The North Pole is an insane 36 degrees warmer than normal as winter descends

a reply to: Riffrafter

There is a difference between affecting the environment and affecting the climate. Some of mankind's activities have negatively impacted the environment. If it was true that CO2 was the cause of the ongoing climate change then a majority of GCMs would be right.



However, most Global Circulation models have been wrong, and the few which have been right, just 5%, could be a probability of error.

Koutsoyiannis, D., A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides, On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671–684, 2008.

[doc_id=864]

[English]

Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.

www.itia.ntua.gr...

The majority of the GCMs do not realistically take into consideration natural factors that occur on Earth which do affect the climate on Earth.

New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability

Date:
December 12, 2007
Source:
Wiley-Blackwell
Summary:
A new study comparing the composite output of 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data finds that the models do an unsatisfactory job of mimicking climate change in key portions of the atmosphere. This research raises new concerns about the reliability of models used to forecast global warming.
...
"The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth's climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic," said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. "Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? "It seems that the answer is no."

Scientists from Rochester, the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and the University of Virginia compared the climate change "forecasts" from the 22 most widely-cited global circulation models with tropical temperature data collected by surface, satellite and balloon sensors. The models predicted that the lower atmosphere should warm significantly more than it actually did.
...

www.sciencedaily.com...

Global Climate Models and Their Limitations
Anthony Lupo (USA)
William Kininmonth (Australia)
Contributing: J. Scott Armstr
ong (USA), Kesten Green (Australia)

...
This chapter begins with a brief review of the inner workings and limitations of climate models. Climate models are important tools utilized to advance our understanding of current and past climate. They also provide qualitative and quantitative information about potential future climate. But in spite of all their sophistication, they remain merely models. They represent simulations of the real world, constrained by their ability to correctly capture and portray each of the important processes that operate to affect climate. Notwithstanding their complexities, the models remain deficient in many aspects of their portrayal of the climate, which reduces their ability to provide reliable simulations of future climate.
...

weather.missouri.edu...

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
Journal Climate Dynamics
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0930-7575 (Print) 1432-0894 (Online)
Issue Volume 24, Numbers 7-8 / June, 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00382-005-0020-9
Pages 771-780
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, May 02, 2005


PDF (702.7 KB)HTMLFree Preview

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
S. M. Dean1 , B. N. Lawrence2, R. G. Grainger1 and D. N. Heuff3

(1) Atmospheric Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
(2) British Atmospheric Data Centre, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK
(3) Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Received: 13 September 2004 Accepted: 25 February 2005 Published online: 27 April 2005

Abstract Observations from the International Satellite Cloud Climatalogy Project (ISCCP) are used to demonstrate that the 19-level HadAM3 version of the United Kingdom Met Office Unified Model does not simulate sufficient high cloud over land. By using low-altitude winds, from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) Re-Analysis from 1979 to 1994 (ERA-15) to predict the areas of maximum likelihood of orographic wave generation, it is shown that much of the deficiency is likely to be due to the lack of a representation of the orographic cirrus generated by sub-grid scale orography. It is probable that this is a problem in most GCMs.

www.springerlink.com...

That's just a couple of the many examples which shows the unreliability of GCMs.

A mysterious phenomenon is causing four major glaciers in the Antarctic to shrink in unison, causing a significant increase in sea levels, scientists have found.

The rise in atmospheric temperatures caused by global warming cannot account for the relatively rapid movement of the glaciers into the sea, but scientists suspect that warmer oceans may be playing a role.

"There is a possibility that heat from the ocean is somehow flowing in underneath these glaciers, but it is not related to global warming," said glaciologist Duncan Wingham of University College London. "Something has changed that is causing these glaciers to shrink.

"At this rate the glaciers will all be afloat in 150 years or so."
...
However, it would take about 200 years for extra heat from the ocean to reach the underside of the glaciers, which makes it difficult to believe that the present shrinkage is due to global warming, Dr Wingham said.

news.independent.co.uk...

Then there is the fact that the majority of the GCMs do not take in consideration natural factors from outside Earth that also affect the climate. But somehow they are used by thew AGW camp to claim that CO2 is the main, or a major factor behind climate change despite the fact that observation tells us the contrary and CO2 is not the factor behind climate change?

originally posted by: BlueShaman
The problem is that the recorded history of temperatures and ice thickness is just a speck when compared to the planet's age, which is currently estimated to be 4.6 billion years old.

For all we know, 36 degrees hotter than 'usual' may very well be normal.

Just ask a geologist. They see the world and its "climate change" as just a blip on the radar.

originally posted by: 191stMIDET
We are in the middle of a polar shift. It happens every 750,000,000 years or so and the last one was 780,000,000 thousand years ago, so we are definetly due for another one. Many people feared a polar shift would be a quick capsizing motion wich would basically destroy everything but as it turns out Polar shifts are more gradual maybe as long as a decade for the change to happen. 780k years ago Antarctica was on the equator. Interesting times we live in.

Maybe the 2012 prediction about the end of the world was true.

We just didn't realize 2012 was the beginning of the end.

a reply to: jrod
My opinion on this, is that manmade climate change camp treat the earth as a vacuum, and simply ignore all the other factors of the solar system. Hell, they seem to ignore factors that are not man on earth as well. Like volcano eruptions for example. I made the snarky comment, because he made two posts, with what seems like relevant data, and you just come and say no you are wrong.

a reply to: TKDRL

Are you aware of what the actual scientists, science, the data have to say about this?

Do you truly believe the rise in CO2 we are observing is caused by something else besides human activity?

I dont think so, all you have is an uninformed opinion....an ignorant opinion.

Said poster has a history of flooding climate change threads with pure BS, but it sounds good to an ignorant reader. Take the time to look at past threads and maybe you will understand where I am coming from.

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSenseMaybe the 2012 prediction about the end of the world was true.

We just didn't realize 2012 was the beginning of the end.

There was no 2012 prediction about the end of the world, and if you were to consult any of the Elder Maori asking about their input of Ka Hinga Te Ari, they would simply point you toward a "Passing through the veil"...roughly translated as From one cycle to the next - meaning the calander.

Let's not bring hyperbole and superstition into what has thus far been a relatively constructive conversation.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TKDRL

Are you aware of what the actual scientists, science, the data have to say about this?

Do you truly believe the rise in CO2 we are observing is caused by something else besides human activity?

I dont think so, all you have is an uninformed opinion....an ignorant opinion.

Said poster has a history of flooding climate change threads with pure BS, but it sounds good to an ignorant reader. Take the time to look at past threads and maybe you will understand where I am coming from.

What, precisely are your qualifications to determine the rise in CO2? You have not posted a single unbiased opinion yet in this thread that is anything more than argument lacking fact to back up what youre saying.

So, what are your credentials?

a reply to: alphabetaone

I have none that matter, however I will link good information from credible information on pertinent threads. This is a dead thread, any relevant information will be drowned away now on page 7 of this thread and will not waste my time here beating a dead horse.

Use the search feature or scroll through the Fragile Earth forum if you actually want to examine this topic on your own.

Skepticalscience.com is a good start....

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: alphabetaone

I have none that matter, however I will link good information from credible information on pertinent threads. This is a dead thread, any relevant information will be drowned away now on page 7 of this thread and will not waste my time here beating a dead horse.

Use the search feature or scroll through the Fragile Earth forum if you actually want to examine this topic on your own.

Skepticalscience.com is a good start....

I don't need to "search threads", I actually go out and do the work manually myself. But that is neither here nor there, you're throwing your hand into the mix making baseless claims then want to complain about how no one is going to take you seriously. One would think you would see your own irony in that. Some might even call it *gasp* trolling

Wow that is interesting I have something cool to add to this just gimme a sec...

edit: never mind

An inconvenient truth that the Climate patrol don't report on is that the Antarctic ice cap is currently growing.

36 degrees warmer - I'm calling alarmist BS on this one

originally posted by: Kalixi
An inconvenient truth that the Climate patrol don't report on is that the Antarctic ice cap is currently growing.

36 degrees warmer - I'm calling alarmist BS on this one

True. The ice caps themselves are growing, but the ice sheets are calving at a much quicker rate than the growing caps or the precipitation can replenish the cyclic nature of the ice sheets.

The ice sheets were always considered (like AGI and Chase) too big to fail...unfortunately the Ross B proved a re-thinking upon that was necessary.

originally posted by: Kalixi
An inconvenient truth that the Climate patrol don't report on is that the Antarctic ice cap is currently growing.

36 degrees warmer - I'm calling alarmist BS on this one

This is reported all the time. Here's NASA talking about it in 2014:
Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum

Though I SURE hope you understand the difference between volume and area, because that is significant in understanding why the ice gains here aren't as good as you seem to think they are.

a reply to: Kalixi

An inconvenient truth that the Climate patrol don't report on is that the Antarctic ice cap is currently growing.

Perhaps you could be more specific. But no, not really. 2014's summer's (southern winter) sea ice extent in Antarctica set a record. But guess what? It is currently lower than ever recorded (as is arctic sea ice).
www.cnn.com...
nsidc.org...

Are you saying that the world isn't getting warmer at all?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Kalixi

An inconvenient truth that the Climate patrol don't report on is that the Antarctic ice cap is currently growing.

Perhaps you could be more specific. But no, not really. Last summer's (southern winter) sea ice extent in Antartica set a record. But guess what? It is currently lower than ever recorded.
www.cnn.com...

Phage, I love when you show up to a thread.

It's when I know that logic will start to prevail.

originally posted by: Kalixi
An inconvenient truth that the Climate patrol don't report on is that the Antarctic ice cap is currently growing.

36 degrees warmer - I'm calling alarmist BS on this one

It may very well be alarmist.

But it's also true.

And the fact that the Antarctic extent sea ice is growing while the Arctic's is shrinking should give us all pause as it has not been seen at these levels in recorded history (man's written accounts).

Who knows what it may portend? I certainly don't - and neither do most others. Even the experts can't agree.

But it bears watching...closely...in my opinion.

a reply to: Riffrafter

And the fact that the Antarctic is growing

Questionable.

nsidc.org...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Riffrafter

And the fact that the Antarctic is growing

Questionable.

I realized I wasn't specific in my original post and changed it to extent sea ice while you were posting this.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes though.

But speaking of which, what are your thoughts re: differences between North & South. Pole shift? Axial tilt of the earth changing by a few millimeters (although I think that is something that could be measured), Changes in our jet streams, wrath of some god?

Seriously, I welcome your thoughts...

a reply to: Riffrafter

I realized I wasn't specific in my original post and changed it to extent sea ice while you were posting this.

Antarctic sea ice does not seem to be growing. It is at it's lowest recorded level.

But speaking of which, what are your thoughts re: differences between North & South.

Primarily it has to do with the fact that Antarctica is a continental land mass and the Arctic is an ocean. Beyond that, it has to do with the fact that the Arctic Ocean is surrounded by very large land masses and Antarctica is surrounded by a lot of water. They are two very different situations which show different reactions to the overall warming of the atmosphere and oceans.

originally posted by: Phage
They are two very different situations which show different reactions to the overall warming of the atmosphere and oceans.

And, different forces driving the warming to those climates.