• 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!

Globale temperatures dropping fast

KLATTU

KLATTU

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
19,259
Reaction score
6,899
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Despite Denial, Global Temperatures Are Dropping Fast | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
It is obvious that the world is cooling after the El Nino and nobody knows how much it will as global temperatures bottom out....
So let’s summarise. As the El Nino has faded global temperatures are dropping, not just in lower tropospheric land data (where it has been seen the strongest so far) but in the other data sets as well. Without the El Nino (probably the strongest on record) and the Pacific Warm Blob there will be no new record next year, or probably the year after if the la Nina sets in. Temperatures are more likely to return to pre-El Nino levels. If so, the 2015/16 El Nino would be shown to be a temporary blip in a continuous “hiatus” period which, nethertheless remains the warmest period of the instrumental temperature era. For all we know, at the end of next year we could see the global warming “hiatus” approach its third decade.
 
KLATTU said:
Despite Denial, Global Temperatures Are Dropping Fast | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
It is obvious that the world is cooling after the El Nino and nobody knows how much it will as global temperatures bottom out....
So let’s summarise. As the El Nino has faded global temperatures are dropping, not just in lower tropospheric land data (where it has been seen the strongest so far) but in the other data sets as well. Without the El Nino (probably the strongest on record) and the Pacific Warm Blob there will be no new record next year, or probably the year after if the la Nina sets in. Temperatures are more likely to return to pre-El Nino levels. If so, the 2015/16 El Nino would be shown to be a temporary blip in a continuous “hiatus” period which, nethertheless remains the warmest period of the instrumental temperature era. For all we know, at the end of next year we could see the global warming “hiatus” approach its third decade.
Click to expand...
Caution should be exercised in calling any short term weather event climate.
Just like the El Nino's should not be counted as part of the warming, the relaxation cool down should not be counted against the warming.
When signals interfere, there is always a minima to go along with the maxima.
 
Prep for ice age, what?
 
longview said:
Caution should be exercised in calling any short term weather event climate.
Just like the El Nino's should not be counted as part of the warming, the relaxation cool down should not be counted against the warming.
When signals interfere, there is always a minima to go along with the maxima.
Click to expand...

That is, what the data tells you. If you take 1.000 years, the recent increases in temperature look large. Take 600.000.000 year and it puts the initial scare in perspective.
 
joG said:
That is, what the data tells you. If you take 1.000 years, the recent increases in temperature look large. Take 600.000.000 year and it puts the initial scare in perspective.
Click to expand...

Looking back 600 million years ago does indeed put things into perspective. Namely because there was no animal or plant life as we know it and the composition of the atmosphere was drastically different 600 million years ago - having less than half the oxygen and roughly 5 times the amount of C02.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
Looking back 600 million years ago does indeed put things into perspective. Namely because there was no animal or plant life as we know it and the composition of the atmosphere was drastically different 600 million years ago - having less than half the oxygen and roughly 5 times the amount of C02.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The study of pristine nature. And, when we understand the temperature swings back then, we might have a better chance of understanding why our swing of the last 5 years is, what it is. At this point we have a hypothesis that might, however, be quite wrong. It could easily be based on quite natural "random" occurrence. I am not saying it is. I am saying that someone saying it isn't, should have to demonstrate why earlier phenomena were similar but different.
 
joG said:
Exactly. The study of pristine nature. And, when we understand the temperature swings back then, we might have a better chance of understanding why our swing of the last 5 years is, what it is. At this point we have a hypothesis that might, however, be quite wrong. It could easily be based on quite natural "random" occurrence. I am not saying it is. I am saying that someone saying it isn't, should have to demonstrate why earlier phenomena were similar but different.
Click to expand...

The simple answer is that there is no natural explanation for the rate of the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
The simple answer is that there is no natural explanation for the rate of the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.
Click to expand...

I will agree we are responsible for the increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. I will also contend they don't warm as much as claimed.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I will agree we are responsible for the increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. I will also contend they don't warm as much as claimed.
Click to expand...

The impact can be influenced by a number of other variables. CO2 content was 4 times higher 600 million years ago and the average global temperature was 3 degrees higher - however the Sun was also significantly dimmer and so the impact of such CO2 levels today would be greater than a 3 degree increase baring some other factor.
 
Napoleon said:
Looking back 600 million years ago does indeed put things into perspective. Namely because there was no animal or plant life as we know it and the composition of the atmosphere was drastically different 600 million years ago - having less than half the oxygen and roughly 5 times the amount of C02.
Click to expand...

And still the climate changed.
 
KLATTU said:
Despite Denial, Global Temperatures Are Dropping Fast | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
It is obvious that the world is cooling after the El Nino and nobody knows how much it will as global temperatures bottom out....
Click to expand...
Suuure it is

I hate to get all mainstream on you, but....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...talking-about-cooling/?utm_term=.76db7f042baa

imrs.php
 
jimbo said:
And still the climate changed.
Click to expand...

Yes, over a period of millions of years or following a sudden cataclysmic event. What we are seeing today is a change in mere hundreds of years that coincides with human activity.
 
Napoleon said:
The impact can be influenced by a number of other variables. CO2 content was 4 times higher 600 million years ago and the average global temperature was 3 degrees higher - however the Sun was also significantly dimmer and so the impact of such CO2 levels today would be greater than a 3 degree increase baring some other factor.
Click to expand...
Let's back out your stated numbers, and I will show you that I both believe you, and find the numbers acceptable.
4 times higher than the current level (400 ppm)would be 1600 ppm, to get there would require 2 doubling s of the CO2 level.
So if the result of such a level would be 3 C or greater (you did not specify how much greater) then the amount of warming per doubling,
would be 1.5 C or greater, (again you left that open ended).
I think the ECS for doubling the CO2 level would be about 1.9, so not much above your 1.5 C,
Both are still below the IPCC target of 2C.
 
Napoleon said:
The simple answer is that there is no natural explanation for the rate of the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.
Click to expand...

As has the temperature increased dramatically from time to time, so has the level of co2. The historical data is probably not enough robust. But it seemed to indicate that the co2 levels were not leading indicators of the heat events.
 
Napoleon said:
Yes, over a period of millions of years or following a sudden cataclysmic event. What we are seeing today is a change in mere hundreds of years that coincides with human activity.
Click to expand...

Coincides with man is different than man caused.

Some climate changes over millions of years have occurred rapidly, others not so rapidly. Still there is no indication that man is causing the change, or even if there is a long term climate change. A couple hundred years out of millions is but a pimple on a bugs ass.
 
joG said:
As has the temperature increased dramatically from time to time, so has the level of co2. The historical data is probably not enough robust. But it seemed to indicate that the co2 levels were not leading indicators of the heat events.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there is no correlation between CO2 and global temperatures whatsoever. That is, as long as you're not actually looking at the data of the past 400,000 years.

400000yearslarge1.gif




The correlations are not as obvious or strong short time scales, mostly because the effects of an increase in CO2 tend to lag -- e.g. it can take years or decades for an increase in CO2 to alter temperatures. E.g. if we stopped all CO2 emissions today, we'd see global temperatures continue to increase for years.
 
jimbo said:
Coincides with man is different than man caused.

Some climate changes over millions of years have occurred rapidly, others not so rapidly. Still there is no indication that man is causing the change, or even if there is a long term climate change. A couple hundred years out of millions is but a pimple on a bugs ass.
Click to expand...

The indication is that the only thing that's happened is the Industrial Revolution. There have been no natural phenomena that can account for the change in such a short period of time.
 
Visbek said:
Yeah, there is no correlation between CO2 and global temperatures whatsoever. That is, as long as you're not actually looking at the data of the past 400,000 years.

400000yearslarge1.gif




The correlations are not as obvious or strong short time scales, mostly because the effects of an increase in CO2 tend to lag -- e.g. it can take years or decades for an increase in CO2 to alter temperatures. E.g. if we stopped all CO2 emissions today, we'd see global temperatures continue to increase for years.
Click to expand...

Who said there was no correlation?
 
Napoleon said:
The indication is that the only thing that's happened is the Industrial Revolution. There have been no natural phenomena that can account for the change in such a short period of time.
Click to expand...

Sure there are. A massive volcano eruption, a meteor collision for two. And that's just off the top of my head.
 
jimbo said:
Sure there are. A massive volcano eruption, a meteor collision for two. And that's just off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

Volcanic activity has a net cooling effect and there hasn't been a major collision for tens of millions of years.
 
Napoleon said:
Volcanic activity has a net cooling effect and there hasn't been a major collision for tens of millions of years.
Click to expand...

True. Neither are man made. But both cause climate change.
 
jimbo said:
True. Neither are man made. But both cause climate change.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the question is: what is causing the climate change we are currently experiencing? You won't find that answer in a natural event because no such events have occurred in the relevant timeframe.
 
Napoleon said:
Yes, but the question is: what is causing the climate change we are currently experiencing? You won't find that answer in a natural event because no such events have occurred in the relevant timeframe.
Click to expand...

The questions are:

Are we experiencing climate change or weather? Is the cause man made?

The problem with your relevant time frame logic is that that time frame is cherry picked to fit the agenda.

Earth is billions of years old. Climate has changed throughout its life. Man a few thousand. Most if not all climate changes occurred before man was a factor.

One could surmise from those facts that man has stopped climate change.
 
KLATTU said:
...For all we know, at the end of next year we could see the
global warming “hiatus” approach its third decade.
Click to expand...

Third decade? Depends on what you look at. If you're only
looking at averages well then maybe that's true and maybe not.
Just remember, the average of 1 and 99 is 50 and the average
of 49 and 51 is also 50. Averages lose a lot of information
and don't mean a lot. Think about the average of all the phone
numbers in New York. We have daily records of the high and
low temperatures. Maybe we should look at those. If you do,
for the contiguous United States - Well here's a map that tells
you what you will find:

5pgzmf.jpg


Summertime heat in most of the United States has been on the
decline for over 80 years. The rest of the world? There aren't
enough records to tell.
 
Napoleon said:
Yes, but the question is: what is causing the climate change we are currently experiencing? You won't find that answer in a natural event because no such events have occurred in the relevant timeframe.
Click to expand...

Do you think that the current level of warming (please give dates and temperature change levels so we know what we are talking about) is exceptional compared to even the breif historical record we have?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom