• 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 Heat Despite a Cold Sun

Threegoofs said:
Obviously, you're wrong, because Antarctica is so much colder than the arctic, which gets the same amount of sunlight.

Dont you ever think before you pull crap from where the sun doesnt shine?

Think about what that means. You are worse off than i thought if I have to elaborate farther than that.
Click to expand...

Of course the Antarctic is colder. Part of the reason is elevation. The northern ice cap is at best, a few meters above sea level.

The temperature at Humphrey Peak is 16F right now. 18 miles away at Flagstaff, it is 35F.

The elevation of ice on most of Antarctica is more than a the tallest mountain in Arizona. The average elevation of the Antarctic is 2.5 km and the average ice on top of that is another 1.9 km.

You should stop. You have already exposed too much of your derriere to all of us.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Of course the Antarctic is colder. Part of the reason is elevation. The northern ice cap is at best, a few meters above sea level.

The temperature at Humphrey Peak is 16F right now. 18 miles away at Flagstaff, it is 35F.

The elevation of ice on most of Antarctica is more than a the tallest mountain in Arizona. The average elevation of the Antarctic is 2.5 km and the average ice on top of that is another 1.9 km.

You should stop. You have already exposed too much of your derriere to all of us.
Click to expand...

So the reason the Antarctic is cold is because of elevation, huh?

So what you're saying is that elevation is playing a significant role in temperature differences, despite the fact that CO2 is the same concentration at both poles.

Or are you going to backtrack on that now, because your chosen dogma is that you have to pretend CO2 doesn't cause significant warming?
 
Threegoofs said:
So the reason the Antarctic is cold is because of elevation, huh?

So what you're saying is that elevation is playing a significant role in temperature differences, despite the fact that CO2 is the same concentration at both poles.

Or are you going to backtrack on that now, because your chosen dogma is that you have to pretend CO2 doesn't cause significant warming?
Click to expand...

Wow.

I simply don't know what to say about your arrogant ignorance.

Besides, I'm not pretending anything. I acknowledge that CO2 has a significant warming effect. Why do you chronically lie about what I say to others here in the forum? I have never said CO2 is insignificant. The only way I would do that is if I was responding to a delineation of what is and is not significant.

You really need to stop your ignorant ramblings. You have exposed your derriere more than anyone here wants to see.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
Wow.

I simply don't know what to say about your arrogant ignorance.

Besides, I'm not pretending anything. I acknowledge that CO2 has a significant warming effect. Why do you chronically lie about what I say to others here in the forum? I have never said CO2 is insignificant. The only way I would do that is if I was responding to a delineation of what is and is not significant.

You really need to stop your ignorant ramblings. You have exposed your derriere more than anyone here wants to see.
Click to expand...

So wait.

You guys come up with the theory that CO2 can't be a major source of warming because it's concentration is equal everywhere in the world, and things haven't warmed equally.

And this 'theory' was basically pulled out of your ample armchair rested derrières and supported by nothing.

I challenge your absurd notion with an equally absurd one.

Yet *I* am the arrogant and ignorant one?

LOL.
 
Threegoofs said:
I dont have a dogma. I just have scientific analysis.

Here - try some. You might learn something.

Climate Change: Evidence and Causes » Climate Change at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
Click to expand...
What you have is dogma, otherwise you would be able to defend your position with something other than appeals to authority.
Within the current understanding of CO2 and climate science, there is no explanation for why two large sections of the planet
with the same CO2 levels, and receiving the same levels of solar energy over a decade time scale, would have warming separated by a factor greater than 10 times.
The is not some small local areas, the areas north and south of the 44th parallel represent more than 24 million square miles each.
 
longview said:
What you have is dogma, otherwise you would be able to defend your position with something other than appeals to authority.
Within the current understanding of CO2 and climate science, there is no explanation for why two large sections of the planet
with the same CO2 levels, and receiving the same levels of solar energy over a decade time scale, would have warming separated by a factor greater than 10 times.
The is not some small local areas, the areas north and south of the 44th parallel represent more than 24 million square miles each.
Click to expand...

Appeal to authority is not just reasonable....it's NECESSARY when discussing a complex scientific topic.

That you don't know that speaks volumes.
 
Threegoofs said:
So wait.

You guys come up with the theory that CO2 can't be a major source of warming because it's concentration is equal everywhere in the world, and things haven't warmed equally.

And this 'theory' was basically pulled out of your ample armchair rested derrières and supported by nothing.

I challenge your absurd notion with an equally absurd one.

Yet *I* am the arrogant and ignorant one?

LOL.
Click to expand...
How can your ramblings be anything but arrogant ignorance when they are all wrong?
 
code1211 said:
Here's one longer term view. Beware, though, there are various sources of the data in this topic area that disagree with each other.

By most sources that I see, the Solar Irradiance recorded over the last 100 years seems to have been pretty high in a historical sense.

I'm not a great expert, just a guy who can work Google.

Anyway, here you go:

climate4you welcome

Solar irradiance reconstructed since 1610
SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610.gif

Solar irradiance since 1610 as reconstructed by Lean et al (1995) and Lean (2000). The thin line indicates the annual reconstructed solar irradiance, while the thick line shows the running 11 average. The values shown include a background component. See Lean (2000) for discussion of the amplitude of the background component. Last year included in the Lean (2000) analysis: 2000. The small green columns in the bottom panel indicate different kind of historical evidence for past climate change effects. Click on the green columns for more information on each of these events. Last diagram update: 24 April 2009.

  • Click here to download the data series of reconstructed solar irradiance 1610-2000.
  • Click here to read about data smoothing.
Click to expand...

That is interesting. Thank you.

It also indicates, why longer data sets are so important. We see an upward trend since the 1690s. So when did it do earlier?

But we don't see the other variables. When did the warm periods come and go? Or where the earlier warm periods. ... How did co2 or cosmic radiation play?
 
Threegoofs said:
Appeal to authority is not just reasonable....it's NECESSARY when discussing a complex scientific topic.

That you don't know that speaks volumes.
Click to expand...
There are many aspects of complexity, At some level still needs a testable prediction.
As I have shown the latest IPCC report expects no more than 2:1 ratio between the Arctic and Antarctic regions,
yet the actual data for decade averages over 130 years show greater than a 10 to 1 ratio.
This while the CO2 levels and the solar energy levels were moving but the same in both places, at any given time frame.
In some area of Science this level of error might be acceptable, but those are usually the social sciences.
For real Sciences, the testable predictions need to be a lot closer.
That you cannot acknowledge that something is amiss, in the enormous disparity between the Arctic and Antarctic temperatures,
when the Inputs (CO2 and Solar energy)stated by the IPCC are roughly the same in both places,
Speaks volumes about your commitment to your dogma.
 
joG said:
That is interesting. Thank you.

It also indicates, why longer data sets are so important. We see an upward trend since the 1690s. So when did it do earlier?

But we don't see the other variables. When did the warm periods come and go? Or where the earlier warm periods. ... How did co2 or cosmic radiation play?
Click to expand...

Well, if you track history, there are some interesting correlations.

In the 19th century, there were two huge volcanic eruptions: Krakatoa and Tambora. The TSI drops severely during that period. The impact of these two events leads right up to the beginning of the much discussed "Instrument Record" that measure the increase of the global climate from the coldest point in the last 200 years. If the Instrument Record were to track the climate from about a 50 years before or 20 years after, the change would be quite different.

Again, in reviewing the table below, there are various versions of temperature by various sources that do not agree.

Anecdotally, Mary Shelley wrote the story about Frankenstein during the cold period that was probably caused by these two eruptions and depicts the monster and all characters against a background of cold and ice.

climate4you welcome

GISS%20MaturityDiagramSince20080517%20version20120816.gif

GISS Maturity diagram per 15 August 2012. Compare with the diagram per 15 September 2012.

Based on the above it is not possible to conclude which of the above five databases represents the best estimate on global temperature variations. The answer to this question remains elusive. All five databases are the result of much painstaking work, and they all represent admirable attempts towards establishing an estimate of recent global temperature changes. At the same time it should however be noted, that a temperature record which keeps on changing the past hardly can qualify as being correct. With this in mind, it is interesting that none of the global temperature records shown above are characterised by high temporal stability. Presumably this illustrates how difficult it is to calculate a meaningful global average temperature. A re-read of Essex et al. 2006 might be worthwhile. In addition to this, surface air temperature remains a poor indicator of global climate heat changes, as air has relatively little mass associated with it. Ocean heat changes are the dominant factor for global heat changes.
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
Well, if you track history, there are some interesting correlations.

In the 19th century, there were two huge volcanic eruptions: Krakatoa and Tambora. The TSI drops severely during that period. The impact of these two events leads right up to the beginning of the much discussed "Instrument Record" that measure the increase of the global climate from the coldest point in the last 200 years. If the Instrument Record were to track the climate from about a 50 years before or 20 years after, the change would be quite different.

Again, in reviewing the table below, there are various versions of temperature by various sources that do not agree.

Anecdotally, Mary Shelley wrote the story about Frankenstein during the cold period that was probably caused by these two eruptions and depicts the monster and all characters against a background of cold and ice.

climate4you welcome

GISS%20MaturityDiagramSince20080517%20version20120816.gif

GISS Maturity diagram per 15 August 2012. Compare with the diagram per 15 September 2012.

Based on the above it is not possible to conclude which of the above five databases represents the best estimate on global temperature variations. The answer to this question remains elusive. All five databases are the result of much painstaking work, and they all represent admirable attempts towards establishing an estimate of recent global temperature changes. At the same time it should however be noted, that a temperature record which keeps on changing the past hardly can qualify as being correct. With this in mind, it is interesting that none of the global temperature records shown above are characterised by high temporal stability. Presumably this illustrates how difficult it is to calculate a meaningful global average temperature. A re-read of Essex et al. 2006 might be worthwhile. In addition to this, surface air temperature remains a poor indicator of global climate heat changes, as air has relatively little mass associated with it. Ocean heat changes are the dominant factor for global heat changes.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of reading essays on how evolution can't be true because there is no way an eye could evolve by itself...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom