• 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!

A chart showing global warming since they began recording it.

KLATTU

KLATTU

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
19,259
Reaction score
6,899
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Global-2-copy.jpg

WHOA! Scarey stuff!!!
 
KLATTU said:
View attachment 67191809

WHOA! Scarey stuff!!!
Click to expand...

you do realize....They expanded the y-scale to make it look insignificant...why start at zero degrees Fahrenheit?It isn't a significant temperature at all lol, why end at 110?

If this was an honestly graph, I would start the y-scale at the temperature it was at the starting point in 1880, and end it at the highest temperature.
 
To be thorough, it should be noted that more than 60% of the observed average warming,
is from nighttime lows, not going quite as low.
 
Does this help to make your chart scarier?

Ice Free.jpg

This may seem like quibbling over very small differences, but consider that the discrepancy between the planet we know today and a planet with virtually zero ice cover in Greenland and Antarctica is about 10 degrees Fahrenheit, for a global average.
Click to expand...
 
I suggest mass panic, the immediate implementation of economic crashing regulations, shut off all the coal power plants right now, and jail time for anyone driving a VW... :roll:
 
I guess people just don't understand that graphs are not scary, it's the impact of the data behind the graph that matters.

But that's all sciency and complicated.
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess people just don't understand that graphs are not scary, it's the impact of the data behind the graph that matters.

But that's all sciency and complicated.
Click to expand...
While your input is all ideological and complicated.
 
MrT said:
Does this help to make your chart scarier?

View attachment 67191811
Click to expand...
not to me....

But I bet if you showed that to Barry O , Al Gore, and tom Friedman, they might reduce their carbon footprint for 100 x the average person to 99!!!! LOL
 
Maybe a better gauge would be earth's largest heatsink, the oceans. For the last 100 years ocean temps have gone up 0.13 degrees per decade, so in those 100 years a 1.3 degree increase. Like the chart this doesn't seem like much until you go back to high school physics and remember to raise one gram of water one degree requires one calorie of energy. Anyone want to guess how many grams of water our oceans represent? That is a lot of energy and as we all know our weather patterns are altered by ocean temperatures. It has always been a balancing act between energy from the sun being absorbed vs reflected. The more greenhouse gases released, the more energy absorbed and less reflected.
 
KLATTU said:
WHOA! Scarey stuff!!!
Click to expand...

Hey, I thought I'd do the same with blood pH in someone who was admitted to the ICU for 'acidosis'. Apparently, the 'scientists' in the ICU thought her pH was 'too low'.

Well, I graphed it out over time.

ph.JPG
WHOA! Scarey stuff!!!!!

She died, but it was probably because of the liberal establishment and people in the hospital just pretending to 'care'. Those doctors obviously have no idea what they are talking about.
 
deckofficer said:
Maybe a better gauge would be earth's largest heatsink, the oceans. For the last 100 years ocean temps have gone up 0.13 degrees per decade, so in those 100 years a 1.3 degree increase. Like the chart this doesn't seem like much until you go back to high school physics and remember to raise one gram of water one degree requires one calorie of energy. Anyone want to guess how many grams of water our oceans represent? That is a lot of energy and as we all know our weather patterns are altered by ocean temperatures. It has always been a balancing act between energy from the sun being absorbed vs reflected. The more greenhouse gases released, the more energy absorbed and less reflected.
Click to expand...

Yes, solar changes are far more pronounced in the oceans, and take a long time to equalize. I suspect that within 10, maybe 20 years, the ocean heat content will be a cooling trend if the solar activity goes as predicted.

Changes in greenhouse gasses really don't do much in the oceans, as the latency is short compared to solar/ocean heat back to the atmosphere.

It may seem backwards, but sea water is extremely absorptive of greenhouse gas IR and extremely transparent to half the solar spectrum. At first glance, one would think that IR heats water faster than visible light and UV. However, the IR is all absrbed within the first few micron depth of the water. Since all this energy is trapped at the skin surface of the water, it readily looses almost all that heat immediately as extra evaporation and emitted longwave. Very little remains to heat the water even a centimeter down. Now, since the ocean is very transparent to half the solar spectrum, this energy is immediately absorbed far deeper, and takes far longer to change surface temperatures and equalize.

This is the primary reason solar is so easily ignored. The experts know the truth, and that's why they only refer to "direct" solar changes.
 
Last edited:
Isn't it true our polar regions are directly effected by greenhouse gases and over time there has been more energy absorbed and less reflected? From what I learned way back in meteorology class is that our atmosphere reflects a lot of the solar energy where it is intact, but where it has thinned or even has holes, a lot more energy gets through and is absorbed instead of reflected. Help me I really want to understand this.
 
deckofficer said:
Isn't it true our polar regions are directly effected by greenhouse gases and over time there has been more energy absorbed and less reflected? From what I learned way back in meteorology class is that our atmosphere reflects a lot of the solar energy where it is intact, but where it has thinned or even has holes, a lot more energy gets through and is absorbed instead of reflected. Help me I really want to understand this.
Click to expand...

When it comes to polar and glacier ice, it has to do with the albedo of said ice. Clean ice has an albedo as high as 0.98. That means it reflect 98% of the incoming radiant energy. that all changes when the ice is no longer clean. Our biggest contributor to this are the aerosols we add to the atmosphere. The worse for ice, is soot. It only takes a very fine, invisible layer are particles, measured in microns, do decrease the ice albedo significantly. If we have an area of ice that did have a 0.95 albedo, and we change that to a 0.80 albedo... The ice is now absorbing four time more radiant energy, and melts significantly faster.

Not sure what you mean by holes. Do you mean holes in the ozone layer? This also makes a difference as the extra UV on the polar ice is absorbed even more, due to how much deeper it penetrates than IR.

Do you have a better specific question?
 
Yes, you explained it well. I did know dirty polar ice absorbed more energy and I was in fact referring to ozone holes. So, what is your take, is it man's activities that are having a influence on climate patterns? I live in California and our fire season is 70 days longer than in the past, the drought has cost our agricultural industry billions, and I wonder if I'll just have to get used to it.
 
deckofficer said:
Yes, you explained it well. I did know dirty polar ice absorbed more energy and I was in fact referring to ozone holes. So, what is your take, is it man's activities that are having a influence on climate patterns? I live in California and our fire season is 70 days longer than in the past, the drought has cost our agricultural industry billions, and I wonder if I'll just have to get used to it.
Click to expand...
What I see is natural cyclical events that occur on multidecadal periods of time. It is laughable to claim that we are affecting climate trends that much. We have seen worse droughts in the past, and have proxy indications of worse ones too, but the growing populations make the severity of such droughts worse, because there are more people are demanding limited resource.
 
I'll admit to being guilty of getting too many of my viewpoints from Bill Maher. He has mentioned one thing that got my attention and that was a statement that all the world's political parties (liberal, conservative, labor, et al) were in agreement that climate change was real and man made and the only party that wasn't on board was the US GOP. So far my Internet research has indicated that he is right. My only experience is my time at sea has progressively been more exciting with weather and waves. On the home front like I mentioned, 70 days more for the fire season and the drought. If this is a cycle I would think the period would be much longer. My biggest concern is how much more heat energy the oceans have, that alone plays havoc with weather.

On a lighter side, Portland is a hotbed for EV (electric vehicle) activity and I am pro EV, I have both an electric car and truck. After a stint of working off shore on dynamically positioned oil drilling rigs (they are classified as vessels so require a marine staff) I got a sour taste towards that entire industry.
 
celticwar17 said:
you do realize....They expanded the y-scale to make it look insignificant...why start at zero degrees Fahrenheit?It isn't a significant temperature at all lol, why end at 110?

If this was an honestly graph, I would start the y-scale at the temperature it was at the starting point in 1880, and end it at the highest temperature.
Click to expand...
All he did, was apply the opposite of what alarmists do. Alarmists will use the full scale of the Y-Axis for the cherry picked period they want is to see. That's why I suggested using zero kelvin for the Y scale. Put the range in its true light. A one degree Celsius change in global temperature is almost insignificant when starting with 288 degrees. How can anyone in their right mind, think the earths temperature naturally stays in under a 0.4% range? And energy wise, 1 degree variation of 288, is only 0.7%.

If we agree with the 3.71 W/m^2 sensitivity, and understand that consensus has 1750 levels at about 30 W/m^2 for a CO2 greenhouse effect, then at present time, it went from 30 W/m^2 to about 31.8 W/m^2. If this is true, this is significant. Still, considering the 30 W/m^2 is assumed to be 6 degrees of the greenhouse effect, it calculates out to only about 0.3 degrees before any magical feedback. Two recent studies put the CO2 sensitivity under 1 W/m^2. what if they are more correct in the range of CO2 sensitivity? What if the Iris Effect is real, and there is almost as much negative feedback, or more, than positive feedback to CO2?

We really don't know. The science isn't settled, but I know one thing for certain. Every other factor that affects the earths temperature would have to be aligned in a cooling phase if we are to believe CO2 is half or more of the climate change we have seen.

What are the chances that all other forcing agents are in phase with one another?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom