There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[billvon 2,396]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

Those pesky little facts...

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/co/snow/?cid=nrcs144p2_063325

Up to half of the drop in the Colorado’s average annual flow since 2000 has been driven by warmer temperatures, four recent studies found. Now, two U.S. Geological Survey researchers have concluded that much of this climate-induced decline — amounting to 1.5 billion tons of missing water, equal to the annual water consumption of 10 million Americans — comes from the fact that the region’s snowpack is shrinking and melting earlier.

Plenty of years in the time referenced where the snowpack was well above average.

Yep.  But fewer all the time - and it's melting earlier and earlier, resulting in drought conditions late in the season.  Which are also pesky facts.

[billvon 2,396]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Funny how four out of the last five years were above average.  Meanwhile in the arctic...….

Thanks for posting that graph which shows declining Arctic ice extent.

[airdvr 197]

5 minutes ago, billvon said:

Yep.  But fewer all the time - and it's melting earlier and earlier, resulting in drought conditions late in the season.  Which are also pesky facts.

Not sure which numbers you are seeing that indicate that.

[airdvr 197]

Here';s a quote from a Guardian article today...(bolding mine)

Last year’s snowpack at this time was more than 125% of average, an indicator of what Swain calls “precipitation whiplash”. California has long weathered these wet and dry cycles. The state’s future in the climate crisis looks warmer and drier not because of a lack of rain, but because of the extra heat drawing moisture out of the ecosystem. That heat is a major contributor to reduced snowpack, both as less snow falls, and as more of it melts more quickly. Climate science points to a California bound for a future that looks less like endless extreme drought alone.

Used to be weather, now it's climate change. 

[brenthutch 383]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

Once again you post a graph that contradicts your position.

Do you even know how to read a graph?

I’m reading sea ice extent is greater than it has been in the last five years.  

[billvon 2,396]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Used to be weather, now it's climate change. 

You didn't even read what you posted, did you.

There's a funny phenomenon here - people posting stuff that actually refutes their point.  It seems like a given that they didn't read it.  But if so, why did they post it?  Perhaps they just read something on a denier site, posted by a clueless climate change denier, and copy and paste without thinking?

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

7 hours ago, DJL said:

First JohnRich, then RushMC....  man. 

Hi DJL,

John Rich did not leave by choice.

Jerry Baumchen

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

7 hours ago, DJL said:

First JohnRich, then RushMC....  man. 

Oopsy

Edited February 21, 2020 by JerryBaumchen

[brenthutch 383]

41 minutes ago, billvon said:

You didn't even read what you posted, did you.

There's a funny phenomenon here - people posting stuff that actually refutes their point.  It seems like a given that they didn't read it.  But if so, why did they post it?  Perhaps they just read something on a denier site, posted by a clueless climate change denier, and copy and paste without thinking?

Are you saying that arctic sea ice extent is not currently the greatest in the last five years?

[airdvr 197]

41 minutes ago, billvon said:

You didn't even read what you posted, did you.

There's a funny phenomenon here - people posting stuff that actually refutes their point.  It seems like a given that they didn't read it.  But if so, why did they post it?  Perhaps they just read something on a denier site, posted by a clueless climate change denier, and copy and paste without thinking?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/21/california-drought-february-rain-snow-pack-sierra

Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability

You don't usually have such comprehension problems Bill.  It's right there in black and white.  Mr. Swain says it all.  If you want to believe UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability is a denier site so be it.  But as usual the message contradicts itself so let me help you a bit..

California has long weathered these wet and dry cycles. 

Last year’s snowpack at this time was more than 125% of average

'This hasn't happened in 150 years'

Just more of the same hype.  I do wish the purveyors of this would get better at coordinating their stories.

[kallend 1,623]

19 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I’m reading sea ice extent is greater than it has been in the last five years.  

 

[brenthutch 383]

Thank you, concession accepted. 

[gowlerk 1,911]

19 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I’m reading sea ice extent is greater than it has been in the last five years.  

People say that, it must be true. But I can't find it anywhere so thanks for the information.

[kallend 1,623]

7 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

People say that, it must be true. But I can't find it anywhere so thanks for the information.

He can't read a graph.  He's shown that previously.

[brenthutch 383]

27 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

People say that, it must be true. But I can't find it anywhere so thanks for the information.

Try looking at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.  Current ice coverage is nowhere near the lowest.  In fact it is way back in ninth place.

Warmest January ever????  Somebody should tell the ice.

Edited February 22, 2020 by brenthutch

[gowlerk 1,911]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

National Snow and Ice Data Center.

From there: 

Including 2020, the linear rate of decline for January ice extent is 3.15 percent per decade. This corresponds to a trend of 45,400 square kilometers (17,500 square miles) per year, which is roughly twice the size of the state of New Hampshire. Over the 42-year satellite record, the Arctic has lost about 1.86 million square kilometers (718,000 square miles) of ice in January, based on the difference in linear trend values in 2020 and 1979. This is an area larger than the state of Alaska.

 

[turtlespeed 212]

11 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

From there: 

Including 2020, the linear rate of decline for January ice extent is 3.15 percent per decade. This corresponds to a trend of 45,400 square kilometers (17,500 square miles) per year, which is roughly twice the size of the state of New Hampshire. Over the 42-year satellite record, the Arctic has lost about 1.86 million square kilometers (718,000 square miles) of ice in January, based on the difference in linear trend values in 2020 and 1979. This is an area larger than the state of Alaska.

 

Prediction - 

"That amount of ice being measured is insignificant compared to total ice around the world."

[brenthutch 383]

13 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

From there: 

Including 2020, the linear rate of decline for January ice extent is 3.15 percent per decade. This corresponds to a trend of 45,400 square kilometers (17,500 square miles) per year, which is roughly twice the size of the state of New Hampshire. Over the 42-year satellite record, the Arctic has lost about 1.86 million square kilometers (718,000 square miles) of ice in January, based on the difference in linear trend values in 2020 and 1979. This is an area larger than the state of Alaska.

 

"Through the month, sea ice grew by an average of 45,200 square kilometers (17,500 square miles) per day, fairly close to the average rate over the 1981 to 2010 period of 42,700 square kilometers (16,500 square miles per day). This contrasts with December, when the growth rate was considerably faster than average."

Looks like the Arctic is on the rebound.

[gowlerk 1,911]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

Looks like the Arctic is on the rebound.

Well of course it is. Global warming ended in 1998. But don't worry your pretty little head about such things. The adults will do everything they can to keep you safe while you ignore the obvious.

[turtlespeed 212]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

"Through the month, sea ice grew by an average of 45,200 square kilometers (17,500 square miles) per day, fairly close to the average rate over the 1981 to 2010 period of 42,700 square kilometers (16,500 square miles per day). This contrasts with December, when the growth rate was considerably faster than average."

Looks like the Arctic is on the rebound.

What happens to the size when it stops growing sooner and doesn't start until later?

Lets put this in terms you can get - You have to run a 5K race.

Start from point A, but Point A is 1 Kilometer past where you used to start.

AND

You finish at point B, where Point B is 1 Kilometer closer than you used to end.

You have only run a 3 K race - It doesnt matter what your pace is - you won't ever get to 5K anymore.

[billvon 2,396]

21 hours ago, airdvr said:

You don't usually have such comprehension problems Bill.  It's right there in black and white.  Mr. Swain says it all.  If you want to believe UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability is a denier site so be it.  But as usual the message contradicts itself so let me help you a bit..

 

I am fine if you think I have "such comprehension problems."   That's like Andrew Wakefield telling me I don't understand the risks of vaccines, or Stephen Rizzone telling me I don't understand wireless power.  I'd take those as a compliment.

Meanwhile, you are posting in a thread entitled "There is a problem with global warming - it stopped in 1998!"

[kallend 1,623]

Meanwhile in Antarctica:
 

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/21/808187601/-antarctica-melts-nasa-says-showing-effects-of-record-heat

 

Where there was a white ice cap, there are now brown blotches of land; melted snow and ice have created ponds of water. Those are the effects of the recent record high temperatures in Antarctica, according to NASA, which on Friday released stunning before-and-after satellite images of the northern Antarctic Peninsula.

[wmw999 2,121]

Wait for it:

”Cool! More arable land to grow food! Winning!”

Who needs balance?

Wendy P. 

[BIGUN 1,053]

8 hours ago, kallend said:

Those are the effects of the recent record high temperatures in Antarctica, according to NASA

And, since Brent doesn't actually read anything - at the bottom of the article, “If you think about this one event in February, it isn’t that significant,” said Pelto. “It’s more significant that these events are coming more frequently.“  

[JoeWeber 2,299]

21 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

What happens to the size when it stops growing sooner and doesn't start until later?

Lets put this in terms you can get - You have to run a 5K race.

Start from point A, but Point A is 1 Kilometer past where you used to start.

AND

You finish at point B, where Point B is 1 Kilometer closer than you used to end.

You have only run a 3 K race - It doesnt matter what your pace is - you won't ever get to 5K anymore.

Dammit Turtle, make up my mind. Either I like you or I don't.