-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Have you looked at the North Pole lately?
- Thread starter igrowone
- Start date
this is snow cover of the northern hemisphere
we are getting more precipitation, likely due to the increased air temperature capacity to hold more water
which is not a contraindication to warming
just part and parcel of our new world order, and the sea ice continues to shrink
https://www.yr.no/place/North_Pole/Other/North_Pole/forecast.pdf
https://screenshots.firefox.com/Tatvdul3TxO36HXy/www.yr.no
at -31* there won't be much melting going on. smh
Crazy crazy weather going on. For the months November, December, and January the weather was very warm and wet. Above average. I had a ganja plant alive in the yard until the beginning of February.
Then the jet stream dropped all the way down to L.A. February was the coldest ever on record. We had our first real snow event in at least 6 years. One day it dropped to 18 F, the coldest temperature in over ten years. Then it was cold and dry until a few days ago, still had a bit of snow on the ground.
Then the temperature skyrocketed. It's been 70 degrees the last couple days, 79 degrees F today. Warmest winter day ever recorded. All the plants and trees are still in winter hibernation. Everything's dead and dormant from the snow and ice.
You know Mother Nature's pissed when you go from the coldest day to the hottest day in a couple weeks. Our winters changed in the 1990s. Cold streaks like we had in February happened every year, usually in November to January, sometimes into February. Now it's a once a decade event. Got a feeling there'll be more wildfires this summer.
Then the jet stream dropped all the way down to L.A. February was the coldest ever on record. We had our first real snow event in at least 6 years. One day it dropped to 18 F, the coldest temperature in over ten years. Then it was cold and dry until a few days ago, still had a bit of snow on the ground.
Then the temperature skyrocketed. It's been 70 degrees the last couple days, 79 degrees F today. Warmest winter day ever recorded. All the plants and trees are still in winter hibernation. Everything's dead and dormant from the snow and ice.
You know Mother Nature's pissed when you go from the coldest day to the hottest day in a couple weeks. Our winters changed in the 1990s. Cold streaks like we had in February happened every year, usually in November to January, sometimes into February. Now it's a once a decade event. Got a feeling there'll be more wildfires this summer.
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
When temperatures rise for a few weeks, trees can start to bud. If that happens and then the cold returns, the young buds can die. If that happens, you can lose your crop. That happened to me a couple years ago. Apple yields were less than 10% of normal.
Yes it's a danger of weird early heat snaps. It's happened to me too. I'm hoping it's too late for that to happen but past weather no longer predicts future weather events.
what exactly did you have to do with it changing?
Well, when I was a kid we took a bunch of styrofoam, packing peanuts, and all this other shit we weren't suppose to burn. Made a huge pile of it and covered it in gasoline. lit that motherfucker up and watched it burn!
Other then that I've eaten lots of beef, not because I needed the nutrients but for the sheer pleasure of it. Although I understand it takes hundreds of times the resources and space of other foods. Lots of times I could have walked places or caught the bus but I've driven instead for the sheer convenience of it even though I was in good health and didn't need to. Well past the age when I knew better.
The list is long but probably the worst is that I've had costly and elaborate surgeries to save my ass that used huge amounts of resources when I could have let nature take it's course. I'm sure the resources would have been better off used to feed malnourished and under educated youth, not on the other side of the globe but in the city I live in. But then there's the ego, the all important I, right? The world might come crashing down if I no longer existed to perceive it. I did it to save everyone!
But honestly throughout my life, once I reached the age I could live how I wanted, I've tried to use less resources then other people. Large chunks of my adult life I haven't owned a car, I don't mow my lawn, try to grow a % of the food I eat. I don't drive to work everyday, buy food from the local fruit stands and butchers and such so it isn't shipped from Argentina. I can at least try to make choices I can live with but I'll admit I'm a sinner..
Other then that I've eaten lots of beef, not because I needed the nutrients but for the sheer pleasure of it. Although I understand it takes hundreds of times the resources and space of other foods. Lots of times I could have walked places or caught the bus but I've driven instead for the sheer convenience of it even though I was in good health and didn't need to. Well past the age when I knew better.
The list is long but probably the worst is that I've had costly and elaborate surgeries to save my ass that used huge amounts of resources when I could have let nature take it's course. I'm sure the resources would have been better off used to feed malnourished and under educated youth, not on the other side of the globe but in the city I live in. But then there's the ego, the all important I, right? The world might come crashing down if I no longer existed to perceive it. I did it to save everyone!
But honestly throughout my life, once I reached the age I could live how I wanted, I've tried to use less resources then other people. Large chunks of my adult life I haven't owned a car, I don't mow my lawn, try to grow a % of the food I eat. I don't drive to work everyday, buy food from the local fruit stands and butchers and such so it isn't shipped from Argentina. I can at least try to make choices I can live with but I'll admit I'm a sinner..
Oceans Absorb a Third of Our CO2 – Will Climate Fears Evaporate?
Our emissions may be less of a problem than the alarmists would have us believe.
By: Onar Åm March 21, 2019
A new study published in Science shows that 31% of human CO2 emissions in the period from 1994 to 2007 was absorbed by the oceans. As such, nature has done more to reduce our carbon footprint than all climate treaties combined. This may significantly impact climate policies.
The Science
The ocean surface reacts chemically with CO2 and creates carbonic acid (H2CO3), which is transported and diffused down into the ocean, where it stays for hundreds of years before it resurfaces and degasses into the atmosphere. Most of the world’s natural CO2 is therefore stored in the oceans. They contain in the order of 50 times more than the entire atmosphere.
The Study
This mechanism has been known for a long time and is mostly understood. A team of scientists led by Professor of Environmental Physics Dr. Nicolas Gruber at ETH Zürich wanted to measure and quantify this absorption, and data collected over a period of 13 years largely confirmed the models of oceanic sinks. The oceans are gobbling up our carbon emissions, and they will continue to do so until saturated.
A primary concern has been to come closer to finding the saturation limit, and Gruber explains that there are still no signs of reaching it: “Over the examined period, the global ocean continued to take up anthropogenic CO2 at a rate that is congruent with the increase of atmospheric CO2.”
Another concern was to quantify ocean acidification, which is postulated to affect ocean life negatively. “Our data has shown that this acidification reaches deep into the ocean’s interior, extending in part to depths of more than 3000 m,” Gruber says.
The Meaning
The study may be far better news than many feared. One early worry among scientists was that CO2 absorbed by the oceans would be mostly trapped in the uppermost layer where most aquatic life exists. If that were the case, acidification could become a problem to organisms and could also mean that the water stopped absorbing our emissions, which would lead to a more rapid rise in the atmosphere instead.
However, measurements show that the recent anthropogenic carbonic acid has been transported to depths of more than 3000 meters, meaning that it will take a very long time before the oceans become saturated.
To put this in perspective, consider that, at the current rate, humans increase atmospheric carbon by about 0.5% annually. One-third of that goes into the ocean. Since the oceans contain roughly 50 atmospheres of CO2, it would take us several hundred years to increase the oceanic carbon to 51 atmospheres, which is not particularly alarming.
Also, consider that around 120 million years ago, the atmospheric CO2 level was four times higher than today and remained so for millions of years. It means that the oceans must have been far more acidic than today, and yet ancient aquatic organisms such as corals and sharks thrived and have survived to modern times.
The Politics
This should be considered good news but is highly unlikely to be presented as such, if reported at all. The study implies that we have far less to worry about than alarmists would have us believe. Our emissions are greening the earth, and the oceans are also gobbling up a big chunk of them, seemingly without an end in sight and without endangering aquatic life. What’s not to like about that?
Our emissions may be less of a problem than the alarmists would have us believe.
By: Onar Åm March 21, 2019
A new study published in Science shows that 31% of human CO2 emissions in the period from 1994 to 2007 was absorbed by the oceans. As such, nature has done more to reduce our carbon footprint than all climate treaties combined. This may significantly impact climate policies.
The Science
The ocean surface reacts chemically with CO2 and creates carbonic acid (H2CO3), which is transported and diffused down into the ocean, where it stays for hundreds of years before it resurfaces and degasses into the atmosphere. Most of the world’s natural CO2 is therefore stored in the oceans. They contain in the order of 50 times more than the entire atmosphere.
The Study
This mechanism has been known for a long time and is mostly understood. A team of scientists led by Professor of Environmental Physics Dr. Nicolas Gruber at ETH Zürich wanted to measure and quantify this absorption, and data collected over a period of 13 years largely confirmed the models of oceanic sinks. The oceans are gobbling up our carbon emissions, and they will continue to do so until saturated.
A primary concern has been to come closer to finding the saturation limit, and Gruber explains that there are still no signs of reaching it: “Over the examined period, the global ocean continued to take up anthropogenic CO2 at a rate that is congruent with the increase of atmospheric CO2.”
Another concern was to quantify ocean acidification, which is postulated to affect ocean life negatively. “Our data has shown that this acidification reaches deep into the ocean’s interior, extending in part to depths of more than 3000 m,” Gruber says.
The Meaning
The study may be far better news than many feared. One early worry among scientists was that CO2 absorbed by the oceans would be mostly trapped in the uppermost layer where most aquatic life exists. If that were the case, acidification could become a problem to organisms and could also mean that the water stopped absorbing our emissions, which would lead to a more rapid rise in the atmosphere instead.
To put this in perspective, consider that, at the current rate, humans increase atmospheric carbon by about 0.5% annually. One-third of that goes into the ocean. Since the oceans contain roughly 50 atmospheres of CO2, it would take us several hundred years to increase the oceanic carbon to 51 atmospheres, which is not particularly alarming.
Also, consider that around 120 million years ago, the atmospheric CO2 level was four times higher than today and remained so for millions of years. It means that the oceans must have been far more acidic than today, and yet ancient aquatic organisms such as corals and sharks thrived and have survived to modern times.
The Politics
This should be considered good news but is highly unlikely to be presented as such, if reported at all. The study implies that we have far less to worry about than alarmists would have us believe. Our emissions are greening the earth, and the oceans are also gobbling up a big chunk of them, seemingly without an end in sight and without endangering aquatic life. What’s not to like about that?
Wednesday, 20 March 2019 Massive Coalition Backs Trump's Climate Science Committee
Written by Alex Newman
A massive coalition of environmental organizations, activists, and think-tank leaders signed a letter to President Donald Trump supporting the proposed Presidential Commission on Climate Security (PCCS), as well as the work of Trump climate and national security adviser Dr. William Happer of Princeton University. The campaign, which comes amid fierce establishment resistance to re-examining government “climate science,” also backs an independent scientific review of the increasingly dubious claims made in federal climate reports.
Analysts say this battle will be crucial in establishing the credibility of government climate science — or the lack thereof.
The coalition letter, signed by almost 40 leading policy organizations and well over 100 prominent leaders, argues that an independent review of federal global-warming reports is “long overdue.” “Serious problems and shortcomings have been raised repeatedly in the past by highly-qualified scientists only to be ignored or dismissed by the federal agencies in charge of producing the reports,” the leaders and organizations explained. Indeed, in multiple cases, federal bureaucracies have even been accused of fraudulently manipulating data and findings to support their politically backed conclusions.
“Among major issues that have been raised and that we hope the commission will scrutinize: the models used have assumed climate sensitivities to CO2 concentrations significantly higher than recent research warrants; the models used have predicted much more warming than has actually occurred; predictions of the negative impacts of global warming have been made based on implausible high-end emissions scenarios; the positive impacts of warming have been ignored or minimized; and surface temperature data sets have been manipulated to show more rapid warming than has actually occurred,” the signatories wrote.
The highly unscientific nature of the claims — many of which cannot be tested or falsified — also casts doubt on the alarmist findings contained in widely ridiculed federal climate reports. “An underlying issue that we hope the commission will also address is the fact that so many of the scientific claims made in these reports and by many climate scientists are not falsifiable, that is, they cannot be tested by the scientific method,” explained the coalition letter to Trump supporting the PCCS, which brought together many of America's most influential environmental and conservative-leaning public policy organizations.
Perhaps the most alarming element of the whole saga is that this supposed “science” is serving as the pretext for trillions of dollars in government spending, as well as unprecedented empowerment of governments and international bureaucracies such as the United Nations and its various agencies. The man-made global-warming hypothesis also underpins drastic policy changes that restrict individual liberty and free markets that harm everyone, and especially the world's poorest people, for nebulous alleged benefits. As such, the science must be thoroughly reviewed, and it must be completely transparent, the coalition said.
“The conclusions and predictions made by these reports are the basis for proposed energy policies that could cost trillions of dollars in less than a decade and tens of trillions of dollars over several decades,” the letter explained. “Given the magnitude of the potential costs involved, we think that taking the insular processes of official, consensus science on trust, as has been the case for the past three decades, is negligent and imprudent. In contrast, major engineering projects are regularly subjected to the most rigorous and exhaustive adversarial review. We suggest that climate science requires at least the same level of scrutiny as the engineering employed in building a bridge or a new airplane.”
As The New American reported earlier this month, the establishment is in full freak-out mode over the proposed presidential commission on climate science. Far-left Democrats in Congress have slammed the idea as “dangerous.” A coalition of globalist “national security” professionals, mostly from the far-left Obama administration, even claimed reviewing the science would be a threat to “national security.” The establishment media has gone absolutely bonkers, endlessly demonizing Trump and Happer for failing to genuflect before their climate beliefs — the faith of a “climate” movement that leading experts such as MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen have even described as a “cult.”
The letter highlighted how bizarre this was. “We note that defenders of the climate consensus have already mounted a public campaign against the proposed commission,” the signatories wrote. “We find this opposition curious. If the defenders are confident that the science contained in official reports is robust, then they should welcome a review that would finally put to rest the doubts that have been raised. On the other hand, their opposition could be taken as evidence that the scientific basis of the climate consensus is in fact highly suspect and cannot withstand critical review.”
Indeed, as this magazine and many other sources have documented, the alleged “science” upon which the man-made global-warming hysteria is based is highly suspect at best. Self-styled “climate scientists” have been repeatedly exposed in unethical behavior, including hiding and manipulating data that contradicts their hypothesis. The predictions of the alarmist movement have been remarkably consistent, too — for decades, they have been wrong about virtually everything. And even former members of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have blown the whistle on massive fraud, only to be ignored or demonized by alarmists.
The nasty and vitriolic attacks on skeptical scientists such as Dr. Happer are also highly suspicious. “We further note that opponents of the proposed commission have already stooped to making personal attacks on Dr. Happer,” the letter to Trump continued, praising the Princeton physics professor who is almost universally respected in the scientific community. “Many signers of this letter know Dr. Happer personally and all are familiar with his scientific career. We know him to be a man of high capabilities, high achievements, and the highest integrity.”
Indeed, Happer is a leading expert in this field, and is widely respected scientist even among those who disagree with him. He also happens to disagree with the increasingly discredited hypothesis that man's emissions of CO2 — a fraction of one percent of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — control the climate. “CO2 will be good for the Earth,” Happer told The New American magazine at a 2016 climate conference in Phoenix, Arizona, that brought together leading scientists and experts in various fields to expose the lies and alarmism. He added it was “pretty clear that we're not going to see dangerous climate change” as a result of human CO2 emissions.
Among the lead organizations involved in gathering signatures for the letter was the non-profit Heartland Institute, a leading scientific think tank on climate issues. The group, which has organized climate conferences and helps put together the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and its flagship “Climate Change Reconsidered” reports examining the scientific literature, recently released a policy brief highlighting the national security threat to America posed by alarmist-inspired energy restrictions. Also playing a lead role was the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Both organizations, which focus on the environment, helped gather signatures and support.
“An unbiased, independent examination of the science of climate change by an official government body is long overdue,” said Tim Huelskamp, Ph.D., president of the Heartland Institute. “It’s only necessary because government bureaucrats have put ideology above science and excluded the wealth of data and research that undermines their narrative that human activity is the main driver of catastrophic climate change.” Alongside scientists, climate experts, and other signatories, former Congressman Huelskamp urged Trump to “resist the cries of alarmists inside and outside government and allow the esteemed Dr. Will Happer to convene this commission and report back the results to the American people.”
Other organizations involved include Heritage Action, FreedomWorks, American Energy Alliance, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Climate Depot, the 60 Plus Association, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), Institute for Energy Research, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, the International Climate Science Coalition, Eagle Forum, Americans for Limited Government, Energy and Environment Legal Institute, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, American Commitment, Hispanic Leadership Fund, Conservative Action Project, CNP Action, American Lands Council, American Policy Center, the Institute for Liberty, Caesar Rodney Institute, Ethan Allen Institute, John Locke Foundation, Rio Grande Foundation, The Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions, Center for Industrial Progress, Clear Energy Alliance, and many more. Dozens of scientists and experts also signed in their individual capacities.
The tax-funded “climate” alarmism lobby is in total panic about the proposed commission to review the science. And it seems they have good reason to be terrified — after all the scandals such as Climategate more recent NOAA data suppression, it has become clear that the alarmism is not based on science at all. Trump, who has ridiculed the man-made warming hypothesis as a “hoax,” is under tremendous pressure to cave in. Analysts who spoke with The New American said this battle over the PCCS represents the culmination of this struggle. For those who value real science, it is imperative that the alleged science underpinning the alarmism be reviewed by independent experts. As the scientists and experts behind the letter explained, Trump must move ahead. The future of freedom depends on it.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...ition-backs-trump-s-climate-science-committee
Written by Alex Newman
A massive coalition of environmental organizations, activists, and think-tank leaders signed a letter to President Donald Trump supporting the proposed Presidential Commission on Climate Security (PCCS), as well as the work of Trump climate and national security adviser Dr. William Happer of Princeton University. The campaign, which comes amid fierce establishment resistance to re-examining government “climate science,” also backs an independent scientific review of the increasingly dubious claims made in federal climate reports.
Analysts say this battle will be crucial in establishing the credibility of government climate science — or the lack thereof.
The coalition letter, signed by almost 40 leading policy organizations and well over 100 prominent leaders, argues that an independent review of federal global-warming reports is “long overdue.” “Serious problems and shortcomings have been raised repeatedly in the past by highly-qualified scientists only to be ignored or dismissed by the federal agencies in charge of producing the reports,” the leaders and organizations explained. Indeed, in multiple cases, federal bureaucracies have even been accused of fraudulently manipulating data and findings to support their politically backed conclusions.
“Among major issues that have been raised and that we hope the commission will scrutinize: the models used have assumed climate sensitivities to CO2 concentrations significantly higher than recent research warrants; the models used have predicted much more warming than has actually occurred; predictions of the negative impacts of global warming have been made based on implausible high-end emissions scenarios; the positive impacts of warming have been ignored or minimized; and surface temperature data sets have been manipulated to show more rapid warming than has actually occurred,” the signatories wrote.
The highly unscientific nature of the claims — many of which cannot be tested or falsified — also casts doubt on the alarmist findings contained in widely ridiculed federal climate reports. “An underlying issue that we hope the commission will also address is the fact that so many of the scientific claims made in these reports and by many climate scientists are not falsifiable, that is, they cannot be tested by the scientific method,” explained the coalition letter to Trump supporting the PCCS, which brought together many of America's most influential environmental and conservative-leaning public policy organizations.
Perhaps the most alarming element of the whole saga is that this supposed “science” is serving as the pretext for trillions of dollars in government spending, as well as unprecedented empowerment of governments and international bureaucracies such as the United Nations and its various agencies. The man-made global-warming hypothesis also underpins drastic policy changes that restrict individual liberty and free markets that harm everyone, and especially the world's poorest people, for nebulous alleged benefits. As such, the science must be thoroughly reviewed, and it must be completely transparent, the coalition said.
“The conclusions and predictions made by these reports are the basis for proposed energy policies that could cost trillions of dollars in less than a decade and tens of trillions of dollars over several decades,” the letter explained. “Given the magnitude of the potential costs involved, we think that taking the insular processes of official, consensus science on trust, as has been the case for the past three decades, is negligent and imprudent. In contrast, major engineering projects are regularly subjected to the most rigorous and exhaustive adversarial review. We suggest that climate science requires at least the same level of scrutiny as the engineering employed in building a bridge or a new airplane.”
As The New American reported earlier this month, the establishment is in full freak-out mode over the proposed presidential commission on climate science. Far-left Democrats in Congress have slammed the idea as “dangerous.” A coalition of globalist “national security” professionals, mostly from the far-left Obama administration, even claimed reviewing the science would be a threat to “national security.” The establishment media has gone absolutely bonkers, endlessly demonizing Trump and Happer for failing to genuflect before their climate beliefs — the faith of a “climate” movement that leading experts such as MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen have even described as a “cult.”
The letter highlighted how bizarre this was. “We note that defenders of the climate consensus have already mounted a public campaign against the proposed commission,” the signatories wrote. “We find this opposition curious. If the defenders are confident that the science contained in official reports is robust, then they should welcome a review that would finally put to rest the doubts that have been raised. On the other hand, their opposition could be taken as evidence that the scientific basis of the climate consensus is in fact highly suspect and cannot withstand critical review.”
Indeed, as this magazine and many other sources have documented, the alleged “science” upon which the man-made global-warming hysteria is based is highly suspect at best. Self-styled “climate scientists” have been repeatedly exposed in unethical behavior, including hiding and manipulating data that contradicts their hypothesis. The predictions of the alarmist movement have been remarkably consistent, too — for decades, they have been wrong about virtually everything. And even former members of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have blown the whistle on massive fraud, only to be ignored or demonized by alarmists.
The nasty and vitriolic attacks on skeptical scientists such as Dr. Happer are also highly suspicious. “We further note that opponents of the proposed commission have already stooped to making personal attacks on Dr. Happer,” the letter to Trump continued, praising the Princeton physics professor who is almost universally respected in the scientific community. “Many signers of this letter know Dr. Happer personally and all are familiar with his scientific career. We know him to be a man of high capabilities, high achievements, and the highest integrity.”
Indeed, Happer is a leading expert in this field, and is widely respected scientist even among those who disagree with him. He also happens to disagree with the increasingly discredited hypothesis that man's emissions of CO2 — a fraction of one percent of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — control the climate. “CO2 will be good for the Earth,” Happer told The New American magazine at a 2016 climate conference in Phoenix, Arizona, that brought together leading scientists and experts in various fields to expose the lies and alarmism. He added it was “pretty clear that we're not going to see dangerous climate change” as a result of human CO2 emissions.
Among the lead organizations involved in gathering signatures for the letter was the non-profit Heartland Institute, a leading scientific think tank on climate issues. The group, which has organized climate conferences and helps put together the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and its flagship “Climate Change Reconsidered” reports examining the scientific literature, recently released a policy brief highlighting the national security threat to America posed by alarmist-inspired energy restrictions. Also playing a lead role was the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Both organizations, which focus on the environment, helped gather signatures and support.
“An unbiased, independent examination of the science of climate change by an official government body is long overdue,” said Tim Huelskamp, Ph.D., president of the Heartland Institute. “It’s only necessary because government bureaucrats have put ideology above science and excluded the wealth of data and research that undermines their narrative that human activity is the main driver of catastrophic climate change.” Alongside scientists, climate experts, and other signatories, former Congressman Huelskamp urged Trump to “resist the cries of alarmists inside and outside government and allow the esteemed Dr. Will Happer to convene this commission and report back the results to the American people.”
Other organizations involved include Heritage Action, FreedomWorks, American Energy Alliance, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Climate Depot, the 60 Plus Association, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), Institute for Energy Research, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, the International Climate Science Coalition, Eagle Forum, Americans for Limited Government, Energy and Environment Legal Institute, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, American Commitment, Hispanic Leadership Fund, Conservative Action Project, CNP Action, American Lands Council, American Policy Center, the Institute for Liberty, Caesar Rodney Institute, Ethan Allen Institute, John Locke Foundation, Rio Grande Foundation, The Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions, Center for Industrial Progress, Clear Energy Alliance, and many more. Dozens of scientists and experts also signed in their individual capacities.
The tax-funded “climate” alarmism lobby is in total panic about the proposed commission to review the science. And it seems they have good reason to be terrified — after all the scandals such as Climategate more recent NOAA data suppression, it has become clear that the alarmism is not based on science at all. Trump, who has ridiculed the man-made warming hypothesis as a “hoax,” is under tremendous pressure to cave in. Analysts who spoke with The New American said this battle over the PCCS represents the culmination of this struggle. For those who value real science, it is imperative that the alleged science underpinning the alarmism be reviewed by independent experts. As the scientists and experts behind the letter explained, Trump must move ahead. The future of freedom depends on it.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...ition-backs-trump-s-climate-science-committee
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
Oh well then Abnormal and Extreme is now the new normal.
it's not new.
variability defines weather and therefore climate, and that variability is caused by solar cycles, been happening for millions of years, will continue to happen for millions more.
it is not the hottest nor the coldest.
That is the lie you've been spreading since the warming never really happened.
faked data, faked results, fake reality, fake news, fake persona...
variability defines weather and therefore climate, and that variability is caused by solar cycles, been happening for millions of years, will continue to happen for millions more.
it is not the hottest nor the coldest.
That is the lie you've been spreading since the warming never really happened.
faked data, faked results, fake reality, fake news, fake persona...
back to the real world(for some of us)
February was warm, no record setter
comes in as 5th warmest in the record
quite repetitive being in the top 5, most months now are
plenty of new records, the warm kind that is
February
February 2019 Blended Land and Sea Surface
Temperature Anomalies in degrees Celsius
February 2019 Blended Land and Sea Surface
Temperature Percentiles
The February 2019 global land and ocean surface temperature was the fifth highest for February in the 140-year record at 0.79°C (1.42°F) above the 20th century average. While much of the Southern Hemisphere was experiencing unusually warm conditions during February, the Northern Hemisphere was much more variable. The most notable cool temperature departures from average were present across parts of the Northern Hemisphere, specifically across Canada and the contiguous U.S. as well as parts of central Asia, where temperatures were 3.0°C (5.4°F) below average or cooler. Meanwhile, much of Alaska, Europe, central Russia and the Far East had temperatures that were 4.0°C (7.2°F) above average or higher. Across the oceans, the Southern Ocean off the southern coast of South Africa was quite remarkable and record warm for this region, with temperature departures from average at +2.5°C (+4.5°F) or higher. Additional areas with record warm February temperatures include parts of Alaska, Central America, the Barents Sea, the Southern Ocean off Australia's southeastern coast, the Indian Ocean, the East China Sea as well as parts of northeastern Brazil.
Averaged separately, the global land-only surface temperature was the 15th highest on record for February at 1.04°C (1.87°F) above the 20th century average. Meanwhile, the global ocean-only surface temperature was 0.70°C (1.26°F) above average and the second warmest February since global records began in 1880. This value is 0.11°C (0.20°F) less than the record-warm February set in 2016.
Of note, the Southern Hemisphere, as a whole, had its second warmest February on record at 0.76°C (1.37°F) above average, trailing behind 2016 (+0.87°C / +1.57°F).
According to NCEI's Regional Analysis, South America, Europe and Oceania had a February temperature that ranked among the eight warmest Februarys on record. Meanwhile, Africa and North America had their smallest (least warm) February temperature departure from average since 2014. North America was the only continent that had a February temperature that was below average. The Caribbean region had a February temperature that was the sixth highest on record. Meanwhile, the Hawaiian region had its smallest (least warm) February temperature since 2013.
Select national information is highlighted below. Please note that different countries report anomalies with respect to different base periods. The information provided here is based directly upon these data:
February was warm, no record setter
comes in as 5th warmest in the record
quite repetitive being in the top 5, most months now are
plenty of new records, the warm kind that is
February
February 2019 Blended Land and Sea Surface
Temperature Anomalies in degrees Celsius
February 2019 Blended Land and Sea Surface
Temperature Percentiles
The February 2019 global land and ocean surface temperature was the fifth highest for February in the 140-year record at 0.79°C (1.42°F) above the 20th century average. While much of the Southern Hemisphere was experiencing unusually warm conditions during February, the Northern Hemisphere was much more variable. The most notable cool temperature departures from average were present across parts of the Northern Hemisphere, specifically across Canada and the contiguous U.S. as well as parts of central Asia, where temperatures were 3.0°C (5.4°F) below average or cooler. Meanwhile, much of Alaska, Europe, central Russia and the Far East had temperatures that were 4.0°C (7.2°F) above average or higher. Across the oceans, the Southern Ocean off the southern coast of South Africa was quite remarkable and record warm for this region, with temperature departures from average at +2.5°C (+4.5°F) or higher. Additional areas with record warm February temperatures include parts of Alaska, Central America, the Barents Sea, the Southern Ocean off Australia's southeastern coast, the Indian Ocean, the East China Sea as well as parts of northeastern Brazil.
Averaged separately, the global land-only surface temperature was the 15th highest on record for February at 1.04°C (1.87°F) above the 20th century average. Meanwhile, the global ocean-only surface temperature was 0.70°C (1.26°F) above average and the second warmest February since global records began in 1880. This value is 0.11°C (0.20°F) less than the record-warm February set in 2016.
Of note, the Southern Hemisphere, as a whole, had its second warmest February on record at 0.76°C (1.37°F) above average, trailing behind 2016 (+0.87°C / +1.57°F).
According to NCEI's Regional Analysis, South America, Europe and Oceania had a February temperature that ranked among the eight warmest Februarys on record. Meanwhile, Africa and North America had their smallest (least warm) February temperature departure from average since 2014. North America was the only continent that had a February temperature that was below average. The Caribbean region had a February temperature that was the sixth highest on record. Meanwhile, the Hawaiian region had its smallest (least warm) February temperature since 2013.
Select national information is highlighted below. Please note that different countries report anomalies with respect to different base periods. The information provided here is based directly upon these data:
- Warmer-than-average conditions were present across much of western and central Europe during late February, causing several locations to set new February maximum temperature records.
- The United Kingdom recorded for the first time a maximum temperature over 20.0°C (68.0°F) during a winter month. The maximum temperature of 20.6°C (69.1°F) was first set on 25 February 2019 at Trawsgoed, Ceredigion, surpassing the United Kingdom's February maximum temperature of 19.7°C (67.5°F) set in 1998. However, this temperature was broken again the following day (26 February 2019) when maximum temperatures soared to 21.2°C (70.2°F) in Kew Gardens, London.
- A new Swedish maximum temperature for February was set on 26 February 2019 when temperatures rose to 16.7°C (62.1°F) in Karlshamn. This value surpassed the previous record of 16.5°C (61.7°F) set in Ölvingstorp and Västervik, Småland on 18 February 1961.
- The Netherlands observed their highest February maximum temperature since national records began in 1901. On 26 February 2019, maximum temperatures reached 18.9°C (66.0°F) in De Bilt.
- According to MeteoLux, the maximum temperature of 19.8°C (67.6°F) observed at the Findel-Aéroport in Luxembourg was the highest maximum temperature recorded since the station's records began in 1947. The previous record of 18.2°C (64.8°F) was set on 29 February 1960.
- Austria set a new national maximum temperature record on 28 February 2019 when temperatures soared to 24.2°C (75.6°F) in Güssing and Deutschlandsberg. This value exceeded the previous record set in 29 February 1960 by 0.6°C (1.1°F).
- On 27 February, France's thermal indicator (which is the daily average temperatures of 30 metropolitan stations) for maximum temperature was 21.3°C (70.3°F). This value is 10.0°C (18.0°F) above the seasonal average and was the hottest winter day since 1950. Only two other times have temperatures been 20.0°C (68°F) or higher on record: 23 February 1990 with a maximum temperature of 20.0°C (68.0°F) and 28 February 1960 with a maximum temperature of 20.2°C (68.4°F). Several locations across France reached new maximum temperatures for February. Of note, Brive-la-Gaillarde had a maximum temperature of 25.0°C (77.0°F) set on 27 February 2019. This value surpassed the previous record set on 28 February 1997 with a maximum temperature of 24.4°C (75.9°F). Averaged for the nation as a whole, France had its second highest maximum temperature on record at 4.1°C (7.4°F) above average, behind 1990 (+4.8°C / +8.6°F).
- The United Kingdom's February 2019 national mean temperature was 6.0°C (42.8°F) or 2.4°C (4.3°F) above the 1981–2010 average—the second highest February mean temperature in the nation's 110-year record, trailing behind 1998. The nation's maximum temperature was the highest on record. Provisionally, England (fifth warmest), Wales (third warmest), Scotland (second warmest), and Northern Ireland (tied third warmest) had a mean temperature that ranked among the five highest on record.
- Warmer-than-average conditions were present across much of Australia during February 2019. The nation's monthly average mean temperature was 1.38°C (2.48°F) above the 1961–1990 average and the fourth highest since national records began in 1910. The warmest February took place in 1983 with a nationally-averaged temperature of 2.0°C (3.6°F) above average. Australia's maximum and minimum temperatures were also warmer than average at 2.05°C (3.69°F) and 0.71°C (1.28°F) above average. The national maximum temperature ranked as the fifth highest in the 110-year record. Regionally, Western Australia and Northern Territory had their fourth highest February mean temperature on record at 2.05°C (3.69°F) and 1.87°C (3.37°F) above average.
- Hong Kong's monthly mean, maximum, and minimum temperatures during February 2019 were the second highest on record at 3.3°C (5.9°F), 3.7°C (6.7°F) and 3.4°C (6.1°F) above average, respectively.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/...urse-growing-again-after-shrinking-for-years/
Greenland Glacier Reverses Course, Growing Again After Shrinking for Years
Posted by Leslie Eastman Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 9:00am
Search E-alert Submit Login
Article | Published: 25 March 2019
Interruption of two decades of Jakobshavn Isbrae acceleration and thinning as regional ocean cools
Abstract
Jakobshavn Isbrae has been the single largest source of mass loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet over the last 20 years. During that time, it has been retreating, accelerating and thinning. Here we use airborne altimetry and satellite imagery to show that since 2016 Jakobshavn has been re-advancing, slowing and thickening. We link these changes to concurrent cooling of ocean waters in Disko Bay that spill over into Ilulissat Icefjord. Ocean temperatures in the bay’s upper 250 m have cooled to levels not seen since the mid 1980s. Observations and modelling trace the origins of this cooling to anomalous wintertime heat loss in the boundary current that circulates around the southern half of Greenland. Longer time series of ocean temperature, subglacial discharge and glacier variability strongly suggest that ocean-induced melting at the front has continued to influence glacier dynamics after the disintegration of its floating tongue in 2003. We conclude that projections of Jakobshavn’s future contribution to sea-level rise that are based on glacier geometry are insufficient, and that accounting for external forcing is indispensable.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0329-3
read the paper using this link: https://sci-hub.tw/
http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/
lots of ice and it has Not peaked yet.
global temperature caNNot be measured, only modeled.
'That' is the real world friends.
Greenland Glacier Reverses Course, Growing Again After Shrinking for Years
Posted by Leslie Eastman Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 9:00am
Search E-alert Submit Login
Article | Published: 25 March 2019
Interruption of two decades of Jakobshavn Isbrae acceleration and thinning as regional ocean cools
- Ala Khazendar,
- Ian G. Fenty,
- Dustin Carroll,
- Alex Gardner,
- Craig M. Lee,
- Ichiro Fukumori,
- Ou Wang,
- Hong Zhang,
- Hélène Seroussi,
- Delwyn Moller,
- Brice P. Y. Noël,
- Michiel R. van den Broeke,
- Steven Dinardo &
- Josh Willis
Abstract
Jakobshavn Isbrae has been the single largest source of mass loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet over the last 20 years. During that time, it has been retreating, accelerating and thinning. Here we use airborne altimetry and satellite imagery to show that since 2016 Jakobshavn has been re-advancing, slowing and thickening. We link these changes to concurrent cooling of ocean waters in Disko Bay that spill over into Ilulissat Icefjord. Ocean temperatures in the bay’s upper 250 m have cooled to levels not seen since the mid 1980s. Observations and modelling trace the origins of this cooling to anomalous wintertime heat loss in the boundary current that circulates around the southern half of Greenland. Longer time series of ocean temperature, subglacial discharge and glacier variability strongly suggest that ocean-induced melting at the front has continued to influence glacier dynamics after the disintegration of its floating tongue in 2003. We conclude that projections of Jakobshavn’s future contribution to sea-level rise that are based on glacier geometry are insufficient, and that accounting for external forcing is indispensable.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0329-3
read the paper using this link: https://sci-hub.tw/
http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/
lots of ice and it has Not peaked yet.
global temperature caNNot be measured, only modeled.
'That' is the real world friends.
...
global temperature caNNot be measured, only modeled.
'That' is the real world friends.
indeed, we'll leave your observations about glacier growth for another moment
what you meant about temperature is that any temperature measurement in fact reduces to a model
all temperature measurements can not directly measure the 'true' temperature of a system
the only difference is that with earth's system you have a much larger mass than most measurements
measurement of a swimming pool for example will have uncertainties
don't try squirming out of it with semantics.
the earth is large...too large to measure.
ever stood in direct sunlight and then a large cloud or overcast appears? the temperature changes...sometimes by many degrees.
I meant that there is no effing way to measure global temperature...
...that they model the spaces where there are absolutely no monitoring stations.
who is to verify that the temperature where there are no stations are what they say the models represent?
what about the changes that have been made to the record reducing previous temperatures to make it appear warmer now?
Australia, Brazil, Africa?
Do you even know what weather is? what causes it?
please elaborate....
The Solid Earth Breathes
Boulder, Colo., USA: The solid Earth breathes as volcanoes “exhale” gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) — which are essential in regulating global climate — while carbon ultimately from CO2 returns into the deep Earth when oceanic tectonic plates are forced to descend into the mantle at subduction zones. However, the amount of carbon in the sediments and ocean crust that subducts is poorly constrained, as is the fraction of that breaks down in the mantle and contributes to volcanic CO2.
Most subduction zones in the world are complex: the amount of sediment and carbon (C) concentration frequently varies along their length, and at many, some of the sediment reaching the subduction zone is scraped off, so the C in it never gets returned into the Earth. Developing a way to figure out how C cycles at complex subduction margins is therefore critical to understanding our planet.
To establish such a method, researchers Brian M. House and colleagues focused on the Sunda margin along Indonesia, a subduction zone where the amount of sediment changes dramatically as does the proportion of organic and inorganic C, and very little of the sediment actually stays attached to the subducting plate.
Erosion from the Himalayas and underwater sediment “avalanches” bring a tremendous amount of sediment that is rich in organic C to the northeast section of the margin while the southwest portion is inundated by sediment rich in calcium carbonate (CaCO3) microfossils from the Australian continental shelf.
To account for this the team made a 3D model of the sediments and their composition across thousands of square kilometers outboard of the margin, which allowed us to more accurately quantify C in sediments throughout the region. House says they “estimate that only about a tenth of the C reaching the margin makes it past the subduction zone while the rest is scraped off the plate into the enormous wedge of sediment offshore of Sumatra and Java.”
House and colleagues estimate that the C returning into the Earth is much less — maybe only a fifth — of what volcanoes expel each year, meaning that the margin represents a net source of C into the atmosphere and that C from something other than the subducting sediments is released. “The sediments subducted into the Earth also have a different C isotope composition than that of volcanic CO2, so we think that inorganic CaCO3 in the ground underneath Sumatra and Java as well as C in the oceanic plate that carries sediment into the subduction zone release CO2 that travels back into the atmosphere.”
These are two possible CO2 sources that, while extremely large, haven’t received much scientific attention. By presenting a new method for investigating tectonic C cycling in a place as complicated as the Sunda margin, says House, “We hope to spur new interest in understanding the full range of processes by which the solid Earth breathes over geologic timescales.”
FEATURED ARTICLE
Carbon cycling at the Sunda margin, Indonesia: A regional study with global implications
Brian M. House ([email protected]), Gray E. Bebout, and David R. Hilton. URL: https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gs...arbon-cycling-at-the-Sunda-margin-Indonesia-A.
and that captures your perspective perfectly
if it's too large to measure then how can we say anything about temperature?
at this point common sense needs to take hold or not
but you have quoted many a 'scientific' article where temperature measurements are key
actually, i believe you made much of temperature measurement data that has been falsified/changed, i.e. climategate
more folks of the conservative persuasion are feeling the changes and changing their minds
they still don't like liberals but they're putting climate in the right category: science not politics
is that not the point?
every one of those have different results, none of them agree to any extent. particularly the disparity between your stance and mine where you insist it's getting warmer each year and i pointing out that personally i've seen hotter and colder temperatures before.
weather and therefore climate are not static and they don't vary in one direction.
you failed to describe your understanding of what weather is caused by.
is it the amount of CO2, the island effect, your amorous emotions, Al Gores internet,
my magnetic personality, friction of the ether against planetary motion, hot dogs with mustard (not a poke at mr.mustard), a butterfly in Africa?
you say you welcome dissent but play it off as one being uninformed or downright stupid, because 'hey, science!'
i'm pretty sure you didn't read any of the peer reviewed 'science' articles i've posted, or the articles about falsifying data, or the very narrow purview afforded Maurice Strong' "SCIENTIFIC" investigation of "man made/anthropocentric" causes of climate changing.
the IPCC reports on man changing the climate are a fraud on ''science" and i hope to heaven your discernment wasn't corrupted.
i'll give you a hint about the cause of weather...
every one of those have different results, none of them agree to any extent. particularly the disparity between your stance and mine where you insist it's getting warmer each year and i pointing out that personally i've seen hotter and colder temperatures before.
weather and therefore climate are not static and they don't vary in one direction.
you failed to describe your understanding of what weather is caused by.
is it the amount of CO2, the island effect, your amorous emotions, Al Gores internet,
my magnetic personality, friction of the ether against planetary motion, hot dogs with mustard (not a poke at mr.mustard), a butterfly in Africa?
you say you welcome dissent but play it off as one being uninformed or downright stupid, because 'hey, science!'
i'm pretty sure you didn't read any of the peer reviewed 'science' articles i've posted, or the articles about falsifying data, or the very narrow purview afforded Maurice Strong' "SCIENTIFIC" investigation of "man made/anthropocentric" causes of climate changing.
the IPCC reports on man changing the climate are a fraud on ''science" and i hope to heaven your discernment wasn't corrupted.
i'll give you a hint about the cause of weather...
White Beard
Active member
Worth noting that shit-posting is not ‘dissent’, and vice versa
This is the fifth year in a row that spring has landed in early February in my neck of the woods...here at the end of March, the weather matches late April/early May...and that after no real winter at all. February has been the coldest month here for the previous 62 years...until now it’s springtime.
This is the fifth year in a row that spring has landed in early February in my neck of the woods...here at the end of March, the weather matches late April/early May...and that after no real winter at all. February has been the coldest month here for the previous 62 years...until now it’s springtime.
news today says areas of alaskan coastline will be 40 degrees over normal this weekend. usually below zero, going to be above freezing. "nothing to see here folks, those polar bears can tread water for days. move along now..."
