• 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!

El Niño is gone, but it's still the hottest July ever recorded

Threegoofs said:
That's a question untrained weather techs have. Scientists know better.
Click to expand...

Oh an I wasn't a weather tech, I was FORECAST DUTY OFFICER, don't throw personal insults like that 3g.
 
Threegoofs said:
The graph is quite clear.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. I'm surprised you conceded so quickly.

Climate models versus climate reality

Posted on December 17, 2015 | 244 comments
by Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger Perhaps the most frank example of the growing disconnection between forecast and observed climate change was presented by University of Alabama’s John Christy to the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness Committee of … Continue reading →


It isn’t the usual comparison between global average surface temperature and the current family of general circulation climate models. Instead, it’s the forecast and observed temperatures for the middle troposphere.
The troposphere is the earth’s active weather zone, and it extends from the surface to around 40,000 feet. It’s deeper where the atmosphere is warm, as in the tropics, and shallower at higher latitudes. All significant storms, from massive winter cyclones to gullywashing summer thunderstorms are in the troposphere. . . .




 
Last edited:
Geoist said:
You deny the fact humans play a role in the trends we've seen since the late 19th century.
Click to expand...

Does anyone here deny that humans have a role in the observed warming, and what relation would that have in an
alarmist thread about July 2017 being the hottest July by .01C?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Threegoofs said:
The graph is quite clear.
Click to expand...

More from the link in #104:

The red line is the five-year running mean of the 102 computer models that can generate temperatures in this layer, found in the latest (2013) scientific assessment of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
 
Geoist said:
Red herring. Just because CO2 makes up a small percent of the make up of the atmosphere does not mean it plays a minimal role as a greenhouse gas.

View attachment 67221523
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
Click to expand...

Interesting study. There is no denying the hefty contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse gases. The last sentence:

This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.
 
Renae said:
Not red herring, I'm asking if you know what percentage CO2 is of the atmosphere.
Click to expand...
I don't know why you keep asking this, as though it proves anything. As I've told you before:

Somewhere around 135mg of cyanide is a fatal dose for for a 200 pound (90kg) human.

That's roughly 0.00015% of the mass of a human being.

You don't need a large volume, relative to the whole, to have a big effect.
 
Media_Truth said:
Interesting study. There is no denying the hefty contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse gases. The last sentence:

This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much a straw man argument and not the issue.

From the IPCC's AR4 Report Chapter 8.6.2.3

In the idealised situation that the climate response to a doubling of atmospheric
CO2 consisted of a uniform temperature change only, with no feedbacks operating
(but allowing for the enhanced radiative cooling resulting from the temperature
increase), the global warming from GCMs would be around 1.2°C
(Hansen et al., 1984; Bony et al., 2006)​
The issue is the feed backs and do they add up to a catastrophic disaster?
 
Visbek said:
I don't know why you keep asking this, as though it proves anything. As I've told you before:

Somewhere around 135mg of cyanide is a fatal dose for for a 200 pound (90kg) human.

That's roughly 0.00015% of the mass of a human being.

You don't need a large volume, relative to the whole, to have a big effect.
Click to expand...
And yet no one answers the question.
 
Visbek said:
Let Me Google That For You

(Does anyone know if Rickrolling on the forums will get you points? :mrgreen:)
Click to expand...

See the point of asking is to see how much you understand the arguments you back.
None of you answer the question, so you by default are starting from a position of profound ignorance.
 
Renae said:
See the point of asking is to see how much you understand the arguments you back.
None of you answer the question, so you by default are starting from a position of profound ignorance.
Click to expand...
matt-smith.png


Since you don't seem to understand the concept of hyperlinks: It's 0.04% of the atmosphere. And as I said two posts ago, the fact that it is a small amount does not disprove that it is a greenhouse gas that is changing the planet's energy budget.
 
Visbek said:
matt-smith.png


Since you don't seem to understand the concept of hyperlinks: It's 0.04% of the atmosphere. And as I said two posts ago, the fact that it is a small amount does not disprove that it is a greenhouse gas that is changing the planet's energy budget.
Click to expand...
Very good, thank you.

And so 0.04% what are the other greenhouse gasses and how influential are they?
 
Renae said:
Very good, thank you.

And so 0.04% what are the other greenhouse gasses and how influential are they?
Click to expand...
Here ya go

4111813993_66d16e78de.jpg



Another way to illustrate it

climate-forcing-download1-2016.png
 
Renae said:
You don't know? tsk tsk.
Click to expand...
LOL

30 seconds ago, you blasted anyone who didn't outright state the percentage of carbon in the atmosphere as a sign of a lack of understanding, and starting from "profound ignorance." And now, you refuse to actually explain yourself. By your own criteria, that means you don't know what you're talking about. Oh, the irony....
 
Visbek said:
LOL

30 seconds ago, you blasted anyone who didn't outright state the percentage of carbon in the atmosphere as a sign of a lack of understanding, and starting from "profound ignorance." And now, you refuse to actually explain yourself. By your own criteria, that means you don't know what you're talking about. Oh, the irony....
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm amazed how little you understand the issue you so haughtily claim to believe in.
 
Renae said:
Nope, I'm amazed how little you understand the issue you so haughtily claim to believe in.
Click to expand...
LOLOL

So the rules for you are different than for everyone else. Good to know!

Since you're clearly a denialist, I can only assume you mean water vapor. If so, it's a common denialist tactic to suggest that the impact of water vapor dwarfs that of CO2. Of course, doing so ignores how the increase in CO2 is what causes much of the increase in water vapor in the atmosphere, as well as its impact. This type of feedback loop is one reason why gases like CO2 have a large impact on the earth's energy budget.
 
Jack Hays said:
More from the link in #104:

The red line is the five-year running mean of the 102 computer models that can generate temperatures in this layer, found in the latest (2013) scientific assessment of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Click to expand...

Lots of copypasta. But no answer to the question.
 
Visbek said:
LOL

30 seconds ago, you blasted anyone who didn't outright state the percentage of carbon in the atmosphere as a sign of a lack of understanding, and starting from "profound ignorance." And now, you refuse to actually explain yourself. By your own criteria, that means you don't know what you're talking about. Oh, the irony....
Click to expand...

It's the bubba 'Socratic method' of argumentation.

It's used by people who are pretty clueless on the issue, but want to pretend they understand it.
 
Visbek said:
LOL

30 seconds ago, you blasted anyone who didn't outright state the percentage of carbon in the atmosphere as a sign of a lack of understanding, and starting from "profound ignorance." And now, you refuse to actually explain yourself. By your own criteria, that means you don't know what you're talking about. Oh, the irony....
Click to expand...

FYI- he earns water vapor, because he read on a denier website that it's important.

He doesn't grasp that water vapor increases with temperature.

Science is hard for some.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom