Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Cain't have too many Kentuckians here.It was very pleasant last night and this morning, then it warmed up this afternoon.
ZOMG! Global Typical Temperate Summer!
I see your from the great state of Kentucky as am I , bravo, just had to throw that in there.
I've came to the conclusion that we could have a negative energy balance right now and still get a warming planet. Look at cru, which excludes much of the arctic ocean area and the giss----see the difference. The cru since 2004 has seen NO warming, but giss has seen .16c or so of warming with rss and uah showing the same.
I think the period from 1997-2004 was enough to send the arctic over a tipping point, meaning less sea ice to reflect the sun light, which the oceans take more and more of the heat energy and release that heat throughout the year. This keeps the arctic warmer and this loops into its self. Arctic amplification it is called. The cru proves without a doubt that much of the rest of the planet HASN'T warmed at all since 2004 period.
Reasons for this as I've stated
1# Grand minimum since 2005, which is bringing about a negative forcing and counter balancing the co2 forcing.
2# It was never warming as fast as the slope would have you to believe in the 1990's as it was correcting for the vei 6 volcano over a 6 year period. So .14c is about all we ever warmed to start out with.
Solar cycle 5 did cool the planet over a decade to near .15 or so. So I believe based on the historic data that it is possible for the grand minimum to be stabilizing the global temperature.
How do I explain the rest of the worlds glacial melting? The same way more or less as I believe once you get to a point they will melt. All you need is above freezing to melt ice. This is how I explain Antarctica east ice sheet melting and some of Greenland.
The arctic amplification is enough to warm our planet up even through the balance is near a balance overall with negative forcing and positive forcing balancing each other.
Even James Hansen is coming around to some of my thinking.
Old rocks or anyone do you agree?
Matt you just went and did a very long post to basically say you don't know but you may have some ideas perhaps, if the data you have is correct... Maybe...
I have an idea. Why not give the same faith or benefit of the doubt to the concept that climate scientists are still human and will protect themselves when their livelihood is threatened. They use misleading charts and graphs to make claims that often are based on the most circumstantial of evidence, and create these using climate models based on an incomplete set of factors and what actual hard data they do collect gets run through various algorithms and ever more elaborate and complex equations. You can make anything you want appear to be true if you run it through enough complexities.
You say you are not sure and just curious about this, yet you do not question their claims only try and prove them... Why not be a bit more objective and see what ya find..
I've came to the conclusion that we could have a negative energy balance right now and still get a warming planet. Look at cru, which excludes much of the arctic ocean area and the giss----see the difference. The cru since 2004 has seen NO warming, but giss has seen .16c or so of warming with rss and uah showing the same.
I think the period from 1997-2004 was enough to send the arctic over a tipping point, meaning less sea ice to reflect the sun light, which the oceans take more and more of the heat energy and release that heat throughout the year. This keeps the arctic warmer and this loops into its self. Arctic amplification it is called. The cru proves without a doubt that much of the rest of the planet HASN'T warmed at all since 2004 period.
Reasons for this as I've stated
1# Grand minimum since 2005, which is bringing about a negative forcing and counter balancing the co2 forcing.
2# It was never warming as fast as the slope would have you to believe in the 1990's as it was correcting for the vei 6 volcano over a 6 year period. So .14c is about all we ever warmed to start out with.
Solar cycle 5 did cool the planet over a decade to near .15 or so. So I believe based on the historic data that it is possible for the grand minimum to be stabilizing the global temperature.
How do I explain the rest of the worlds glacial melting? The same way more or less as I believe once you get to a point they will melt. All you need is above freezing to melt ice. This is how I explain Antarctica east ice sheet melting and some of Greenland.
The arctic amplification is enough to warm our planet up even through the balance is near a balance overall with negative forcing and positive forcing balancing each other.
Even James Hansen is coming around to some of my thinking.
Old rocks or anyone do you agree?
I've came to the conclusion that we could have a negative energy balance right now and still get a warming planet. Look at cru, which excludes much of the arctic ocean area and the giss----see the difference. The cru since 2004 has seen NO warming, but giss has seen .16c or so of warming with rss and uah showing the same.
I think the period from 1997-2004 was enough to send the arctic over a tipping point, meaning less sea ice to reflect the sun light, which the oceans take more and more of the heat energy and release that heat throughout the year. This keeps the arctic warmer and this loops into its self. Arctic amplification it is called. The cru proves without a doubt that much of the rest of the planet HASN'T warmed at all since 2004 period.
Reasons for this as I've stated
1# Grand minimum since 2005, which is bringing about a negative forcing and counter balancing the co2 forcing.
2# It was never warming as fast as the slope would have you to believe in the 1990's as it was correcting for the vei 6 volcano over a 6 year period. So .14c is about all we ever warmed to start out with.
Solar cycle 5 did cool the planet over a decade to near .15 or so. So I believe based on the historic data that it is possible for the grand minimum to be stabilizing the global temperature.
How do I explain the rest of the worlds glacial melting? The same way more or less as I believe once you get to a point they will melt. All you need is above freezing to melt ice. This is how I explain Antarctica east ice sheet melting and some of Greenland.
The arctic amplification is enough to warm our planet up even through the balance is near a balance overall with negative forcing and positive forcing balancing each other.
Even James Hansen is coming around to some of my thinking.
Old rocks or anyone do you agree?
The forcing that we are seeing from the ice melt and thaw in the Arctic region is definately have a positive affect. Big enough to overcome the present negatives? Looks like it. And that is a very dangerous situation. For, as we continue to dump ever increasing amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere, when one of these negative forcings goes neutral, or even positive, Katy bar the door.
I've came to the conclusion that we could have a negative energy balance right now and still get a warming planet. Look at cru, which excludes much of the arctic ocean area and the giss----see the difference. The cru since 2004 has seen NO warming, but giss has seen .16c or so of warming with rss and uah showing the same.
I think the period from 1997-2004 was enough to send the arctic over a tipping point, meaning less sea ice to reflect the sun light, which the oceans take more and more of the heat energy and release that heat throughout the year. This keeps the arctic warmer and this loops into its self. Arctic amplification it is called. The cru proves without a doubt that much of the rest of the planet HASN'T warmed at all since 2004 period.
Reasons for this as I've stated
1# Grand minimum since 2005, which is bringing about a negative forcing and counter balancing the co2 forcing.
2# It was never warming as fast as the slope would have you to believe in the 1990's as it was correcting for the vei 6 volcano over a 6 year period. So .14c is about all we ever warmed to start out with.
Solar cycle 5 did cool the planet over a decade to near .15 or so. So I believe based on the historic data that it is possible for the grand minimum to be stabilizing the global temperature.
How do I explain the rest of the worlds glacial melting? The same way more or less as I believe once you get to a point they will melt. All you need is above freezing to melt ice. This is how I explain Antarctica east ice sheet melting and some of Greenland.
The arctic amplification is enough to warm our planet up even through the balance is near a balance overall with negative forcing and positive forcing balancing each other.
Even James Hansen is coming around to some of my thinking.
Old rocks or anyone do you agree?
The forcing that we are seeing from the ice melt and thaw in the Arctic region is definately have a positive affect. Big enough to overcome the present negatives? Looks like it. And that is a very dangerous situation. For, as we continue to dump ever increasing amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere, when one of these negative forcings goes neutral, or even positive, Katy bar the door.
Ice melt isn't a forcing factor, it's a symptom.
Record Events for Tue Jul 19, 2011 through Mon Jul 25, 2011
High Temperatures: 1146
Low Temperatures: 99
HAMweather Climate Center - Record High Temperatures for The Past Week - Continental US View
The forcing that we are seeing from the ice melt and thaw in the Arctic region is definately have a positive affect. Big enough to overcome the present negatives? Looks like it. And that is a very dangerous situation. For, as we continue to dump ever increasing amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere, when one of these negative forcings goes neutral, or even positive, Katy bar the door.
Ice melt isn't a forcing factor, it's a symptom.
Really? Did you bother to think that through?
Ice, reflects 90% incoming sunlight.
Water, absorbs 90% incoming sunlight.
At the point where there is a steady decrease over a period of years, the lack of ice becomes a positive feedback factor.
Ice melt isn't a forcing factor, it's a symptom.
Really? Did you bother to think that through?
Ice, reflects 90% incoming sunlight.
Water, absorbs 90% incoming sunlight.
At the point where there is a steady decrease over a period of years, the lack of ice becomes a positive feedback factor.
Thats very interesting you make this claim socks, because its my understanding that in winter the arctic gets very little direct sunlight. In fact its in virtual darkness the entire season. So IF the sun hits it the least in the winter when the ice is at its greatest coverage point, its not as big a driver as one would be led to assume.
Moreover a positive feedback has an end. Its built into the planet. If it didn't the last ice age would have never ended, and the last warming period wouldn't exist. I am about tired of explaining critical thinking and common sense to a self-proclaimed member of MENSA....
Really? Did you bother to think that through?
Ice, reflects 90% incoming sunlight.
Water, absorbs 90% incoming sunlight.
At the point where there is a steady decrease over a period of years, the lack of ice becomes a positive feedback factor.
Thats very interesting you make this claim socks, because its my understanding that in winter the arctic gets very little direct sunlight. In fact its in virtual darkness the entire season. So IF the sun hits it the least in the winter when the ice is at its greatest coverage point, its not as big a driver as one would be led to assume.
Moreover a positive feedback has an end. Its built into the planet. If it didn't the last ice age would have never ended, and the last warming period wouldn't exist. I am about tired of explaining critical thinking and common sense to a self-proclaimed member of MENSA....
LOLOLOLOL....You are soooo funny, slackjawedidiot.....you wouldn't recognize common sense and critical thinking if they bit you. You're one of the biggest denier cult retards on this forum. You repeatedly demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea what is going on.
You mention the fact that the Arctic gets very little sun in the winter months but you conveniently or idiotically ignore the corollary. In the summer months the sun is above the horizon 24 hours a day. It is the sun hitting open dark water instead of reflective ice in the summer that is causing increasing warmth and creating a feedback loop that causes more warming. Try growing a brain before you embarrass yourself further by posting something idiotic again.
