Influences of globl warming in Greenland?
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
Temperature record at the meteorological station Summit in central Greenland .... 2 Jan 2020 was the coldest day since measuring temperatures there ... only -64,9 °C.
Some data from NOAAs Earth System Reasearch Laboratory for recent months:
And since we have a look -- what about global warming and Greenland ice melting during the last decade? Have a look at this info chart:
But then, folks, perhaps you want to rather believe the climate hysterics propagated by the climate prophet Greta Thunberg ?
Comments
-
Greta Thunberg is a puppet. She's ignorant and should never have been given a platform. She's brainwashed. An abused child.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Temperature record at the meteorological station Summit in central Greenland .... 2 Jan 2020 was the coldest day since measuring temperatures there ... only -64,9 °C.
But then, folks, perhaps you want to rather believe the climate hysterics propagated by the climate prophet Greta Thunberg ?
On several occasions over the years I've offered a corrective to the fundamental error reflected in your post, Wolfgang, but obviously to little consequence. I try again.
In the term "global climate change," the most important words - the words without which the term lacks almost all urgency - are "global" and "climate."
- The value of the word "global" is that it distinguishes the climate change to which the term refers from what might be called "local" climate change because global change is NOT the same as local change. "Global" climate change takes places on a much larger scale and considers the entire planet's climate, while "local" climate change focuses on specific cities, towns, and other delimited geographic areas.
- The value of the word "climate" is that it distinguishes the global change to which the term refers from what might be called global "weather" change because climate is NOT the same as weather. "Climate" refers to long-term trends, usually defined in terms of decades, not days, weeks, months, or even a few years. "Weather" refers to short-term conditions, usually defined in terms of days, weeks, or months, but not decades.
- "Global climate change," therefore, refers to changes in temperature and other meteorological conditions at the global scale and over a period of decades, NOT to temperatures etc at specific locations over periods of days, weeks, or months.
[THE PRECEDING BULLET LIST INCLUDED NOTHING BUT LONG-RECOGNIZED AND WELL-ESTABLISHED DEFINITIONS OF TERMS. IF YOU CONTEST ANY OF THE PROVIDED DEFINITIONS, PLEASE PROVIDE LINKS TO SOURCES THAT SUPPORT YOUR DISAGREEMENT.]
What's the significance of that information? It means that a record low (or high) temperature at meteorological station Summit in central Greenland such as the one to which your post referred tells us about one location's local weather, but NOTHING about the global climate. For example, though the local data to which you linked to some might suggest 2019 was a cold year, in fact, 2019 was the second warmest year on record! And to showcase more of the difference between local and global, as reported in the Scientific American article note that for the U.S. as a whole, 2019 was only the 34th warmest on record - only at the 80th percentile! But globally - as in global climate change - it was the second warmest ever, and on all continents of the globe it was quite warm. To wit:
- Australia (and Oceania): warmest year on record
- Europe: 2nd warmest
- South America: 2nd warmest
- Asia: 3rd warmest
- Africa: 3rd warmest
- North America as a continent: 14th warmest
So locally - as in just the U.S. - 2019 was not an exceptionally warm year; but globally - as in everywhere - it was. Similarly, though it might be cold at a particular site in Greenland (locally) it continues to warm globally.
A few other notes about climate:
- Note in the Scientific American article that the six warmest years on record globally have been the last six years, 2014-2019
- Note at THIS SITE that the TEN warmest years on record globally have occurred since the year 2005
- According to THIS ARTICLE, 19 of the 20 warmest years on record globally have occurred since the year 2000
- According to official statistics, 1998 is the ONLY year from the entire 20th century that is still in the top ten warmest years on record.
- And at the same site note this graph of average temperature anomalies by decades since the 1890's:
That graph reports global climate, NOT local weather. The graphs you cited reported local weather, NOT global climate.
I could detail the massive ice melt that has taken place on Greenland in recent decades (reflective of climate, not weather!) but this post is long enough and has made my point. I hope you will respond directly to the assertions of fact I have made about the differences between global climate and local weather, and the conclusions I draw from global rather than local data.
-
oh, @Bill_Coley , I know very well about "global" and about "climate" verses "local" and "weather". You know, I went to 13 grade high school in Germany about 50-60 years ago ... Already then we learned about "climates" always changing ...
You mention "massive ice melt in Greenland" you could write about ... no need to write about it, since thus far it is not much compared to the times numerous centuries ago when large areas of the island were indeed a GREEN (that is, NO ice) LAND. Now, how terrible was that "hot climate" for the island? Areas were inhabited and people able to live there in conditions that were what - better or worse than even now? What about the terrible predicted flooding in the areas along the north Atlantic coasts? how much were those under water?
The climate hysteria nonsense seems to have flooded millions of people's heads and the climate hysteria prophets' pockets 😉
-
@Wolfgang posted:
oh, @Bill_Coley , I know very well about "global" and about "climate" verses "local" and "weather". You know, I went to 13 grade high school in Germany about 50-60 years ago ... Already then we learned about "climates" always changing ...
If you "know very well" about the difference between global climate and local weather, then you must also know very well that the graphs and data about a specific location in Greenland with which you launched this thread had no relevance to the issue of global climate change... which was the entire point of my post - to demonstrate that what's happening in Summit, Greenland, DOES NOT TELL US what's happening to the global climate.
In the OP, you used a single geographic location's conditions as the basis for a reference to what you called "climate hysterics." But of course, today's climate concerns are NOT about what's happening in any one geographic location, but what's happening globally. So your graphs and data did nothing to support your "hysterics" claim.
And in your latest post, your accusations are of "climate hysteria" and its associated "prophets," claims which also receive no help from your OP's charts and graphs.
AND FINALLY, I must point out your decision not even to mention, let alone substantively engage, the chart and data I provided in my previous post that DO provide global climate data. I think it telling indeed that you launched this thread on the basis of data irrelevant to the issue of global climate change and don't engage data that ARE relevant.
-
In the OP, you used a single geographic location's conditions as the basis for a reference to what you called "climate hysterics."
And in the subject line I asked a question about global climate change and its (supposed) influences on local weather (here, a meteorological station in Greenland)
In addition, how terrible would it be if Greenland actually became for a large part again a land of green pastures as it was many centuries ago when settlers first got there ?
-
@Wolfgang posted:
And in the subject line I asked a question about global climate change and its (supposed) influences on local weather (here, a meteorological station in Greenland)
I didn't pay enough attention to the topic line in this thread, and hence failed to notice that it focused on global climate change in one specific nation. For that oversight I apologize.
At the same time, the basic point I made in my previous posts stands: Global climate effects are never exactly the same in every local geographic area of the globe. Hence it's not a surprise, for example, that for the U.S., 2019 was the 34th warmest year on record, while for the earth as a whole, it was the second warmest year on record.
Do you accept that the earth (not any specific location on the earth!) IS warming, that our planet's climate (not weather!) IS changing, and that the change includes higher average global (not local!) temperatures?
In addition, how terrible would it be if Greenland actually became for a large part again a land of green pastures as it was many centuries ago when settlers first got there ?
Given the amount of ice on Greenland and the long term changes in climate (not weather!) that would be needed to melt all of it so that a large part of it could again be as you describe, it in fact WOULD be bad if that happened. The settlers from many centuries ago to which you refer were not part of an industrialized and heavily populated global community whose activities consequentially contributed to the accumulation of greenhouse gasses, which we now know contribute to global climate change.
-
Global climate effects are never exactly the same in every local geographic area of the globe. Hence it's not a surprise, for example, that for the U.S., 2019 was the 34th warmest year on record, while for the earth as a whole, it was the second warmest year on record.
In essence, the facts you state here actually show how the talk (hysteria) about "GLOBAL climate change" is actual nonsense, as real changes are always only happening and have effect on more or less local areas and regions. You know, the climate change that caused the ice age did not even directly affect areas in southern Europe, and not even all of central Europe .. and certainly NOT the globe as a whole.
Given the amount of ice on Greenland and the long term changes in climate (not weather!) that would be needed to melt all of it so that a large part of it could again be as you describe, it in fact WOULD be bad if that happened. The settlers from many centuries ago to which you refer were not part of an industrialized and heavily populated global community whose activities consequentially contributed to the accumulation of greenhouse gasses, which we now know contribute to global climate change.
Well, how much would the temperature have to rise to melt even half the ice on Greenland? What actually are the worst figures of temperature rise that are currently purported by the horror scenario prophets? (I am asking, since I am not informed about those figures ... the news here mostly talk about politicians pulling their hair out in order to meet goals of limiting the temperature rise to °2C ....
Your point of industrialized etc is mute .... my simple question was and is: How terrible for Greenland were the high temperatures centuries ago which caused larger amounts of area on the issland to be ice free and green? What kind of terrible flooding occurred not even globally but surrounding the North Atlantic region due the ice on Greenland having melted?` Whether the ice melts by a gas cooker or by a natural fire or a steel factory industry oven in the neighborhood raising the temperature is totally irrelevant to the resulting situation: a green Greenland and people living there of the land!
-
Hmn ... anyone thought a bit more about the climate hysteria?
For common simple sense people like me, I am almost suprised nowadays to find folks who talk like this:
Enjoy watching the small videos ... they are actually not from PC Roberts 😉
-
Don't pick on little Greta any more.
Video clip -1: The rich is get richer by a few individuals or by selected governments.
Second clip, the boy admits climate change and turn around, denying it. Sad
"Climate changes" are real. I don't know about the years time frame, but nature demands attention. The conclusion of the whole matter, as for the "Green new deal" who do you want to get rich and control everything: a few men or government? Just look around, who owns the oil and gas companies around the world? CM
-
@Wolfgang posted:
In essence, the facts you state here actually show how the talk (hysteria) about "GLOBAL climate change" is actual nonsense, as real changes are always only happening and have effect on more or less local areas and regions. You know, the climate change that caused the ice age did not even directly affect areas in southern Europe, and not even all of central Europe .. and certainly NOT the globe as a whole.0
I think you incorrectly interpret the facts I stated, Wolfgang. Recall the numbers: For the specific location of the U.S. 2019 was only the 34th warmest year on record, BUT FOR FIVE OF THE SEVEN CONTINENTS it was no better/worse than the third warmest on record, and globally it was THE warmest on record. So the U.S. was the exception not the rule. MOST of the world experienced a historically warm year in 2019. Relatively isolated parts of the world didn't, but most of the world did.
If a person suffered third degree burns over 80% of their body, would you point to the unaffected 20% and proclaim the person healthy? I doubt it. Similarly, when the earth's oceans (we haven't even mentioned the increase in the heat captured and stored by those) and a large percentage of its land masses set or nearly match heat records nearly every single year, it can't be accurate to point to the scattered locations that don't set records and assert the planet's not warming.
Well, how much would the temperature have to rise to melt even half the ice on Greenland? What actually are the worst figures of temperature rise that are currently purported by the horror scenario prophets? (I am asking, since I am not informed about those figures ... the news here mostly talk about politicians pulling their hair out in order to meet goals of limiting the temperature rise to °2C ....
I don't have the time, and frankly, don't think it's my responsibility to perform for you the simple Google searches needed to answer factual questions on climate change. There is a serious and essential reason for that two degree goal, a reason you will discover, I'm confident, when you consult the Google machine.
Your point of industrialized etc is mute .... my simple question was and is: How terrible for Greenland were the high temperatures centuries ago which caused larger amounts of area on the issland to be ice free and green? What kind of terrible flooding occurred not even globally but surrounding the North Atlantic region due the ice on Greenland having melted?` Whether the ice melts by a gas cooker or by a natural fire or a steel factory industry oven in the neighborhood raising the temperature is totally irrelevant to the resulting situation: a green Greenland and people living there of the land!
In its context, my point about an industrialized and heavily populated world was not at all moot. That point was two-fold: 1) More people on the planet means more people affected by the effects of global climate change; 2) More people on a more heavily-industrialized planet means more human activity to add to the magnitude of naturally arising warming effects. That is, more industry means humans make things worse. While we can't change things such as variations in the the earth's orbit (see THIS ARTICLE for an excellent summary of the science behind climate change on the earth in the distant, distant past) we CAN and MUST change the contribution of human activity.
And were Greenland again to be a green land, the results would likely be catastrophic: 1) Its land-based ice mass would have melted, most into the oceans, raising sea levels; 2) A climate warm enough to melt the ice mass on Greenland would almost certainly create horrific effects elsewhere on the globe.
-
@Bill_Coley posted:
And were Greenland again to be a green land, the results would likely be catastrophic: 1) Its land-based ice mass would have melted, most into the oceans, raising sea levels;
The rise of sea levels have been predicted for numeros decades by now ... and nothing of any immediate consequence to be felt at the shores of the oceans has been seen anywhere. Actually, the predictions of catastrophic consequences have turned out to be utterly false ... those "false prophets" would have had their mouths stopped by now in radical ways in OT age ....
2) A climate warm enough to melt the ice mass on Greenland would almost certainly create horrific effects elsewhere on the globe.
Ha Ha Ha ....you apparently noticed what I was getting at, but did not want to admit how it shows the silliness of the "global warming" hysterics. It would require such a rise in temperature which would be totally outside of what even the worst "global warming experts" have dared to mention. You perhaps realized that a temperature of currently -40°C rising for example by +30°C still produces no melting ice at all.
Industrialization and growth of earth population do NOT change the weather, or do they? I remember reading about "rain makers" among certain tribes and populations in various parts of the globe, and that their attempts to make rain had no effect on the weather. If man can't change the local weather, man can NOT change the climate (since "climate" is defined in essence as being the sum of average values of weather related facts).
But then, the modern GOD-less man thinks of himself as GOD ... seemingly an old trait of mankind and something not changing much despite reaping consequences of such human stupidity ... soon after one godless thing that proved itself to be wrong, they come up with the next one claiming something else those men-Gods think they can do ....
The global climate (made up of local or regional weather) has always changed and will always change ... man was unable to stop it getting colder during certain periods of history nor was man able to stop it from getting warmer again. What should be plain to anyone who has kept their sound thinking, it should be clear that warm phases were GOOD for mankind, whereas cold weather/climate periods were BAD. There have been NO warm periods in the history of mankind that were bad for man, but there have been cold periods that have been bad in large scale fashion.
Folks ... don't allow PSEUDO "science" with their "computer model interpretations and predictions" fool the good old common sense out from between your ears.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
The rise of sea levels have been predicted for numeros decades by now ... and nothing of any immediate consequence to be felt at the shores of the oceans has been seen anywhere. Actually, the predictions of catastrophic consequences have turned out to be utterly false ... those "false prophets" would have had their mouths stopped by now in radical ways in OT age ....
I don't know what "OT age" is, or how it contributes to stopped mouths "in radical ways," but the effects of rising sea levels ARE being felt, and in expensive ways. For example, both the state and communities within the state of Florida are spending around $4 billion to counteract those effects. THIS ARTICLE details how the the limestone on which the state sits serves a giant sponge whose retention of water is magnified by rising sea levels, which leads to heightened flood control issues. The article also points out that the rate of the rise in sea levels is increasing.
Ha Ha Ha ....you apparently noticed what I was getting at, but did not want to admit how it shows the silliness of the "global warming" hysterics. It would require such a rise in temperature which would be totally outside of what even the worst "global warming experts" have dared to mention. You perhaps realized that a temperature of currently -40°C rising for example by +30°C still produces no melting ice at all.
The problem is that it's not -40 C everywhere on Greenland. How do we know? Because according to THIS ARTICLE, the ice sheet on the country is melting seven times faster now than it did in the 1990's. And the rate of ice melt increase on Greenland is increasing...
The Greenland ice sheet IS melting, and is melting ever more quickly.
Industrialization and growth of earth population do NOT change the weather, or do they? I remember reading about "rain makers" among certain tribes and populations in various parts of the globe, and that their attempts to make rain had no effect on the weather. If man can't change the local weather, man can NOT change the climate (since "climate" is defined in essence as being the sum of average values of weather related facts).
To quote you, "Ha Ha Ha." At least I hope you meant this part of your post as a joke. The climate effects of global industrialization cannot in ANY way, shape, or form be compared to the effects of the efforts of "'rain makers' among certain tribes and populations in various parts of the globe." The analogy is absurd. Industrialization adds significantly, consequentially, and AROUND THE WORLD to greenhouse gasses, which are known to trap the sun's energy, contributing to climate change.
Climate is not defined as "the sum of average values of weather related facts." The sum of a set of average values produces a large and completely irrelevant value. Communities A, B, and C, have respective average high temperatures for a five year period of 20, 24, 27 degrees Centigrade. So their climate is 71C? No.
Climate is the prevailing conditions in an area over a period of time usually defined in terms of decades, not days, weeks, or months. Climate CHANGE is a change in the prevailing conditions in an area over a lengthy period of time. Average temps DO play a role, but not as parts of a sum total. If the average global temperature generally rises over a lengthy period of time, that's climate change. Single or a few years' changes - up or down - are not reflective of climate change. But temp changes that recur in most years over consecutive decades - as they have increasingly done over the last many decades - ARE evidence of climate change.
The global climate (made up of local or regional weather) has always changed and will always change ... man was unable to stop it getting colder during certain periods of history nor was man able to stop it from getting warmer again. What should be plain to anyone who has kept their sound thinking, it should be clear that warm phases were GOOD for mankind, whereas cold weather/climate periods were BAD. There have been NO warm periods in the history of mankind that were bad for man, but there have been cold periods that have been bad in large scale fashion.
The global climate is not "made up of local or regional weather" because, as I have pointed out multiple times, climate is NOT the same as weather. Weather is short term. Climate is long term. To use your phrasing, the global climate is made up of local and regional climates - but even that phrasing is imprecise.
[NOTE: It's hard to discuss these issues with you, Wolfgang, when your posts so frequently misuse or employ inaccurate and/or misleading definitions of terms.]
The current concern about climate change is that because humanity activity is consequentially involved, THIS TIME humans WILL be able to "stop it getting colder."
Folks ... don't allow PSEUDO "science" with their "computer model interpretations and predictions" fool the good old common sense out from between your ears.
Concern about the effects of climate change is not the product of "PSEUDO 'science'." It's the result of humanity's rigorous and disciplined use of the grey matter that is in fact "between (our) ears."
-
Climate is not definedand as "the sum of average values of weather related facts." The sum of a set of average values produces a large and completely irrelevant value. Communities A, B, and C, have respective average high temperatures for a five year period of 20, 24, 27 degrees Centigrade. So their climate is 71C? No.
Well, this provides a nice example of a non native English speaker writing fairly quickly ... I certainly did not have in mind a MATHEMATICAL sum of a mathematical addition calculation .... but was trying to speak about the fact that averages of various weather aspects and facts are TOGETHER taken into consideration (and thus form a "sum" or "total" picture of averages which is used when speaking of climate. To use your example of three places with averages of 20, 24 and 27 °C, my "sum of averages" (accurately perhaps described as the "overall average" ? ) taking the three averages into consideration would not be 71°C but rather the 71/3 => 23,66 °C.
As you and others can see, I do have "language" problems at times .... my apologies.
For me, much of the current "climate science" has nothing to do with serious scientific study, but more with political ideology etc. Eh, the IPCC is portrayed as an organization of a "scientific nature", when in reality it is a POLITICAL organization ... providing information which is by no means agreed upon by most scientists.
As I wrote before ... pseudo science has been used to spread hysteria of catastrophic end of the globe propaganda (various "12 year until the end" predictions have been made and proven themselves to be false and lies. Why anyone would want to believe those liars and their next predictions is a little beyond me. Reminds me of the various predictions of the Lord's coming over recent centuries ... all have been false, but folks for some reason trust the false prophets and their next prediction again ....
-
@Wolfgang posted:
As you and others can see, I do have "language" problems at times .... my apologies.
Thanks for the clarification on your use of the word "sum" in previous post. I hope you'll take it as a compliment of your English language skills that I presumed you meant the word in the way it's conventionally defined.
...was trying to speak about the fact that averages of various weather aspects and facts are TOGETHER taken into consideration (and thus form a "sum" or "total" picture of averages which is used when speaking of climate.
"Weather" data contribute to assessments of climate ONLY over long periods of time - decades, for example. At that point, such data points are no longer discrete values as they are usually reported/recorded in their original states. Instead, they are ingredients identified only by the whole climate of which they are parts. For example, six individual cups of water are discrete objects before they are tossed into an ocean, but once in the ocean, those cups of water no longer have separate identities; they are part of the ocean. When used to assess climate, such is also the fate of weather data.
For me, much of the current "climate science" has nothing to do with serious scientific study, but more with political ideology etc. Eh, the IPCC is portrayed as an organization of a "scientific nature", when in reality it is a POLITICAL organization ... providing information which is by no means agreed upon by most scientists.
On what factual basis do you claim that "most scientists" don't agree with the climate change information provided by the IPCC (and others, since the IPCC's findings are largely inline with other experts)? I'm not aware of data that support your claim. In fact, the latest IPCC report includes the work of "91 lead authors and 133 contributing authors from 40 countries" who "assessed 30,000 scientific papers and made over 42,000 comments during the review process." That sounds more scientific than political to me.
As I wrote before ... pseudo science has been used to spread hysteria of catastrophic end of the globe propaganda (various "12 year until the end" predictions have been made and proven themselves to be false and lies. Why anyone would want to believe those liars and their next predictions is a little beyond me. Reminds me of the various predictions of the Lord's coming over recent centuries ... all have been false, but folks for some reason trust the false prophets and their next prediction again ....
The twelve year prediction is widely and woefully misunderstood. The IPCC did NOT say we have twelve years to fix our climate crisis or the earth will be destroyed. The IPCC said if we're going to cap the global average temperature increase at 1.5 degrees C - which it says ought to be our goal - then we must reduce net carbon emissions to zero by the year 2050. AND IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, then we need to be significantly on our way to that outcome by 2030, which at the time of its claim, was twelve years away.... You likely disagree with the IPCC's 1.5 degree recommendation, but I hope you'll acknowledge that the group's twelve year prediction was NOT what your post described it to be.
