urban Heat Islands have distorted many of our landbased thermometers upwards as shown by the surface station project). But regardless of whether or not you believe in UHI, the UAH is a very well respected data set and the fact that it doesn't happen to indicate much in terms of AGW is only disappointing to those who have much invested in AGW being true.
1. NASA (GISS is their land based temperature set)
2. HadCrut (this is the british set which is roughly the same)
3. UAH (This is Dr Spencer's set of which I showed his graph)
4. RSS (another satellite based temperature set).
these are all very well-respected sets, although i don't put much stock in NASA's set as they have shown time and time again a willingness to distort the data in the favor of warming, but when you have Dr Hansen in charge, this isn't terribly shocking. Still NASA is well-respected. UAH is equally well respected and some prefer it because it is Satellite based and not as inclined to errors from placement (Urban Heat Islands have distorted many of our landbased thermometers upwards as shown by the surface station project). But regardless of whether or not you believe in UHI, the UAH is a very well respected data set and the fact that it doesn't happen to indicate much in terms of AGW is only disappointing to those who have much invested in AGW being true.
well...an ice storm i one random unexpected place doesn't mean it is getting cooler all over the globe, but ice being above the 30 year average, temperatures generally declining for 6 to 7 years now and the UAH and RSS showing temps back to where they were about 30 years ago....are starting to add up to something. may just be a downward anomaly that is quickly erased in coming months or years, but currently it is causing some to scratch their heads.
Texoz....don't know the history, but there are constant corrections to the NASA data set, so i am not sure what your point is. except for the fact that you now know that UAH is indeed well-respected. i think you assumed i was using some random guy's personal data or something eh?
well, now you have the uncomfortable fact that 2 of the 4 data sets just don't show very alarming warming at all.....RSS and UAH.
well, now you have the uncomfortable fact that 2 of the 4 data sets just don't show very alarming warming at all.....RSS and UAH.
Dr. Spencer's early data in the 1990s and early 2000 was widely touted by global warming critics as showing that the climate was cooling, not warming.
That was until the measurements and calculations were shown to be flawed and the corrections then showed that the climate was indeed warming.
The Link
That was until the measurements and calculations were shown to be flawed and the corrections then showed that the climate was indeed warming.
The Link
hornpharmd
5,000+ Posts
hornpharmd
5,000+ Posts
July compared to past Julys
Unfortunately the overall trend is continuing. Crazy to see that rate of decline over the last 30 years. That is 1.5 Million square miles less than in the 1978. Rate of decline this July mirrored the rate of decline seen in 2007. If this follows the 2007 pattern we will see more rapid ice loss through most of August.
Unfortunately the overall trend is continuing. Crazy to see that rate of decline over the last 30 years. That is 1.5 Million square miles less than in the 1978. Rate of decline this July mirrored the rate of decline seen in 2007. If this follows the 2007 pattern we will see more rapid ice loss through most of August.
not really crazy at all when you consider we have only had 30 years of recorded history. we know that there have been similar times. not to mention we have been in a positive PDO for most of that period and are now moving into a negative PDO. should be interesting, but it seems there are cycles of 1000's of years and smaller cycles of 60 years. we could see it growing back if the PDO theory holds true.....
(pacific decadal oscillation for those interested).
by the way, the melt has slowed considerably the last week, but we will see what happens moving forward. still a very low year so far.....
(pacific decadal oscillation for those interested).
by the way, the melt has slowed considerably the last week, but we will see what happens moving forward. still a very low year so far.....
hornpharmd
5,000+ Posts
of course there is an argument! the argument is that you are talking about a region that has fluctuated in terms of ice or no ice for millions of years and then you are giving me a 30 year window to make your argument. the argument is that this is a ridiculously short amount of time. at the very least we should give it 60 years of actual data to see. we already know that the northwest passage was open decades earlier and even a Century earlier. so why would we look at 30 years of mostly positive PDO and make a huge deal about it?
to show you how absurd your argument is, what if i said that last year the ice recovered by 400,000 square kilometers (and it did) and then said...."north pole ice extent has been increasing for 24 months. Is there really any argument here?" you would rightfully laugh me off this thread. you argument is only one order of magnitude less absurd....but still several orders of magnitude from being legitimate.
if we start seeing rapid recovery over the next few years towards the 30 year average then we have a legitimate reason to take a wait and see attitude.
not to mention you are just mistaken. 2007 didn't take a break this early at all....it was like a week later that it slowed down for about a week. indeed i fully expect the melt to speed up again as this is the hottest time of the year for the arctic, but currently it is running in 4th place for the last 7 years....
ice data
to show you how absurd your argument is, what if i said that last year the ice recovered by 400,000 square kilometers (and it did) and then said...."north pole ice extent has been increasing for 24 months. Is there really any argument here?" you would rightfully laugh me off this thread. you argument is only one order of magnitude less absurd....but still several orders of magnitude from being legitimate.
if we start seeing rapid recovery over the next few years towards the 30 year average then we have a legitimate reason to take a wait and see attitude.
not to mention you are just mistaken. 2007 didn't take a break this early at all....it was like a week later that it slowed down for about a week. indeed i fully expect the melt to speed up again as this is the hottest time of the year for the arctic, but currently it is running in 4th place for the last 7 years....
ice data
hornpharmd
5,000+ Posts
No Mop. We are not talking about Million year trends. We are talking about your statement before this thread was started that said there was no melting going on in the Arctic b/c it had all just refroze over the winter. I started this thread to refute that statement to show you that there is a decline in arctic ice in recent years (3,5,10, etc) and 30 years. I have provided you the evidence that you cannot refute. You can try and switch the topic to antarctic ice or to 1 month or 1 week or 1 million year segments. Whenever you do this you are basically avoiding the point that the ice is melting. Even when it is in the winter season we are getting more thinner and newer ice. Thus we melt more in the melt season. It is melting. Jeez.
Not that it matters mcuh b/c like I said 1 week trends don't mean anything. But the NSIDC specifically stated:
"The average pace of ice loss during July 2009 was nearly identical to that of July 2007. Ice loss sped up during the third week of July, and slowed again during the last few days of the month."
"Averaged for the month, July 2009 saw a decline rate in ice extent of 106,000 square kilometers (41,000 square miles) per day. For comparison, the rate of decline for July 2007 was 107,000 square kilometers (41,000 square miles) per day and the July 2008 rate of decline was 94,000 square kilometers (36,000 square miles) per day. The Arctic Ocean lost a total of 3.19 million square kilometers (1.23 million square miles) of ice during July 2009, and dropped below ice extent at this time in 2008. "
The evidence is there of what is going on. It can be measured. It shows ice extent on the decline at about 6.1% per decade the last 30 years. I am going to sotp and say I have shown you everything that I can to prove your statement wrong. If you continue to say that you weren't wrong then there is no use discussing topics b/c you won't acknowledge the most obvious of points.
Not that it matters mcuh b/c like I said 1 week trends don't mean anything. But the NSIDC specifically stated:
"The average pace of ice loss during July 2009 was nearly identical to that of July 2007. Ice loss sped up during the third week of July, and slowed again during the last few days of the month."
"Averaged for the month, July 2009 saw a decline rate in ice extent of 106,000 square kilometers (41,000 square miles) per day. For comparison, the rate of decline for July 2007 was 107,000 square kilometers (41,000 square miles) per day and the July 2008 rate of decline was 94,000 square kilometers (36,000 square miles) per day. The Arctic Ocean lost a total of 3.19 million square kilometers (1.23 million square miles) of ice during July 2009, and dropped below ice extent at this time in 2008. "
The evidence is there of what is going on. It can be measured. It shows ice extent on the decline at about 6.1% per decade the last 30 years. I am going to sotp and say I have shown you everything that I can to prove your statement wrong. If you continue to say that you weren't wrong then there is no use discussing topics b/c you won't acknowledge the most obvious of points.
sorry hornpharmd...you will have to show me the statement that this thread was supposedly in response to, or show it to me based upon something i have said in this thread. if i ever said that, it was early in my study of arctic ice because i don't remember ever believing that.
what i now believe after watching this and studying this fairly closely for 15 months is that the ice has indeed melted off some over the past 30 years but that this is not such a serious issue based upon history. we see times within the past 200 years where there were open passages through the ice, so we have great reason to believe that this is not unusual and merely cyclical.
with the PDO shifting to primarily negative in the past 3 years and scientists saying it will most likely stay there for the next 30 years we have another reason to believe that the ice may recover nicely over the next 30 years at least to what it was before we started keeping good records.
as i said, if you can show me where i said the ice wasn't melting sometime before this thread started or after it started i will gladly say i was wrong. i don't remember believing that, but my memory could have easily been shaded by 15 months of reading up on this issue carefully.
what i now believe after watching this and studying this fairly closely for 15 months is that the ice has indeed melted off some over the past 30 years but that this is not such a serious issue based upon history. we see times within the past 200 years where there were open passages through the ice, so we have great reason to believe that this is not unusual and merely cyclical.
with the PDO shifting to primarily negative in the past 3 years and scientists saying it will most likely stay there for the next 30 years we have another reason to believe that the ice may recover nicely over the next 30 years at least to what it was before we started keeping good records.
as i said, if you can show me where i said the ice wasn't melting sometime before this thread started or after it started i will gladly say i was wrong. i don't remember believing that, but my memory could have easily been shaded by 15 months of reading up on this issue carefully.
another slow melt day. getting interesting. i keep expecting to have some big melt days but it has been 19 days since we had any 100,000 plus melt days now in the arctic. in the mean time, 2009 has gone from 2nd in ice loss only to 2007 to now being in 4th place behind 2008, and 2005 as well.
hornpharmd
5,000+ Posts
accuratehorn
10,000+ Posts
Trying to obfuscate the serious issue by saying yesterday it was 105 in Austin and today it will only be 102, there is a cooling trend going on is neither scientifically valid nor productive to any kind of meaningful discussion this problem.
The fact is 2007 was the most Arctic ice melt recorded, and this year approaches, and may or may not exceed 2007. It doesn't constitute a "global cooling" trend if a little less ice melts one year.
The fact is 2007 was the most Arctic ice melt recorded, and this year approaches, and may or may not exceed 2007. It doesn't constitute a "global cooling" trend if a little less ice melts one year.
NEW: Pro Sports Forums
Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.
Pro Sports Forums
Pro Sports Forums
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 685
- West Mall
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 591
- West Mall
