• 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!

Record setting global hear in January

SouthernDemocrat said:
Yes, but satellites don't directly measure temperatures in the lower troposphere. Any satellite temperature measurements of the lower troposphere are based on models.
Click to expand...
The satellites measure the brightness of the atmosphere at various levels(channels)
The RSS covers it in detail.
Brightness Temperature | Remote Sensing Systems
but more importantly, the satellite measurements are backed up with the balloon
instruments measurements.
The only thing in disagreement here is the surface measurements, which by their
diverse collection methodology, would have a much broader signal to noise ratio.
Data.GISS: GISTEMP ? The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Which is exactly what I stated. One of the reasons why we see a lot of year to year variability is the PDO / ENSO. All that heat from AGW is going somewhere, much of it it winds up in the ocean and is then transferred back into the lower troposphere during El Nino years.
Click to expand...

No, the mystery of the missing heat is just a way for those who get the atmosphere predictions so wrong. The heat in the upper ocean has been fed by an upwelling of heat from the deep ocean, and the air-sea thermal exchange has changed by a fraction of a fraction of a percent.

"Estimated values of recent oceanic heat uptake are on the order of a few tenths of a W m−2, and are a very small residual of air–sea exchanges, with annual average regional magnitudes of hundreds of W m−2."

So again, No, added CO2 is not the cause of greater el Nino, the potential effect is well within natural variability. I mean, this el Nino will end up being weaker that 1998 when the CO2 was lower. To put it in perspective, solar variance, which the alarmists are so quick to poo poo orders of magnitude a large contributor to upper ocean warming than any change in ocean temps from increased CO2

In essence, what alarmists are doing is following the dynamic heat movement between ocean and air and declaring at all times that where the heat happens to be is proof of catastrophic global warming. Like following a cow from one pasture to another and declaring you saw two cows, one in each pasture.

Increased greenhouse effect warming is not neutral to the whole process, its a background "signal" that pushes the overall climate warmer than it otherwise would be. The oceans contain more heat than they otherwise would, thus El Ninos warm the climate more than the otherwise would.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is neutral. The CO2 is always saturated and will not trap any more heat than it can contain. The only way that GHGs contribute to increasing heat if by increasing the GHGs, not introducing more heat. In this case, the greater of the two large el Nino events in the last 30 years occurred when CO2 was 7.5% lower than it is today.

The oceans are not holding more heat either. The deep oceans are upwelling heat, so again, the heat in the upper ocean is connected to a decrease in deep ocean heat.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
Looks like 2016 is already breaking records on the heels of a record breaking 2015 and the formerly record breaking 2014.

As the models have accurately predicted decades ago, we are living in the warmest month of the warmest years of the warmest decade we've ever recorded.

January 2016 was Earth's warmest month yet.
Click to expand...

Makes sense since the sun's long term equalization to surface heat is stored in the oceans, and the month of January has the oceans closest to the sun...
 
MrT said:
And the hits just keep on coming.
Click to expand...
How do you figure?

What hit?

Tell me. If solar to ocean to surface heating has an equalization lag of 100 years for 70%, when should we see the peak earth heat from the solar peak of 1958?
 
Threegoofs said:
And looks like the Arctic ice is at an all time low for this time of year, too.

Current year in yellow:

0d7ba9873c65891289a0e8c60f31e159.jpg
Click to expand...

And the Antarctic?

Did you not post it because it's an inconvenient truth?
 
clownboy said:
One would think that at least, with all this warming, we'd have to be turning the heaters off and the A/C on once or twice. Alas, no such luck.
Click to expand...

LOL...

My girl from Arizona is staying the week. She had me pipe up the bedroom to 80 degrees. Last week was 62 outside high, and I normally keep my place at 67 degrees in the winters.

67 just too cold for her.
 
Soho gator said:
Point being that even with reduced solar heat/radiation the earth is getting hotter and hotter. Just think what it might be like if the sun was in a period of max activity.
Click to expand...

I wonder how hot it would have been in 1958 to 1975 is the skies were as clear then as they are today?
 
longview said:
While there is clearly a relationship between TSI (Solar radiation) and the earth's temperature,
the latencies of the system are poorly understood.
Add to that, there are several cyclic patterns that overlap, and we get a very complex system.
I think the current best guess, places the lag between changes in TSI vs earth's temperature,
is about 11 years.
Click to expand...

In 11 years, we probably see about 1/3rd of the changes. We see nearly all the land heat changes which are about 30% of the surface, but the 70% ocean has a much longer lag.
 
Threegoofs said:
Looks like 2016 is already breaking records on the heels of a record breaking 2015 and the formerly record breaking 2014.

As the models have accurately predicted decades ago, we are living in the warmest month of the warmest years of the warmest decade we've ever recorded.

January 2016 was Earth's warmest month yet.
Click to expand...


With colder weather comes my aches. This is great news to my aging bones. ;)
 
jmotivator said:
You haven't gotten your "AGW 101" correct, which is funny. CO2 in the atmosphere is saturated with IR at all times. The CO2 in the atmosphere holds as much heat as it can hold and that heat which it can't hold is radiated out into space. The atmospheric radiative imbalance is a mechanism of increasing CO2, so the current heat increase we see would need to be caused by the 4ppm rise, which it wasn't.
Click to expand...

This is true for the majority of what CO2 can warm, but there is still a small effect. I believe their sensitivity numbers around 1.2C + feedback revolved around none of the CO2 in saturation or overlap with H2O. Since most of the CO2 spectra is in saturation or overlap with H2O, the remaining change is very small. I suspect under 0.3 C for a doubling of CO2.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Yes understand I understand that, but what you seem to not be getting is that it changes the earth's climate "energy budget". Ultimately resulting in greater heat being held at the earth's surface, lower troposphere, and in the oceans. As the oceans cover the majority of the earth's surface, more of the additional heat is held in the oceans than on the land surface. In an El Nino year, that heat is then released back into the troposphere and the climate warms. Thus a very unusually warm El Nino year is exactly what climatologists would expect with a warming climate.
Click to expand...

Have you ever read the inaccuracies of individual components in energy balance studies, and how the authors admit the fudge the numbers?

I'll bet you never have, but repeat what the pundits say instead.
 
Lord of Planar said:
How do you figure?

What hit?

Tell me. If solar to ocean to surface heating has an equalization lag of 100 years for 70%, when should we see the peak earth heat from the solar peak of 1958?
Click to expand...

Are you just pulling numbers out of your ass with the 100 year lag? I could have sworn you said 40 years beforehand.

Here's a better question: If solar radiation and greenhouse gases both help influence global climates, but we can only control the later, why should I care about the solar peak of 1958?
 
Lord of Planar said:
This is true for the majority of what CO2 can warm, but there is still a small effect. I believe their sensitivity numbers around 1.2C + feedback revolved around none of the CO2 in saturation or overlap with H2O. Since most of the CO2 spectra is in saturation or overlap with H2O, the remaining change is very small. I suspect under 0.3 C for a doubling of CO2.
Click to expand...

As I referenced in a previous post, one study puts it at a few tenths of a W/m2 over the oceans out of an effect that is hundreds of W/m2 in scale. This makes sense given that IR has a net cooling effect on water as it only penetrates water a few microns and vaporizes the water, thereby converting IR heat energy to transitional energy.
 
David_N said:
Those who deny AGW aren't even worth engaging anymore.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone in this thread denied AGW, so no one here has engaged anyone
who denies AGW.
Perhaps you mean those of us who are skeptical of the catastrophic of predictions of the IPCC?
 
MrT said:
Are you just pulling numbers out of your ass with the 100 year lag? I could have sworn you said 40 years beforehand.

Here's a better question: If solar radiation and greenhouse gases both help influence global climates, but we can only control the later, why should I care about the solar peak of 1958?
Click to expand...
If it's 11 years, 40 years, 70, 100, etc... it depends on what level of equalization you are looking at. Just like the climatologists claim GWP numbers at different time intervals.

I have made these points before. Try to keep up. There is no way that the sensitivity of CO2 is high enough to matter. The changes in earth heat from CO2 are minimal compared to natural components. Our land use has a far greater change on the dedicated sensing stations due to changes in the water balance, and urban heating effects.
 
Last edited:
David_N said:
Those who deny AGW aren't even worth engaging anymore.
Click to expand...
spoken like a true man man of science( derisive smirk).


What exactly are people denying?
 
David_N said:
Those who deny AGW aren't even worth engaging anymore.
Click to expand...

When people like you are incapable of distinguishing such nuances as denial and claiming the impact is wrong, they can go away. They won't be missed.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
That all depends where you are at. Higher temperatures and thus longer growing seasons in Northern Europe is on balance a good thing for crop yields. However, in the Southern and Central Plains, higher temps is a big negative in terms of crop yields as summers were oppressive to begin with.
Click to expand...

That is nature trying to tell you to plant the right crops for your regions climate. If the temperature is rising as it has been for over 10,000 years you cannot continue to grow cool weather crops where it is now hot. If the climate becomes dryer or wetter due to climate change that has been happening for billions of years we must adapt. If we try to grow crops that need lots of water in a desert we will create a shortage of water just as we have in the SW United States. We either work with the climate change that has been going on for billions of years or we will become extinct like the millions of other species that could not adapt to the worlds ever changing climate.

For now we should all be thankful for this warming trend that has allowed us to feed 7 billion people. I am.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
That is nature trying to tell you to plant the right crops for your regions climate. If the temperature is rising as it has been for over 10,000 years you cannot continue to grow cool weather crops where it is now hot. If the climate becomes dryer or wetter due to climate change that has been happening for billions of years we must adapt. If we try to grow crops that need lots of water in a desert we will create a shortage of water just as we have in the SW United States. We either work with the climate change that has been going on for billions of years or we will become extinct like the millions of other species that could not adapt to the worlds ever changing climate.

For now we should all be thankful for this warming trend that has allowed us to feed 7 billion people. I am.
Click to expand...

The types of decisions that you are referencing have to occur on a time scale decades - not millions or billions of years - specifically because we are currently and very rapidly altering the climate relative to what has been going on "for over 10,000 years."

Think of it this way: We have ice core data stretching back roughly 800,000 years. If you measure the rate of CO2 concentration change, you note that the last time it took the Earth to naturally raise the CO2 concentration by 80 points, it took about 5,000 years. We jumped that much from 1900 to 2000 (with the rate accelerating dramatically in the last few years of that century and continuing on into this century). That is a rate of roughly 50x the natural climate variability.
 
MrT said:
The types of decisions that you are referencing have to occur on a time scale decades - not millions or billions of years - specifically because we are currently and very rapidly altering the climate relative to what has been going on "for over 10,000 years."

Think of it this way: We have ice core data stretching back roughly 800,000 years. If you measure the rate of CO2 concentration change, you note that the last time it took the Earth to naturally raise the CO2 concentration by 80 points, it took about 5,000 years. We jumped that much from 1900 to 2000 (with the rate accelerating dramatically in the last few years of that century and continuing on into this century). That is a rate of roughly 50x the natural climate variability.
Click to expand...
Since CO2 is not what the plants have issues with, the discussion should stay with temperature.
The temperature may be increasing, but at a rate slower than the duty cycle of most agriculture.
Even something like apple trees have only about 50 years of production, before they plant new trees.
 
MrT said:
The types of decisions that you are referencing have to occur on a time scale decades - not millions or billions of years - specifically because we are currently and very rapidly altering the climate relative to what has been going on "for over 10,000 years."

Think of it this way: We have ice core data stretching back roughly 800,000 years. If you measure the rate of CO2 concentration change, you note that the last time it took the Earth to naturally raise the CO2 concentration by 80 points, it took about 5,000 years. We jumped that much from 1900 to 2000 (with the rate accelerating dramatically in the last few years of that century and continuing on into this century). That is a rate of roughly 50x the natural climate variability.
Click to expand...

800,000 years is a mere 1 second of day in the climate of this planet. CO2 levels is one factor among millions that influence climate change. Then there are the millions of factors we do not know of yet still waiting to be discovered.

I will contend that the planet has been much warmer many times if the past than it is today. There was a time when there were no oceans and the crust was 1000 degrees. There was a time when we had no moon. There was a time when both poles were tropical. I can go on and on stating facts. The fact remains we have more to learn than what we actually know. So all the know-it-all still have a lot to learn before I believe the world is flat no matter how sure they are.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
800,000 years is a mere 1 second of day in the climate of this planet. CO2 levels is one factor among millions that influence climate change. Then there are the millions of factors we do not know of yet still waiting to be discovered.

I will contend that the planet has been much warmer many times if the past than it is today. There was a time when there were no oceans and the crust was 1000 degrees. There was a time when we had no moon. There was a time when both poles were tropical. I can go on and on stating facts. The fact remains we have more to learn than what we actually know. So all the know-it-all still have a lot to learn before I believe the world is flat no matter how sure they are.
Click to expand...

Wait...did you just imply that the "know-it-alls" are trying to convince you that the Earth is flat?

Anyways, the primary and most significant problem with your critique is that the concern of AGW is not that the Planet is in danger or that the Planet will be destroyed. Earth will be just fine. However, humans and the other currently living plants and animals do not live on a geologic timescale. So while 800,000 years may be a blip for the planet, that represents more than a million generations for most species.

Finally, no one is advocating that we stop doing research and looking to make our understanding of the climate any broader (except, for example, conservatives who advocate that NASA stop researching the climate) or more refined. However, it is a far different thing to claim that our lack of perfect knowledge means that we should dismiss the knowledge that we do have currently in the hope that we are wrong.
 
longview said:
The satellites measure the brightness of the atmosphere at various levels(channels)
The RSS covers it in detail.
Brightness Temperature | Remote Sensing Systems
but more importantly, the satellite measurements are backed up with the balloon
instruments measurements.
The only thing in disagreement here is the surface measurements, which by their
diverse collection methodology, would have a much broader signal to noise ratio.
Data.GISS: GISTEMP ? The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature
Click to expand...

The point being glossed over is that surface temperature stations take a direct measurement of temperature while satellites measure radiance and temperature measurements are extrapolated from that with various models - there is not even a real consensus on which models to use and depending on the model used there is a huge variance in temperatures extrapolated. You also have the issue of orbital variance, differences in sensors between satellites, deterioration in sensors over time and so on. This is why the majority of the scientific community considers surface measurements to be far superior to the satellite datasets and see the value in satellite datasets in their showing a cooling stratosphere - which is exactly what we would expect to see as co2 ppm increased over time.

Its all well discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom