What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

A

arsekick

Active member
Normannen said:
thank you for proving a point....https://support.minitab.com/en-us/minitab/21/help-and-how-to/statistical-modeling/anova/supporting-topics/anova-statistics/understanding-mean-squares/ slap yourself
Click to expand...
Still got nothing I see, are you sure you're a qualified "climate" scientist ?

"observed with my own eyes the desolation the anthropocene is wrecking upon the environment."

"The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth's history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet's climate and ecosystems"

We're still in the Holocene it started on a Thursday afternoon about 11500 years ago and is still gong.

You climate change idiots think it will end in when the planet enters its 6th great extinction because of "man made Co2.
 
Last edited:
A

arsekick

Active member
Normannen said:
science is not about belief, science doesn't give a shit about belief. we do data collection and reporting, nothing else. scientists that "look down" on "inferior" branches of science tend to get fired as there is no such thing as "inferior" branches of science, there is science, end of story.
Click to expand...
it was a joke, sort of lol

How far apart are the Co2 moles in the atmosphere ? they are only .04% of the total.

I won't bother asking how far apart the "man made moles of Co2 are apart, although I should seeing how only "man made" Co2 causes global warming
 
Last edited:
A

arsekick

Active member
Normannen said:
View attachment 18940189
Click to expand...
From your above link.

"Average Arctic sea ice extent for December 2023, Sea ice extent increased by an average of 87,400 square kilometers (33,700 thousand square miles) per day, markedly faster than the 1981 to 2010 average of 64,100 square kilometers (24,700 square miles) per day"

"For December overall, 2023 had the third highest monthly gain in the 45-year record at 2.71 million square kilometers (1.05 square miles), behind 2006 at 2.85 million square kilometers (1.10 million square miles) and 2016 at 2.78 million square kilometers (1.07 million square miles)."

Thought 2023 was the hottest year on record and the hottest year in 120000 years lol.


1704535558153.png
 
Last edited:
Koondense

Koondense

Well-known member
Veteran
trichrider said:
your links didn't work.
Click to expand...
Oops, here you go:

academic.oup.com

The 2023 state of the climate report: Entering uncharted territory

Life on planet Earth is under siege. We are now in an uncharted territory. For several decades, scientists have consistently warned of a future marked by extrem
academic.oup.com academic.oup.com

academic.oup.com

Global warming in the pipeline

Abstract. Improved knowledge of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change yields Charney (fast-feedback) equilibrium climate sensitivity 1.2 ± 0.3°C (2σ
academic.oup.com academic.oup.com

Cheers
 
trichrider

trichrider

Kiss My Ring
Veteran
Normannen said:
You're the one who'se burden of proof falls upon, but you fail to provide convincing evidence that would prove the consensus otherwise. And yes, back to your original "remark" I have observed man made global warming as I keep observing the permafrost receeding under my very own feet during my lifetime, I have traveled the world round from the depths of Africa to the Thousand island and observed with my own eyes the desolation the anthropocene is wrecking upon the environment. And it's all in line with scientific observations that fit the consenus. You on the other hand cherry picking information from within papers that are of questionable methods and egenda (science is not about proving a point, but about finiding out the truth, which but similar process is what is happening to Cannabis, thanks to science that finds out that what most people on the right wing have been saying for the past 100years is bullocks. Likewise,contrary to what the big petrol and oil and weapons industry have been saying for the past 100 years about global warming), that is not a scientifically sound way to argue against the body of evidence we have accrued (which is not up to me to provide you with as it's readily available, and again, burden of proof falls on those who disagree against consensus, I owe you nothing, this is why I am asking you to leave, not because of belief, but because you have offered us nothing but mild entertainment).
Click to expand...
science is not consensus, and i doubt you have anything but.
were you truthful, which i also doubt, you would provide every scintilla of 'evidence' to support your 'consensus'.

wow, you've been all over the planet and didn't notice the differing climates? how objective./s

Long-Term Changes in Main Trajectories of Extratropical Cyclones in the North Atlantic and Their Possible Association with Solar Activity​

published 12/25/23

link.springer.com

Long-Term Changes in Main Trajectories of Extratropical Cyclones in the North Atlantic and Their Possible Association with Solar Activity - Geomagnetism and Aeronomy

Abstract In this paper, we study long-term changes in the main directions of movement (storm tracks) of extratropical cyclones in the North Atlantic over the period 1873–2021. It was found that in the cold half of the year (the period of the most intense cyclogenesis), the average latitudes of...
link.springer.com link.springer.com
......

Winds and Meltwater Together Lead to Southern Ocean Surface Cooling and Sea Ice Expansion​

Lettie A. Roach, Kenneth D. Mankoff, Anastasia Romanou, Edward Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, Thomas W. N. Haine, Gavin. A. Schmidt

First published: 25 December 2023
https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL105948


Sections
PDF PDF

Abstract​


Southern Ocean surface cooling and Antarctic sea ice expansion from 1979 through 2015 have been linked both to changing atmospheric circulation and melting of Antarctica's grounded ice and ice shelves. However, climate models have largely been unable to reproduce this behavior. Here we examine the contribution of observed wind variability and Antarctic meltwater to Southern Ocean sea surface temperature (SST) and Antarctic sea ice. The free-running, CMIP6-class GISS-E2.1-G climate model can simulate regional cooling and neutral sea ice trends due to internal variability, but they are unlikely. Constraining the model to observed winds and meltwater fluxes from 1990 through 2021 gives SST variability and trends consistent with observations. Meltwater and winds contribute a similar amount to the SST trend, and winds contribute more to the sea ice trend than meltwater. However, while the constrained model captures much of the observed sea ice variability, it only partially captures the post-2015 sea ice reduction.

Key Points​



  • We nudge winds to observations and add estimates of observed freshwater from ice sheet and ice shelf melt in a coupled climate model
  • Southern Ocean sea surface temperature trends and variability better match observations, with both winds and meltwater being important
  • The constrained model simulates strong Antarctic sea ice expansion and only partially captures recent sea ice lows

Plain Language Summary

While most of the globe has warmed in recent decades, the Southern Ocean around Antarctica cooled at the surface and its sea ice expanded from the beginning of satellite observations in 1979 through 2015. This unexpected behavior has been linked to changes in winds and to the addition of cold, fresh water from the melting of Antarctic's ice sheet and ice shelves. However, the importance of these two potential drivers has been unclear, partly because global climate models have often struggled to reproduce the observed changes. Here, we modify a climate model, constraining it to simulate observed winds and adding in realistic amounts of meltwater. With these changes, the model can simulate changes in SST and sea ice that are similar to observations. Winds and meltwater both play an important role. However, they cannot fully explain the large Antarctic sea ice reductions that were observed after 2015, suggesting that other factors may be at play.
 
Porky82

Porky82

Well-known member
trichrider said:
science is not consensus, and i doubt you have anything but.
were you truthful, which i also doubt, you would provide every scintilla of 'evidence' to support your 'consensus'.

wow, you've been all over the planet and didn't notice the differing climates? how objective./s

Long-Term Changes in Main Trajectories of Extratropical Cyclones in the North Atlantic and Their Possible Association with Solar Activity​

published 12/25/23

link.springer.com

Long-Term Changes in Main Trajectories of Extratropical Cyclones in the North Atlantic and Their Possible Association with Solar Activity - Geomagnetism and Aeronomy

Abstract In this paper, we study long-term changes in the main directions of movement (storm tracks) of extratropical cyclones in the North Atlantic over the period 1873–2021. It was found that in the cold half of the year (the period of the most intense cyclogenesis), the average latitudes of...
link.springer.com link.springer.com
......

Winds and Meltwater Together Lead to Southern Ocean Surface Cooling and Sea Ice Expansion​

Lettie A. Roach, Kenneth D. Mankoff, Anastasia Romanou, Edward Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, Thomas W. N. Haine, Gavin. A. Schmidt

First published: 25 December 2023
https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL105948


Sections
PDF PDF

Abstract​


Southern Ocean surface cooling and Antarctic sea ice expansion from 1979 through 2015 have been linked both to changing atmospheric circulation and melting of Antarctica's grounded ice and ice shelves. However, climate models have largely been unable to reproduce this behavior. Here we examine the contribution of observed wind variability and Antarctic meltwater to Southern Ocean sea surface temperature (SST) and Antarctic sea ice. The free-running, CMIP6-class GISS-E2.1-G climate model can simulate regional cooling and neutral sea ice trends due to internal variability, but they are unlikely. Constraining the model to observed winds and meltwater fluxes from 1990 through 2021 gives SST variability and trends consistent with observations. Meltwater and winds contribute a similar amount to the SST trend, and winds contribute more to the sea ice trend than meltwater. However, while the constrained model captures much of the observed sea ice variability, it only partially captures the post-2015 sea ice reduction.

Key Points​



  • We nudge winds to observations and add estimates of observed freshwater from ice sheet and ice shelf melt in a coupled climate model
  • Southern Ocean sea surface temperature trends and variability better match observations, with both winds and meltwater being important
  • The constrained model simulates strong Antarctic sea ice expansion and only partially captures recent sea ice lows

Plain Language Summary

While most of the globe has warmed in recent decades, the Southern Ocean around Antarctica cooled at the surface and its sea ice expanded from the beginning of satellite observations in 1979 through 2015. This unexpected behavior has been linked to changes in winds and to the addition of cold, fresh water from the melting of Antarctic's ice sheet and ice shelves. However, the importance of these two potential drivers has been unclear, partly because global climate models have often struggled to reproduce the observed changes. Here, we modify a climate model, constraining it to simulate observed winds and adding in realistic amounts of meltwater. With these changes, the model can simulate changes in SST and sea ice that are similar to observations. Winds and meltwater both play an important role. However, they cannot fully explain the large Antarctic sea ice reductions that were observed after 2015, suggesting that other factors may be at play.
Click to expand...
98% is a consensus!! 🤣
Let's go retards!! 🤪
 
Porky82

Porky82

Well-known member
arsekick said:
Still got nothing I see, are you sure you're a qualified "climate" scientist ?

"observed with my own eyes the desolation the anthropocene is wrecking upon the environment."

"The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth's history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet's climate and ecosystems"

We're still in the Holocene it started on a Thursday afternoon about 11500 years ago and is still gong.

You climate change idiots think it will end in when the planet enters its 6th great extinction because of "man made Co2.
Click to expand...
Your a qualified nothing! 🤪
 
Porky82

Porky82

Well-known member
trichrider said:

Ep104 Holocene Temp Variations / 22ky Tracks in New Mexico / Spoonfed Trash -Randall Carlson Podcast​

Click to expand...

www.quora.com

Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson have not only spread misinformation with pseudoscience/history, but also slandered the real scientists...

Answer (1 of 9): Their pseudo-scientific ‘work’ should suffer the ridicule it deserves. I will be the first to admit that we don’t know enough about human history before, say, 6,000 BCE. In fact, we really don’t know enough about the human history of the Amazon and other regions of the planet. Bu...
www.quora.com www.quora.com
Do you actually think posting garbage from discredited liars will help you look more intelligent because anyone with a quarter of a brain knows this is completely garbage!!
You have not put up 1 link with any shread of scientific credibility!! 🤣
Let's go Brandon!! 🤪🤣
 
A

arsekick

Active member
There is no "man made" global warming, there is a slight warming at one of the poles, the other one hasn't warmed at all (according to NASA https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs-hds/global-temperature/

Fuck me, most of the world has warmed .5-1 f over 140 years and that's compered to the 1951 to 1980 average and you couldn't pick a colder 30 year time over the last 150 years.

A scam is a scam because its a scam, so no surprise there


1704867995381.png



1704868126681.png
 

Attachments

  • 1704868027456.png
    1704868027456.png
    468.3 KB · Views: 11
Porky82

Porky82

Well-known member
arsekick said:
There is no "man made" global warming, there is a slight warming at one of the poles, the other one hasn't warmed at all (according to NASA https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs-hds/global-temperature/

Fuck me, most of the world has warmed .5-1 f over 140 years and that's compered to the 1951 to 1980 average and you couldn't pick a colder 30 year time over the last 150 years.

A scam is a scam because its a scam, so no surprise there


View attachment 18944371


View attachment 18944374
Click to expand...
No once again your wrong and you look stupid!! 🤪
You not a scientist and you never will be so just leave it to the people that have a clue because you have no clue whatsoever!!

Annual Global Temperature Records

Scientists at NASA report each year on the long-term trend of rising air temperatures over Earth’s land and sea surfaces. The team assembles its analysis with publicly available data from roughly 6,300 meteorological stations, ship and buoy-based observations, and Antarctic research stations.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov earthobservatory.nasa.gov
You need to learn the difference between 2 photos and actual scientific evidence!
But you been at this shit for years so clearly being made to look stupid on hundreds of occasions isn't enough for idiots like you! 🤪🤣
 
A

arsekick

Active member
Porky82 said:
No once again your wrong and you look stupid!! 🤪
You not a scientist and you never will be so just leave it to the people that have a clue because you have no clue whatsoever!!

Annual Global Temperature Records

Scientists at NASA report each year on the long-term trend of rising air temperatures over Earth’s land and sea surfaces. The team assembles its analysis with publicly available data from roughly 6,300 meteorological stations, ship and buoy-based observations, and Antarctic research stations.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov earthobservatory.nasa.gov
You need to learn the difference between 2 photos and actual scientific evidence!
But you been at this shit for years so clearly being made to look stupid on hundreds of occasions isn't enough for idiots like you! 🤪🤣
Click to expand...

Well they start with this shit for the 1880 global temps, how the fuck would they know what the so called global temperature/climate was for 1880 ?, what's the margin of error for 1880 ?

1704869540331.png



1704869641367.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top