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.
