local observations are welcomed, your concerns are well placed
sadly I can only promise more extremes, hoping you can get some more 40c days before long
that said, increased humidity would make those rather unbearable - expect the unexpected
-
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?
- Thread starter igrowone
- Start date
sadly I can only promise more extremes, hoping you can get some more 40c days before long
that said, increased humidity would make those rather unbearable - expect the unexpected
yes its true..three days is a definite indication of doom
we need to pay someone so they can fill their lear jet or sacrifice some of our freedom..
that always worked for the Aztec's
ok they were a bit different but they also knew how to control the weather
Last edited:
a good evening to all, a check on the polar activity about 1 month away from the mins and maxes
down south there was a brief time where the levels were near normal
levels breezed on by to be currently near record low
another record low looks quite possible
now to the north, was kind of a similar
for the first time in a long time the ice levels were in the normal band
the low side of normal, but was noticed by some other thread followers
that has changed, there has been a noticeable drop in levels during January
this is January, that really should not happen
was ice movement the cause? melting is possible but would be an ominous development
promises to be another year of firsts
down south there was a brief time where the levels were near normal
levels breezed on by to be currently near record low
another record low looks quite possible
now to the north, was kind of a similar
for the first time in a long time the ice levels were in the normal band
the low side of normal, but was noticed by some other thread followers
that has changed, there has been a noticeable drop in levels during January
this is January, that really should not happen
was ice movement the cause? melting is possible but would be an ominous development
promises to be another year of firsts
Last edited:
Porky82
Well-known member
Climate misinformation by source: William Happer
Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.
skepticalscience.com
Malcolm Roberts!!
sea sponges "the arm clocks of man made climate change”.....
Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun’,
>because ..we..[the smart ones who listen to the ny times ->and science]
know the sun has little influence on life on earth
'temperature has changed naturally in the past'
> that has never happened..!!
look at those [fake ]glacial and interglacial ages ..[life before factcheck]
or 'other planets are warming too’
>>>now we are wrecking planets too?
are examined to see what the science really says.
skepticalscience.com<--thanks..its good to have it around to make us wise
Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun’,
>because ..we..[the smart ones who listen to the ny times ->and science]
know the sun has little influence on life on earth
'temperature has changed naturally in the past'
> that has never happened..!!
look at those [fake ]glacial and interglacial ages ..[life before factcheck]
or 'other planets are warming too’
>>>now we are wrecking planets too?
are examined to see what the science really says.
skepticalscience.com<--thanks..its good to have it around to make us wise
Couldn't you find the article in the Guardian ?
So it was colder during the little ice age than they thought, no surprise seeing how they have no idea about global temps today let alone 300 years ago.
"Stationary sea sponges are sparking debate in the climate science world with new research into the underwater creatures suggesting the planet could be a lot hotter than we thought."
"They found that Caribbean sea sponge skeletons have effectively recorded temperatures for about 300 years, giving us an idea of both past and future temperatures."
Sponges can tell future temperatures
more bullshitSea sponge study suggests Earth has already surpassed 1.5C of warming
An analysis of sea sponge skeletons from the Caribbean suggests Earth has already hit 1.7 degrees and could be 2C warmer than before industrialisation in the next six years, but not all scientists are convinced.
www.abc.net.au
Porky82
Well-known member
Couldn't you find the article in the Guardian ?
So it was colder during the little ice age than they thought, no surprise seeing how they have no idea about global temps today let alone 300 years ago.
"Stationary sea sponges are sparking debate in the climate science world with new research into the underwater creatures suggesting the planet could be a lot hotter than we thought."
"They found that Caribbean sea sponge skeletons have effectively recorded temperatures for about 300 years, giving us an idea of both past and future temperatures."
Sponges can tell future temperatures
Sea sponge study suggests Earth has already surpassed 1.5C of warming
An analysis of sea sponge skeletons from the Caribbean suggests Earth has already hit 1.7 degrees and could be 2C warmer than before industrialisation in the next six years, but not all scientists are convinced.
You know more than a scientist?
You don't even know what day of the week it is!
The only bullshit here is the stuff spewing from your gob!
Last edited:
Why did it get cold when "man made" Co2 was rising ?
Trust the science apparently, how did they get it so wrong back then, what makes us believers so sure they have it right this time, where is the evidence its all "man made" and not the natural ups and downs of the climate.
Where is a "climate" scientist when you need one
Trust the science apparently, how did they get it so wrong back then, what makes us believers so sure they have it right this time, where is the evidence its all "man made" and not the natural ups and downs of the climate.
Where is a "climate" scientist when you need one
this document reflects the understanding of the climate at the time of writing
and if humans didn't alter the atmosphere's composition it would likely be true
but we have altered the atmosphere's composition, and the climate is now headed in a different direction
science is a living thing, it grows over time
and if humans didn't alter the atmosphere's composition it would likely be true
but we have altered the atmosphere's composition, and the climate is now headed in a different direction
science is a living thing, it grows over time
Man has contributed a tiny fraction of a % of the CO2 in the atmosphere which is a tiny fraction of a % of the atmosphere to begin with, HOW can it affect the temperature by more than a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a %, is it free energy or something?
when you use imprecise terms like 'tiny' you can paint any picture you wish
reality is it isn't 'tiny', the world climate is moving to new places
talk to the atmosphere about what it can or can't do, my humble opinion is it will pay no attention
Trust the seance.
Last edited:
This paper, in its entirety, can be found at https://report.heritage.org/bg3809
The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts avenue, NE | Washington, DC 20002 | (202) 546-4400 | heritage.org
Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.
Global Warming: Observations
vs. Climate Models
Roy W. Spencer, PhD
1. Is recent warming of the climate system materially attributable to
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, as is usually claimed?
2. Is the rate of observed warming close to what computer climate
models—used to guide public policy—show?
3. Has the observed rate of warming been sufficient to justify alarm and
extensive regulation of CO2 emissions?
While the climate system has warmed somewhat over the past five
decades, the popular perception of a “climate crisis” and resulting calls for
economically significant regulation of CO2 emissions is not supported by
science.
What Causes Temperature Change?
Before addressing how much warming has been observed, it is useful
to explain what causes the temperature of anything—the climate system,
the human body, a pot of water on the stove, a car’s engine—to change. The
underlying concepts are not difficult to grasp and are experienced by people
on a daily basis.
Temperature Change Is Caused by an Imbalance Between Energy
Gain and Energy Loss. One may picture an uncovered pot of water on a
stove being heated over a very low flame. The water will warm rather rapidly
when the stove is first turned on, then it will warm more slowly as the warm
pot loses energy to its cooler surroundings. At some point, the water will
stop warming altogether as the hot water loses energy to its surroundings
just as fast as the flame puts energy into the pot. This state is called “energy
balance” and it corresponds to a stable, constant temperature.
Or one may imagine wearing a coat outside in the winter. People wear coats
to reduce the rate of energy loss by their bodies. If people did not wear coats,
their bodies would lose energy faster than they could generate heat through
metabolism, and people would go into hypothermia. The coat helps to maintain energy balance by reducing the rate of energy loss by people’s bodies.
As a final example, everyone has experienced how air temperature
changes on a sunny day. The air warms through the morning and early afternoon. But by late afternoon, something curious happens: The temperature starts going down, even though the sun is still shining. This cooling happens because the rate of energy loss by the air becomes greater than the rate of energy gain from sunlight as the sun sinks lower in the sky.
In all of these examples, when energy gain equals energy loss, there is no
temperature change. If there is an imbalance between rates of energy gain
and energy loss, the temperature changes.
Recent Warming of the Climate System
Corresponds to a Tiny Energy Imbalance
The average rate of energy gain by the global climate system from sun-
light is variously estimated to be 235 to 245 Watts per square meter (W/m2),3
so, for purposes of discussion the assumption is 240 W/m2. For global temperatures to remain approximately constant over time, the rate of energy
loss by the system to outer space, which occurs through infrared (IR) “heat”
radiation, must also be approximately 240 W/m2.
But just how well do climate researchers know these numbers, and
what is the evidence that there is a natural balance between them? The
best satellite measurements from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration’s (NASA’s) Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System’s
(CERES’s) instruments are only accurate to a few W/m2 (about 1 percent of
the average energy flows4). To estimate the level of global energy imbalance,
researchers use long-term measurements of the gradual warming of the
global average oceans to estimate the energy imbalance. From the observed
rates of warming of the deep ocean it is straightforward to compute that the
current energy imbalance is only about 0.6 W/m2, which is a tiny fraction
of the approximate 240 W/m2 natural energy flows. This imbalance is thus
considerably smaller (by about a factor of four) than the accuracy with
which one can measure global average rates of energy gain and loss in and
out of the climate system using satellites.
This is important because it means that some portion of recent warming could be natural. But since climate researchers do not understand
natural sources of climate change, such as those that caused the Roman
Warm Period of about 2,000 years ago, the Medieval Warm Period of about
1,000 years ago, and the Little Ice Age several centuries ago, most climate
researchers simply assume that a similar event is not happening today.
Instead of admitting that natural processes could be at work in causing
climate change, “energy equilibrium” is what is assumed by the mainstream
climate research community for the natural state of climate system unaffected by humans. The members of this community assume that the rate
of energy input into the climate system from the sun is, on average, exactly
equal to the rate of energy loss to outer space from IR radiation when averaged globally and over many years. The current, small roughly 0.6 W/m2
imbalance in the approximate 240 W/m2 energy flows in and out of the
climate system is then entirely blamed on the burning of fossil fuels.
But this energy balance assumption for the Earth is a statement of faith,
not science. As mentioned, a natural state of global energy balance cannot
be demonstrated. Even using NASA’s best satellite measurements of energy
flows through the climate system.
......continued here: https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2024-01/BG3809.pdf
I didn't want to paste the whole paper.
so does toenail fungus.
31 January 2024
Climate
Researchers at the University of Copenhagen have concluded that the methane uptake in dry landscapes exceeds methane emissions from wet areas across the ice-free part of Greenland. The results of the new study contribute with important knowledge for climate models. The researchers are now investigating whether the same finding applies to other polar regions.
The ice-free area of Greenland is dominated by dry tundra, and here in North Greenland, consists of dry landscapes where there is hardly any vegetation. Sample measurements from this region indicate that this is where the largest uptake of atmospheric methane occurs in Greenland. Photo: Bo Elberling
It has long been thought that the Arctic may be a ticking climate bomb. As local temperatures rise and permafrost thaws, more and more of the greenhouse gas methane is released. But in a new study from the Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management at the University of Copenhagen, researchers have been able to conclude that at least Greenland does not seem to be a methane bomb after all.
In fact, Greenland consumes more methane than it releases, according to analyses of soil samples from eleven areas across Greenland. The researchers used an existing dynamic methane model, which made it possible to quantify the methane budget for all of Greenland.
The researchers have been able to conclude that, on average and since 2000, dry landscapes of the ice-free part of Greenland have consumed more than 65,000 tons of methane annually from the atmosphere, while 9,000 tons of methane have been released annually from its wet areas.
"This is partly due to Greenland’s widespread dry landscapes, where methane from the atmosphere is consumed into the upper layers of soil, and partly because the ice-free parts of Greenland have only been without ice since the last ice age, meaning that they never stored much carbon, which could lead to large methane emissions, as can be measured elsewhere in the Arctic," says Professor Bo Elberling, who led the study.
The research is published in the scientific journal Nature Communications Earth & Environment.
While carbon dioxide is also a well-known greenhouse gas, its greenhouse gas effect is a lot less strong than methane, making the conversion of methane to carbon dioxide good climate news.
The study also provide knowledge about the optimal soil conditions for methane uptake in the Arctic. This is because the microorganisms require various nutrients and a soil with just the right acidity (pH-level). Researcher and first author of the article Ludovica D'Imperio elaborates:
"Our work also sheds light on the conditions that, in addition to the climate, are crucial for methane uptake in Greenland. Based on our statistical model, we can conclude that it depends on the presence of the right microorganisms, soil acidity and copper – knowledge that we were previously uncertain about," she explains.
Researchers collected samples from some of Greenland’s most remote areas. Here, Professor Bo Elberling is taking soil samples on a nunatak; a mountainous area surrounded by the Greenland ice sheet. Here, too, the researchers were able to observe an uptake of methane similar to what was measured in dry areas elsewhere in Greenland. Photo: Elise Biersma
However, the conclusion is not that Greenland will impact the total global amount of atmospheric methane or prove to be decisive for Arctic methane budgets. The uptake of methane in Greenland is simply too small compared to other known methane sources, both in the Arctic and globally.
Indeed, the majority of Arctic wetlands, and thus the largest natural source of methane, are in Siberia. Until the war between Russia and Ukraine broke out, the Danish researchers conducted studies there alongside German and Dutch counterparts.
"We had just managed to demonstrate that methane uptake occurs in dry Siberian soils as well, but more studies will be needed in Siberia to provide a methane budget similar to what we now have for Greenland. Still, we have advanced considerably with similar studies in cold regions in Tibet, for example, where measurements indicate a similar conclusion as for Greenland. But the work has only just begun to understand the variation in this uptake of methane and its significance for the global methane budget," says Elberling.
According to the researchers, the new study does not change the fact that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities must continue to be reduced. But the study does contribute previously unknown nuances of Greenland's natural methane budget.
"Our research and that of others in the field helps to increase our understanding of the complex processes that are critical for the global methane budget. The budgets will be used both now and in the future to develop models that can provide a more accurate picture of the significance of global methane uptake," concludes Bo Elberling.
science.ku.dk
New study reports that Greenland is a methane sink rather than a source
Climate
Researchers at the University of Copenhagen have concluded that the methane uptake in dry landscapes exceeds methane emissions from wet areas across the ice-free part of Greenland. The results of the new study contribute with important knowledge for climate models. The researchers are now investigating whether the same finding applies to other polar regions.
It has long been thought that the Arctic may be a ticking climate bomb. As local temperatures rise and permafrost thaws, more and more of the greenhouse gas methane is released. But in a new study from the Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management at the University of Copenhagen, researchers have been able to conclude that at least Greenland does not seem to be a methane bomb after all.
In fact, Greenland consumes more methane than it releases, according to analyses of soil samples from eleven areas across Greenland. The researchers used an existing dynamic methane model, which made it possible to quantify the methane budget for all of Greenland.
The researchers have been able to conclude that, on average and since 2000, dry landscapes of the ice-free part of Greenland have consumed more than 65,000 tons of methane annually from the atmosphere, while 9,000 tons of methane have been released annually from its wet areas.
"This is partly due to Greenland’s widespread dry landscapes, where methane from the atmosphere is consumed into the upper layers of soil, and partly because the ice-free parts of Greenland have only been without ice since the last ice age, meaning that they never stored much carbon, which could lead to large methane emissions, as can be measured elsewhere in the Arctic," says Professor Bo Elberling, who led the study.
The research is published in the scientific journal Nature Communications Earth & Environment.
Microorganisms make methane uptake possible
The absorption of methane is made possible by a unique group of microorganisms that typically live in the upper half meter of arctic soil, where it is dry and oxygen is present. These microorganisms use methane that penetrates the soil from the atmosphere and convert it into carbon dioxide.While carbon dioxide is also a well-known greenhouse gas, its greenhouse gas effect is a lot less strong than methane, making the conversion of methane to carbon dioxide good climate news.
The study also provide knowledge about the optimal soil conditions for methane uptake in the Arctic. This is because the microorganisms require various nutrients and a soil with just the right acidity (pH-level). Researcher and first author of the article Ludovica D'Imperio elaborates:
"Our work also sheds light on the conditions that, in addition to the climate, are crucial for methane uptake in Greenland. Based on our statistical model, we can conclude that it depends on the presence of the right microorganisms, soil acidity and copper – knowledge that we were previously uncertain about," she explains.
Researchers collected samples from some of Greenland’s most remote areas. Here, Professor Bo Elberling is taking soil samples on a nunatak; a mountainous area surrounded by the Greenland ice sheet. Here, too, the researchers were able to observe an uptake of methane similar to what was measured in dry areas elsewhere in Greenland. Photo: Elise Biersma
Greenland’s methane budget
All in all, the new study demonstrates that Greenland contributes with a small uptake of methane under current conditions, which will most likely increase as Greenland’s climate will change in the future.However, the conclusion is not that Greenland will impact the total global amount of atmospheric methane or prove to be decisive for Arctic methane budgets. The uptake of methane in Greenland is simply too small compared to other known methane sources, both in the Arctic and globally.
Indeed, the majority of Arctic wetlands, and thus the largest natural source of methane, are in Siberia. Until the war between Russia and Ukraine broke out, the Danish researchers conducted studies there alongside German and Dutch counterparts.
"We had just managed to demonstrate that methane uptake occurs in dry Siberian soils as well, but more studies will be needed in Siberia to provide a methane budget similar to what we now have for Greenland. Still, we have advanced considerably with similar studies in cold regions in Tibet, for example, where measurements indicate a similar conclusion as for Greenland. But the work has only just begun to understand the variation in this uptake of methane and its significance for the global methane budget," says Elberling.
According to the researchers, the new study does not change the fact that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities must continue to be reduced. But the study does contribute previously unknown nuances of Greenland's natural methane budget.
"Our research and that of others in the field helps to increase our understanding of the complex processes that are critical for the global methane budget. The budgets will be used both now and in the future to develop models that can provide a more accurate picture of the significance of global methane uptake," concludes Bo Elberling.
New study reports that Greenland is a methane sink rather than a source
Researchers at the University of Copenhagen have concluded that the methane uptake in dry landscapes exceeds methane emissions from wet areas across the ice-free part of Greenland. The results of the new study contribute with important knowledge for climate models. The researchers are now...
science.ku.dk
