• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

Wow. I hope NASA reads blogs on Yahoo. That just blew decades of research done by the best scientists out of the water.

Or maybe its some yahoo writing on a blog on yahoo.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Promising to "heal the planet" (stop it from warming in a warming era) IS promising the moon and stars and the sad part is people believed him. Sadder yet is he believed himself.
Click to expand...

Did he?
I'm not so sure any politician actually believes all the stuff they promise if elected, but maybe. My theory is that the way to get elected is to tell people what they want to hear, and the candidate who does this the best is the one who gets elected.

But, then, that's just based on my innate cynicism, which steers me wrong as much as 1% of the time.
 
longview said:
Co2 does not "trap" heat, it can absorb and re-emit radiation in the infrared spectrum,
Click to expand...

Yes, that's correct. But scientists use the more general term "trapping" when discussing the more technical process among the general public, hence I used that term. One example from NASA:

"The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century"

Climate Change: Evidence

The expected heat gain from doubling Co2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm would be between
1.5 and 2 degrees C, much lower that the 3 to 4 degrees C put out by the alarmist.
Click to expand...

I referenced uncertainties exist in the climate sensitivity associated with the increase in CO2. Uncertainties exist due to various feedbacks, some of which could dampen the rise, others that could amplify it.
 
donsutherland1 said:
The argument is not that the sun does not matter. The argument is that the sun's activity, which has remained remarkably constant (fluctuations are minor relative to its overall energy output), cannot explain the extent of warming that has taken place. In addition, since the mid-20th century, global temperatures have decoupled from solar variation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the prediction is that you'll get a feedback loop due to melting of permafrost containing methane and Co2, which will increase the temperature, which will melt more permafrost, which will increase the temperature.... it's already starting to happen.

The real imminent danger is not that mankind will singlehandedly warm the planet and cause catastrophes, but to vastly accelerate natural processes to the point of a feedback loop.
 
Morrigi said:
Yeah, the prediction is that you'll get a feedback loop due to melting of permafrost containing methane and Co2, which will increase the temperature, which will melt more permafrost, which will increase the temperature.... it's already starting to happen.

The real imminent danger is not that mankind will singlehandedly warm the planet and cause catastrophes, but to vastly accelerate natural processes to the point of a feedback loop.
Click to expand...



Yet somehow in the billions of years this planet has existed this feedback loop have never happened, even when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were many times higher than today.
 
That would be because natural changes happen over tens of thousands if not millions of years, not a century or two.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Yes, that's correct. But scientists use the more general term "trapping" when discussing the more technical process among the general public, hence I used that term. One example from NASA:

"The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century"

Climate Change: Evidence



I referenced uncertainties exist in the climate sensitivity associated with the increase in CO2. Uncertainties exist due to various feedbacks, some of which could dampen the rise, others that could amplify it.
Click to expand...
Until they define and quantify the hypothesized feedbacks in a way that others can validate
the hypothesis, they still only have an observational theory.
I know that excited nitrogen can pass about 2300 cm-1 to Co2 as a vibrational state,
I don't know if it can pass it back the other way.
Many quantum energy transfers only go one way, and many structures are VERY selective
of the absorbed and re emitted frequencies. (spectroscopy)
 
Morrigi said:
That would be because natural changes happen over tens of thousands if not millions of years, not a century or two.
Click to expand...

That isn't true. Vostok ice cores show rather rapid change is consistent over the last 400k years:

tempplot5.jpg
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
That isn't true. Vostok ice cores show rather rapid change is consistent over the last 400k years:

View attachment 67150517
Click to expand...

Oh, motivator. You can't trust that data because it was collected and interpreted by SCIENTISTS, and we know you don't believe them.
 
The Earth has been 12 degrees warmer and had 60% more CO2 but a single degree increase in 130 years is a crisis.

:failpail:
 
So you're saying it's entirely a coincidence that the planet started heating up only once mankind started pumping vast amounts of carbon dioxide and pollutants into the air?

Climate Change: Key Indicators

Even seeing the average temperature fluctuation, we're practically off the charts at this point. Your larger model doesn't show that.
 
Last edited:
It was 12 degrees warmer in the carboniferous period. Were the dinosaurs building too many factories?
 
No, they were building too many volcanoes. Earth once had a truly massive amount of CO2 in its atmosphere due to massive volcanic eruptions in its infancy. Once Earth's geology became more stable and plant life emerged, CO2 levels exhibited a general downward trend until the present day. Of course, that CO2 didn't just disappear. Much of it is buried within hydrocarbons and in vast quantities of permafrost in Siberia and Antarctica.
 
Morrigi said:
No, they were building too many volcanoes. Earth once had a truly massive amount of CO2 in its atmosphere due to massive volcanic eruptions in its infancy. Once Earth's geology became more stable and plant life emerged, CO2 levels exhibited a general downward trend until the present day. Of course, that CO2 didn't just disappear. Much of it is buried within hydrocarbons and in vast quantities of permafrost in Siberia and Antarctica.
Click to expand...

Articles like that are alarmist. They make one think that all the permafrost will suddenly melt, releasing all that bad stuff.

I suggest you do the math sometime on just how much energy it takes to melt that much mass of permafrost.
 
Homer. said:
A new study by the WMO (World Meteorological Organisation) shows the planet "experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes" in the ten years from 2001 to 2010, the warmest decade since the start of modern measurements in 1850.

Those ten years also continued an extended period of accelerating global warming, with more national temperature records reported broken than in any previous decade. Sea levels rose about twice as fast as the trend in the last century.

Unprecedented climate extremes marked last decade, says UN | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Further evidence, if any more were needed, that climate change is a reality. Sure, the climate change deniers, like all conspiracy theorists, will deny any evidence put before them. Hopefully this new evidence will make some people to see the reality.
Click to expand...
I was busy having a life to notice. My bad.
 
Morrigi said:
So you're saying it's entirely a coincidence that the planet started heating up only once mankind started pumping vast amounts of carbon dioxide and pollutants into the air?
Click to expand...
No. CO2 has a minimal warming effect. The soot generated has a larger effect than the CO2 does. Over land, it probably doesn't have much effect except where it falls on year round snow and ice. In the arctic, it is a very large factor for our retreating ice cap. Now we have less reflected solar energy and more absorbed by water as well.


Morrigi said:
Even seeing the average temperature fluctuation, we're practically off the charts at this point. Your larger model doesn't show that.
Click to expand...
Are they?

Can you tell me with absolute certainty that all these temperature adjustments made over the years to account for urban growth are correct? What about the paint changing arounf these temperature monitoring boxes? Anyone account for mandated paint type changes?

There is no certainty the temperatures have increased as much as stated. Have you ever seen the documented problems with temperature monitoring sites?
 
Morrigi said:
It's already happening.
View attachment 67150523

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
Click to expand...

So?

More useless articles that do not show the science proving any particular cause. As there is more ocean surrounding a surface to stabilize a temperature, there will be a larger change. Just because the sea ice is retreating more, and the ocean in influence the temperature more, doesn't mean greenhouse gasses are causing such a retreat.

Do you have a clue as to how much energy it takes to melt that much ice? It is soot on ice, melting that much ice. A very small dusting of soot on ice allows it to capture over 50% to 90% of the sun's rays rather than reflecting 85% to 90% of them. That's very large increase that greenhouse gasses cannot match.

Again, go to any beach and note that the year round temperatures don't fluctuate like they do on the other side of a coastal mountain range. The increased sea volume has an increased effect on atmospheric temperatures.

Please stop with the propaganda... Correlation does not equal causation!
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh, motivator. You can't trust that data because it was collected and interpreted by SCIENTISTS, and we know you don't believe them.
Click to expand...

Oh THreegoofs, we know you are completely scientifically illiterate and trying to mask that weakness with a one person trolltacular, but read a book sometime, please... even if it's just "Trolling for Dummies" because your whole facade is tiresome.
 
Morrigi said:
No, they were building too many volcanoes. Earth once had a truly massive amount of CO2 in its atmosphere due to massive volcanic eruptions in its infancy. Once Earth's geology became more stable and plant life emerged, CO2 levels exhibited a general downward trend until the present day. Of course, that CO2 didn't just disappear. Much of it is buried within hydrocarbons and in vast quantities of permafrost in Siberia and Antarctica.
Click to expand...

And what was the result of all this CO2? Bigger and more life not extinction. Much of it was buried and we now call it fossil fuels. Earth is nothing more than a giant carbon recycling machine.
 
Deuce said:
There are people who still think the planet is not getting warmer. Silly, I know, but it needs to be addressed because someone who doesn't think the planet is warming is unable to have a reasonably informed opinion on AGW and any potential actions, or lack thereof.

And why are "generic units" helpful?
Click to expand...

Planet isn't getting warmer if you look at the last 20 years comparitvely. This summer has been awfully nice too.
 
Homer. said:
A new study by the WMO (World Meteorological Organisation) shows the planet "experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes" in the ten years from 2001 to 2010, the warmest decade since the start of modern measurements in 1850.

Those ten years also continued an extended period of accelerating global warming, with more national temperature records reported broken than in any previous decade. Sea levels rose about twice as fast as the trend in the last century.

Unprecedented climate extremes marked last decade, says UN | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Further evidence, if any more were needed, that climate change is a reality. Sure, the climate change deniers, like all conspiracy theorists, will deny any evidence put before them. Hopefully this new evidence will make some people to see the reality.
Click to expand...


The alarmist stupidity!!

Lets do a little math here... 1850-2010 is 160 years. Life on planet earth has been around for at least 2 billion years. So your 160 years of research is apx .00000008% of potential data that could be used to study climate. Which would be equivalent to .0000292 of a day or about .0007 hours.. which is about .042 of a minutes.. or.... 2.52 seconds.

You want to base an entire climate theory on 2.52 seconds of data over a years time, be my guest.
 
Capster78 said:
The alarmist stupidity!!

Lets do a little math here... 1850-2010 is 160 years. Life on planet earth has been around for at least 2 billion years. So your 160 years of research is apx .00000008% of potential data that could be used to study climate. Which would be equivalent to .0000292 of a day or about .0007 hours.. which is about .042 of a minutes.. or.... 2.52 seconds.

You want to base an entire climate theory on 2.52 seconds of data over a years time, be my guest.
Click to expand...

The climate reconstructions using temperature proxies (tree rings,C14, coral drilling, ice cores, etc, etc) show that the recent temperature is higher than it ever has been in the last 11000 years, and CO2 levels haven't been this high in millions of years. Temperatures have certainly been higher, especially when all that buried CO2 was in the atmosphere instead of locked up in coal beds.

The rise in temperature is amazingly fast in geologic time- 100 years vs orders of magnitude more.

So the theory is based on a whole lot more than the current temperature record.
 
Threegoofs said:
The climate reconstructions using temperature proxies (tree rings,C14, coral drilling, ice cores, etc, etc) show that the recent temperature is higher than it ever has been in the last 11000 years, and CO2 levels haven't been this high in millions of years. Temperatures have certainly been higher, especially when all that buried CO2 was in the atmosphere instead of locked up in coal beds.

The rise in temperature is amazingly fast in geologic time- 100 years vs orders of magnitude more.

So the theory is based on a whole lot more than the current temperature record.
Click to expand...

LOL...

One study may show that, but others disagree.

We need good Cherry pickers here is Oregon during Cherry season...
 
Threegoofs said:
The climate reconstructions using temperature proxies (tree rings,C14, coral drilling, ice cores, etc, etc) show that the recent temperature is higher than it ever has been in the last 11000 years, and CO2 levels haven't been this high in millions of years. Temperatures have certainly been higher, especially when all that buried CO2 was in the atmosphere instead of locked up in coal beds.

The rise in temperature is amazingly fast in geologic time- 100 years vs orders of magnitude more.

So the theory is based on a whole lot more than the current temperature record.
Click to expand...


Ok... but much of the data that comes from tree rings is no where near as reliable as data that we have today. Even with the preciseness of the data we have today, we still have a hard time figuring out how climate works. So data we get from tree rings (which is data scattered across the planet and across large swaths of time) is not good enough to determine climate over that missing range of data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom