Climate Scientists Wrong: Arctic Warming Faster Than Predicted.

[Billy_Bob]

I am genuinely curious why a professional physicist would feel the need to reference a blog by someone. Why not go to the actual data?

Because he references EMPERICAL DATA not the approved by government bull shit.. It's called empirical verification and is much more reliable than the modeled bull shit from your ilk. But then you alarmists know that and why you avoid empirically observed data..

You would think as a scientist that you would understand that skepticism is at the heart of science.

 

[abu afak]

Sweet! Maybe all that Ice Will Go Away, and we will have New Tourist Destinations!
A & E might lose a few shows but it will be worth it.
I love natural Earth evolution

[ abu afak:
[If "all that ice goes away".. Sea Level goes up 230 feet.
[And our, and the rest of the planet's coasts/cities/countries/states go under.
[Perhaps Half or more of the current tourist destinations on the planet would vanish.]

"IF"

What mechanism is capable of that melt? Oh, and by the way, if the ice is floating, there is no rise in sea level.

I was responding to the [other] idiots delight at the prospect. (and 'more resorts')
Low IQers think it just gets warmer/melts (great!) with no consequences.
`

 

[Billy_Bob]

I was responding to the [other] idiots delight at the prospect. (and 'more resorts')
Low IQers think it just gets warmer (great!) with no consequences.
`

You have no proof, and you cannot describe the mechanism by which it MIGHT occur... All you have is fearmongering... Got it!

 

[Flash]

I've often said, people don't feel the real effects of climate change (okay, they do, but they just ignore them as 'weather') but at the ends of of the earth, the rate is now 4 times worse than at the equatorial region.


A definitive sign of climate change, the rapid warming of the Arctic, is occurring even faster than previously described, researchers in Finland said Thursday.

Over the past four decades the region has been heating up four times faster than the global average, not the commonly reported two to three times. And some parts of the region, notably the Barents Sea north of Norway and Russia, are warming up to seven times faster, they said.

While scientists have long known that the Arctic is warming rapidly the rate has been a source of some confusion, described in scientific reports and news accounts as anywhere from two to three times faster than the global average.

Mika Rantanen, a researcher at the Finnish Meteorological Institute in Helsinki, said he and his colleagues decided to look at the issue in the summer of 2020, when intense heat waves in the Siberian Arctic drew a lot of media attention.

“We were frustrated by the fact that there’s this saying that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the globe,” Dr. Rantanen said. “But when you look at the data, you can easily see that it is close to four.”

Arctic Warming Is Happening Faster Than Described, Analysis Shows (Published 2022)

The warming at the top of the globe, a sign of climate change, is happening much faster than previously described compared with the global average, scientists said Thursday.

www.nytimes.com

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022GL099371?af=R

These turkeys have no idea what the "global average" is.

If it is true they have no idea if it is man made or natural.

But they do know how to scam research funds.

 

[abu afak]

You have no proof, and you cannot describe the mechanism by which it MIGHT occur... All you have is fearmongering... Got it!

What do you mean I have no proof nor mechanism.
Is this some sort of Hugely ldiotic Demand Detail Fallacy?
If it gets warm enough (keeps getting warmer) all the ice WILL melt! (again, I was responding to TNHarley's "all the Ice" proffer, not my claim for the decade.... and it's been calculated at 230'.
I didn't make it up. It's easily Google-able.
Yet you claim to be a Meteorologist/Physicist!! WTF!

You Again DISHONESTLY tried to twist my answer to His desire/fantasy... into my doing.

`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And yet you cannot explain the reason for the increase being the change in atmospheric flow cause by our oceans. Correlation does not imply causation. Those temps have decreased significantly this year, but your graph fails to show it. Why did you stop the graphing before the temperatures cooled? Nothing you post is on the up and up. It is all propoganda with you..

View attachment 695718

Your NOAA Graph is an outright lie.

Source

Wow! Look at how 2022 is a total outlier! Unprecedented Warming! At this rate Guam will tip over before October!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If the data won't fit, you must adjust!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

[ abu afak:
[If "all that ice goes away".. Sea Level goes up 230 feet.
[And our, and the rest of the planet's coasts/cities/countries/states go under.
[Perhaps Half or more of the current tourist destinations on the planet would vanish.]



I was responding to the [other] idiots delight at the prospect. (and 'more resorts')
Low IQers think it just gets warmer/melts (great!) with no consequences.
`

Can you explain how CO2 LAGGED temperature on both increase and decrease for the prior 450,000 years, but suddenly it now drives temperature?

 

[jc456]

Problem is lots of scientists make predictions, and often they're wrong because... well they're predictions based on limited information. They could be wrong both ways.

The other problem is people will read one prediction, see it's not exactly right, and then denounce all predictions as false, fake... whatever.

Cause none have ever come true

 

[abu afak]

Can you explain how CO2 LAGGED temperature on both increase and decrease for the prior 450,000 years, but suddenly it now drives temperature.

Yes, I've explained it many times you low IQ Kweationist.

Who do you think collected the data for your graphic and noted the "lag?"
Hark!
It's the Same Scientists who are telling us THIS warming is uniquely Human caused.
Hark!

Again: (10?) In my own words.

Scientists have been able to measure radiation-in/radiation-out directly and precisely for more than 50 years.
Radiation-in has not changed as the earth warmed.
Radiation reflected back out is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs (Greenhouse gases)

CO2 is not the only GHG. (water vapor, Methane, etc)
Methane/CH4 is 20-80 as powerful. (from livestock), and the snowball effect of other GHG warming which releases more methane from the warming oceans and melting tundra.
CO2 is up from 280 PPM to 410, mainly in the last 70 (of 170) years.
Methane has tripled.

Previous warming cycles were caused by orbital changes of angle or distance leading to more radiation-in, aka 'solar forcing.'
We/they know that is/was Not the case this time.

GHGs, as serious Deniers know/use, usually LAG that solar forcing... but this time Led! Because they also contribute to warming even in a natural cycle. (GHG definition).
This cycle was not caused by increased solar energy but rather those gases increased/blanket thickened at an unprecedented rate Compared to natural cycles.

Gameover.
My even answering a 75 IQer like you was a gift.
noblesse oblige

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Who do you think collected the data for your graphic and noted the lag?
Hark!
It's the same/Scientists who are telling us THIS warming is uniquely Human caused.

Again: In my own words.

Scientists have been able to measure radiation-in/radiation-out directly and precisely for more than 50 years.
Radiation-in has not changed as the earth warmed.
Radiation reflected back out is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs (Greenhouse gases)

CO2 is not the only GHG. (water vapor, Methane, etc)
Methane/CH4 is 20-80 as powerful. (from livestock), and the snowball effect of other GHG warming which releases more methane from the warming oceans and melting tundra.
CO2 is up from 280 PPM to 410, mainly in the last 70 (of 170) years.
Methane has tripled.

Previous warming cycles were caused by orbital changes of angle or distance leading to more radiation-in, aka 'solar forcing.'
We/they know that is/was Not the case this time.

GHGs, as serious Deniers know/use, usually LAGS that solar forcing... but this time Led! Because they also contribute to warming even in a natural cycle. (GHG definition).
This cycle was not caused by increased solar energy but rather those gases increased/blanket thickened at an unprecedented rate Compared to natural cycles.

`

It's odd that CO2 never had this FORCING ability for the past 450,000 years but then it suddenly develops, yet it can never show these newfound powers in a lab.

Why it's as if they fed you a storyline and you bought the whole thing

 

[Billy_Bob]

What do you mean I have no proof nor mechanism.
Is this some sort of Hugely ldiotic Demand Detail Fallacy?
If it gets warm enough (keeps getting warmer) all the ice WILL melt (what, again, I responded to, TNHarley's "all the Ice" proffer, not my claim for the decade.... and it's been calculated at 230'.
I didn't make it up. It's easily Google-able.
Yet you claim to be a Meteorologist/Physicist!! WTF!

You Again DISHONESTLY tried to twist my answer to His desire/fantasy... into my doing.

`

You are an idiot... The current climate sensitivity number is 0.5. This means that any potential rise caused by greenhouse gases will be halved. All of your predictions are going to fall flat. That calculation is from a failed model that overestimates warming by a factor of ten. You simply cannot make this crap up. it's all failed modeling all the time with you idiots.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes, I've explained it many times you low IQ Kweationist.

Who do you think collected the data for your graphic and noted the "lag?"
Hark!
It's the Same Scientists who are telling us THIS warming is uniquely Human caused.
Hark!

Again: (10?) In my own words.

Scientists have been able to measure radiation-in/radiation-out directly and precisely for more than 50 years.
Radiation-in has not changed as the earth warmed.
Radiation reflected back out is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs (Greenhouse gases)

CO2 is not the only GHG. (water vapor, Methane, etc)
Methane/CH4 is 20-80 as powerful. (from livestock), and the snowball effect of other GHG warming which releases more methane from the warming oceans and melting tundra.
CO2 is up from 280 PPM to 410, mainly in the last 70 (of 170) years.
Methane has tripled.

Previous warming cycles were caused by orbital changes of angle or distance leading to more radiation-in, aka 'solar forcing.'
We/they know that is/was Not the case this time.

GHGs, as serious Deniers know/use, usually LAG that solar forcing... but this time Led! Because they also contribute to warming even in a natural cycle. (GHG definition).
This cycle was not caused by increased solar energy but rather those gases increased/blanket thickened at an unprecedented rate Compared to natural cycles.

Gameover.
My even answering a 75 IQer like you was a gift.
noblesse oblige

The ERBE satellite says your full of crap...

Your modeling is garbage as they do not reflect reality.

 

[abu afak]

The ERBE satellite says your full of crap...

View attachment 695831

Your modeling is garbage as they do not reflect reality.

That's odd because ERBE was an old NASA experiment You must be abusing (with your Unshown/Unlinked source) since NASA is a/the Major Advocate of AGW and collects the Data on it. Much more and much later than yours.
You're supposed to source your images.
LINK to the study/paper?
(I believe it's the widely refuted Lindzen/Choi, to save you some time)

NASA - ERBE: Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Experiment (ERBE):

`

`

 

[Billy_Bob]

That's odd because ERBE was an old NASA experiment You must be abusing (with your Unshown/Unlinked source) since NASA is a/the Major Advocate of AGW and collects the Data on it. Much more and much later than yours.
You're supposed to source your images.
LINK to the study/paper?
(I believe it's the widely refuted Lindzen/Choi, to save you some time)

NASA - ERBE: Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Experiment (ERBE):

`

`

BWHAAAAaaaaaaaa They confirm the earlier findings by Dr Evans...

You can't even read let alone understand this. The earth radiation budget is a major area of conflict. The models say one thing and empirical evidence disproves the models just as Dr Evans displayed. Lindzen/Choi was also found correct. WOW you are really reaching.

The source of the graphing was linked to previously in this thread. As you are incapable of looking back here it is again; The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans

 

[Flash]

 

[abu afak]

BWHAAAAaaaaaaaa They confirm the earlier findings by Dr Evans...

You can't even read let alone understand this. The earth radiation budget is a major area of conflict. The models say one thing and empirical evidence disproves the models just as Dr Evans displayed. Lindzen/Choi was also found correct. WOW you are really reaching.

The source of the graphing was linked to previously in this thread. As you are incapable of looking back here it is again; The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans

Before I take you apart technically (which is NOT even necessary after THIS post. I'll decide), you must know you are using not Only Cherry Picked nonsense, but that from Many thread Starts and content here, that 7 of the last 8 Years have been the Warmest in modern history, yet you used a 1988 to 2012 (trough) Snake graph.

So that the 1998 'Peak' on it has been surpassed by Every year since 2013-2021.. and pushed the Hansson scenarios INTO range.
Wow. That's a Giant blow out loss for Evans among many more I could/may post.
Like Skookersbils the "Skeptics are winning" in 2013.. he nailed it. The Bottom! Since his Goofy embarrassment has been destroyed yearly. He nailed the recent bottom! (stair in the up escalator)

You could not have missed ie, my "2020 ties 2016 for the Warmest on Record." and so many more which make 2012 Obsolete, indeed Wrong. ('Going down the up escalator,' etc)
Yet you let 2012 Dictate. Is that dumb or Dishonest/for your politics?

Evans on Wacky RW/Libertarian Mises re Climate now! Is that Peer reviewed? BWAAAAAHAHA
WTFUWT would be better.

You have wasted your edu because you are RW conspiracYst.
It's a mental bend that Trump plays on with many issues.
You post internet dredged garbage/2%, and like the other CTers must assume there's a large conspiracy numbering in the Tens of thousands of Scientists trying to defraud the public but you outsmarted/caught them.

IAC its demonstrably warming significantly if, of course not, in an exact straight line.
`

 

[jc456]

Sweet! Maybe all that ice will go away, and we will have new tourist destinations!
A & E might lose a few shows but it will be worth it.
I love natural Earth evolution

Think of all that fish

 

[jc456]

Before I take you apart technically (which is NOT even necessary after THIS post. I'll decide), you must know you are using not Only Cherry Picked nonsense, but that from Many thread Starts and content here, that 7 of the last 8 Years have been the Warmest in modern history, yet you used a 1988 to 2012 (trough) Snake graph.

So that the 1998 'Peak' on it has been surpassed by Every year since 2013-2021.. and pushed the Hansson scenarios INTO range.
Wow. That's a Giant blow out loss for Evans among many more I could/may post.
Like Skookersbils the "Skeptics are winning" in 2013.. he nailed it. The Bottom! Since his Goofy embarrassment has been destroyed yearly. He nailed the recent bottom! (stair in the up escalator)

You could not have missed ie, my "2020 ties 2016 for the Warmest on Record." and so many more which make 2012 Obsolete, indeed Wrong. ('Going down the up escalator,' etc)
Yet you let 2012 Dictate. Is that dumb or Dishonest/for your politics?

Evans on Wacky RW/Libertarian Mises re Climate now! Is that Peer reviewed? BWAAAAAHAHA
WTFUWT would be better.

You have wasted your edu because you are RW conspiracYst.
It's a mental bend that Trump plays on with many issues.
You post internet dredged garbage/2%, and like the other CTers must assume there's a large conspiracy numbering in the Tens of thousands of Scientists trying to defraud the public but you outsmarted/caught them.

IAC its demonstrably warming significantly if, of course not, in an exact straight line.
`

How big is the Arctic and when it melts, do oceans rise? Hahaha

 

[Grumblenuts]

The source of the graphing was linked to previously in this thread. As you are incapable of looking back here it is again; The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans

Mises' Morons? Hey, you can save everyone lots of time now. Just link directly to Hatewatch from now on. They'll wind up there anyway! Hate on, MFers.