Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-03-2015, 06:51 AM
 
3,259 posts, read 3,767,961 times
Reputation: 4486

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
You must not be educated on the basics of this topic. Here's a good general summary of the major indicators:

NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

The 1.4 degrees is since records began in 1880, with 9 out of 10 of the warmest years since 2000. We have core samples going back millions of years showing many periods of warming and cooling but none as rapid as this one or so clearly driven by human influence since natural factors have been studied and eliminated as the primary cause.

Carbon dioxide levels are at their highest in 650,000 years - 400ppm

Arctic sea ice is dropping over 13% per decade and land ice is dropping 287 billion metric tons per year.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...in-a-decade-2/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-03-2015, 07:09 AM
 
11,155 posts, read 15,702,787 times
Reputation: 4209
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveklein View Post
I bring you NASA. You bring me a blog. Charming.

Did you happen to read that kid's blog? The scary graph of Greenland gaining 500 billion tons of ice - gasp! - as winter emerged...

According to your first graph, the higher levels of ice were actually in the earlier period of that decade, judging by the lines representing each year.

Look, they're trying to deceive you for their agenda. Rise above it.

The reason Southern sea ice is expanding is because of complex factors influenced by global warming. The ozone hole over the pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere, resulting in more intense cyclones that push ice. Also, shifting ocean currents are a factor. Antarctica has actually shown strong warming.

As for the Arctic, which I referenced, the long-term trend is very much a decline in ice: Arctic sea ice volume can bounce back during cooler summers - Technology & Science - CBC News
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2015, 10:13 AM
 
34,619 posts, read 21,603,285 times
Reputation: 22232
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTQ3000 View Post
Super Storm Sandy was bad enough.

Mick
What category was Sandy when it hit the east coast?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2015, 10:18 AM
 
11,755 posts, read 7,113,070 times
Reputation: 8011
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
What category was Sandy when it hit the east coast?
Only Category 2!! (Category 3 when it made its landfall in Cuba)

Mick
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2015, 11:12 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,885,452 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTQ3000 View Post
Only Category 2!! (Category 3 when it made its landfall in Cuba)

Mick
But mind you, New York and New Jersey rarely get direct hits. Most of the time it hit the Carolinas if not Florida first and goes up the eastern seaboard. So them getting hit with a category 2 storm is rare. Most times it is either a tropical storm or tropical depression. In my lifetime, New York only really got hit with three hurricanes: Bob in 1991, Irene in 2011 and Sandy in 2012. You have to go back to 1985 with Hurricane Gloria for the last category 2 storm to strike New York. That's an entire generation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2015, 11:23 AM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,032,070 times
Reputation: 17864
If you are looking for Ice data check out thewattsupwiththat sea ice page, the reference section on that site is outstanding.


Sea Ice Page | Watts Up With That?

------------------



They have references for Hurricane data too:

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2015, 12:05 PM
 
11,025 posts, read 7,833,849 times
Reputation: 23702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
If you're going to respond to me, please read my post first. I very explicitly wrote it to prevent just such an uninformed laypersons response, because your uninformed laypersons response always happens when the data supported by every major scientific organization in the world is presented.

If you go back and look at my post, you'll see that I point out that, thanks to core samples, orbital data, fossil records, and other info, we have temperature data going back many millions of years, not just 1880. I explained that scientists have measured much warmer periods than today (always a perceived "gotcha" by the uninformed) as well as much cooler. What we have never seen is temperature rise this quickly or be so clearly driven by human actions.

I'm assuming you've stopped reading since you didn't even make it past the first line of my other post, but here's a summary if you care to be better informed: NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
I have used the time frames for "evidence" cited in earlier posts here. The precision of your "core sample testing" is subject to debate and your "gotcha" is useless in your argument; no intelligent person has claimed there is straight line change anywhere.

You infer that you are neither a layperson nor uninformed but have posted an article containing "interpretations" of data, no specified margin of error and numerous caveats but seem to accept it all as empirical evidence of some great significance. It is not.

Your insulting tone and juvenile name calling does not serve to advance your argument, nor does your infantile cry for my posts to be ignored.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2015, 12:39 PM
 
34,619 posts, read 21,603,285 times
Reputation: 22232
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTQ3000 View Post
Only Category 2!! (Category 3 when it made its landfall in Cuba)

Mick
Actually, it was a tropical storm when it made landfall in NJ.

NWS Confirms Sandy Was Not a Hurricane At Landfall | Climate Central

Quote:
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reaffirmed its initial conclusion that Hurricane Sandy was no longer officially a hurricane when it made landfall on Oct. 29 near Brigantine, N.J., just north of Atlantic City.
Hurricane Sandy VS. Super Storm Sandy: A Tale of Two Deductibles | Gulfshore InsuranceGulfshore Insurance

Quote:
Although Sandy was designated a hurricane for the majority of time it traveled up the coast, it failed to sustain hurricane-force winds at landfall, so it was officially a tropical storm. …
"Tropical Storm Sandy" doesn't carry the umph of "Superstorm Sandy" when the failed narrative was major hurricanes and that never really materialized.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2015, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,068 posts, read 6,465,451 times
Reputation: 7730
I think it proves predicting the weather is a fools game, trying to predict the unpredictable. Too many variables at play.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2015, 01:01 PM
 
Location: Secure Bunker
5,461 posts, read 3,233,405 times
Reputation: 5269
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTQ3000 View Post
Amen to that. Super Storm Sandy was bad enough.

Mick
Actually, hurricane Sandy, while the widest hurricane ever recorded, was only about a category 1 when it made landfall in New Jersey. It was super wide but not super strong. The real problem with Sandy was WHERE it landed. Lots of people affected.

Having said that, all recent hurricanes were all created by global warming, as were all hurricanes that failed to get created... Ask any climate change drama queen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top