• 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!

Climate Change from CO2 - it's Hard to Refute the Actual Data

KerouacJack said:
link to study?
Click to expand...

Good question. It's been years ago. The study itself is easily found. Not that supplemental material of the study. Last time I looked, I didn't find it.

I don't care if you believe me or not.

The word "significant" is simply not quantified, and if left for almost any interpretation. For you not to understand and believe this is your failing. Not mine.
 
Rickeroo said:
Looking at the Mauna Loa CO2 record, I tend to doubt the validity of super-stable CO2 levels, for example the oft-cited pre-industrial level of 280ppm that supposedely lasted for millennia. Prior to Mauna Loa, CO2 measurements were proxies and not direct atmospheric samples. When one looks at the Mauna Loa record, the ppm added to the atmosphere widely differed between 1998 and 1999 irrespective of human emissions (2.93ppm vs 0.93ppm). The 2ppm difference represents well over a 0.5% change in the entire CO2 concentration over a one year period, naturally occurring, yet we are to believe that it remained at 280ppm year over year for a very long time.
Click to expand...

It all depends on the averaging rate one wishes to use, and where it's measured. I never claimed there was any "super stability." please don't do that.
 
Russell797 said:
Sure, because in all such assessments there are error bars or margins of error. 3.7 watts is the most likely value. 1.1C or 1.2C also come with error bars....it's the most likely value..both could just as well be higher as lower.
Click to expand...
Why would the 3.7 Wm-2 be the most likely value? It and the others are based on assumptions of how the atmosphere will react to the added CO2.
The actual CERES measurements come out considerable lower.
 
Originally Posted by Russell797 View Post
Yes they most likely did..With average global temperatures that high, there will be regions where the wet bulb temperature exceeds 35C degrees...I won't go into detail what that is, you can look it up. Suffice it to say mammalian species like humans can not shed their own generated body heat to the environment under those conditions.

There will be regions where those conditions are met with an increase of 2-3C degrees.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
So why I was on holiday in Jordan and it was 40c I died did I?

I was dead the whole time I, and my wife, walked about Petra, the ancient city, which was built during the Roman warm period when it was warmer than now?
Click to expand...
KerouacJack said:
you didn't understand a word of what he wrote from your response...

What does wet bulb temperature mean and how does that relate to what he wrote?
Click to expand...

Try understanding that I did understand his point. That I do understand that humans, and lots of other mamals, live in places where the temperature regularly exceedes the 34c death situation he described without dying. That I have supplied evidence that shows it to be drivel.

India during the monsoon will often be like that.

The Nabotean civilisation happened during the climate of the Roman warm period. It ended when it got cooler. That time was warmer than now.
 
Russell797 said:
Our eyes and instruments show us melting alpine glaciers, rising oceans, warming seas and atmosphere, shifting climate zones, declining sea ice..We see the signs of a warming planet. What do you see?
Click to expand...

The signs of a warming planet.

And this slight warming is bad why?
 
Russell797 said:
I guarantee that the WET BULB temperature was not 40C degrees.....You didn't understand my post at all.
Click to expand...

No, the wet bulb temperature is that of body temperature if the humidity is 100%.

However, humans live in places that exceed this.
 
Threegoofs said:
That’s kinda how science works, if you didn’t know, because you can’t actually observe everything yourself.

But our eyes tell us that what virtually all the scientists who study this know is real. Melting is accelerating, just as predicted, if not worse.

fe997e9671c11daddae828589014ca98.jpg
Click to expand...

Is that stream the size of the Mississippi?

No? OK is it 10% of the Mississippi?

Ummmm, how many of those do you need for 18 Mississippi's?

Numbers matter.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Try understanding that I did understand his point. That I do understand that humans, and lots of other mamals, live in places where the temperature regularly exceedes the 34c death situation he described without dying. That I have supplied evidence that shows it to be drivel.

India during the monsoon will often be like that.

The Nabotean civilisation happened during the climate of the Roman warm period. It ended when it got cooler. That time was warmer than now.
Click to expand...

You might be missing that a 40C wet bulb temperature would be like 40C at 100% humidity. Not only does the temperature exceed the body's temperature, but the body cannot achieve any evaporation cooling.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You might be missing that a 40C wet bulb temperature would be like 40C at 100% humidity. Not only does the temperature exceed the body's temperature, but the body cannot achieve any evaporation cooling.
Click to expand...

I think what is missing is that while many places regularly exceed 37C (98.6 F), the humidity when they do so is not near 100 percent.
The dew point is usually right at dawn, as the daily temperature warms the humidity drops as the warmer air can hold more moisture.
Very few places support a wet bulb 37C, and AGW's warmer evenings is unlikely to change that much.
 
longview said:
I think what is missing is that while many places regularly exceed 37C (98.6 F), the humidity when they do so is not near 100 percent.
The dew point is usually right at dawn, as the daily temperature warms the humidity drops as the warmer air can hold more moisture.
Very few places support a wet bulb 37C, and AGW's warmer evenings is unlikely to change that much.
Click to expand...

At some point in your sparring, the 40C wet bulb was brought up, and you ignored it. I think it's safe to say you ignored it for how silly the idea was, but just the same, you gave them a shallow perceived win that way.

It is funny he thinks a 40C wet bulb temperature could be maintained...
 
Lord of Planar said:
You might be missing that a 40C wet bulb temperature would be like 40C at 100% humidity. Not only does the temperature exceed the body's temperature, but the body cannot achieve any evaporation cooling.
Click to expand...

Yet still people manage to live in places that experience that sort of temperature.

Lots of people.

Big cities.

Sucessful cities.
 
Media_Truth said:
There are some positives, but they are heavily outweighed by negatives. Many details in the attached:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

The negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives.
Click to expand...

In YOUR OWN words what are the negative impacts so far of global warming?

Last time this happened it took me over 20 repeated questions to 3 goofs before he admitted that there have, so far, been no bad things happen due to global warming.
 
Tim the plumber said:

In YOUR OWN words what are the negative impacts so far of global warming?

Last time this happened it took me over 20 repeated questions to 3 goofs before he admitted that there have, so far, been no bad things happen due to global warming.
Click to expand...

You have a creative imagination!

I guess one cannot understand and remember things when they have a vested interest in not understanding it...

Climate change impacts | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Climate Change Sends Beetles Into Overdrive | Science | AAAS

https://www.edf.org/climate/how-climate-change-plunders-planet

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
 
Rickeroo said:
There was a 2ppm difference between the added CO2 for 1998 and 1999. Assuming human emissions were equal between the years, that leaves only natural causes for the 2ppm. If nature can force a difference of 2ppm in a year, then I believe nature can raise the total CO2 well beyond 400ppm if given years of warm weather. 1998 was an anomaly to be sure, but it demonstrates what happens to CO2 concentrations with warm weather - they increase dramatically and instantly.

I've heard of the C12/C13 ratio before. The current fractions are 98.93% and 1.109%, according to wiki. Where can I find what those values were in the past?
Click to expand...

Regardless of the particular event (1998 and other's by the way), CO2 acts as a feedback to warming...that's why it goes from about 180ppm to 280ppm from full glaciation periods to interglacials. If you are trying to demonstrate the fact that the oceans out gas CO2 as they warm, we already know that. However, that is not the reason CO2 has risen from 280ppm to 405ppm.

As for where to find the isotopic ratio information I don't know...you could do the search as well as I could if you are interested.
 
CLAX1911 said:
well yeah why would you just take the first opinion you get? If you're going to die what difference does it make?
Click to expand...

People seek additional opinions because they are looking for confirmation and consistency in the outlook. They seek a consensus of opinion. The science dictates the opinion of the doctors...the science dictates the consensus among climate scientists. Your word games not withstanding, that's how it works.



yes the unwashed masses Art Worthy to even touch the Robes of the Holy.

Arrogance is folly.


That's called Church no thanks.
Click to expand...

Your disrespect for science is noted. No wonder you don't trust science.
 
longview said:
Why would the 3.7 Wm-2 be the most likely value? It and the others are based on assumptions of how the atmosphere will react to the added CO2.
The actual CERES measurements come out considerable lower.
Click to expand...

They are not assumptions. The values come from detailed line by line spectral analysis as applied to radiative transfer found in the HITRAN database.

HITRANonline
 
Tim the plumber said:

In YOUR OWN words what are the negative impacts so far of global warming?

Last time this happened it took me over 20 repeated questions to 3 goofs before he admitted that there have, so far, been no bad things happen due to global warming.
Click to expand...

You lost him when you said "In YOUR OWN words".

3g on wtf.jpg
 
Tim the plumber said:

In YOUR OWN words what are the negative impacts so far of global warming?

Last time this happened it took me over 20 repeated questions to 3 goofs before he admitted that there have, so far, been no bad things happen due to global warming.
Click to expand...

I hope people are enjoying the escalating heat waves, droughts and wild fires...Get used to them..
 
Lord of Planar said:
Good question. It's been years ago. The study itself is easily found. Not that supplemental material of the study. Last time I looked, I didn't find it.

I don't care if you believe me or not.

The word "significant" is simply not quantified, and if left for almost any interpretation. For you not to understand and believe this is your failing. Not mine.
Click to expand...

The word significance as used scientifically refers to statistical likelihood. It is very much quantified.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Try understanding that I did understand his point. That I do understand that humans, and lots of other mamals, live in places where the temperature regularly exceedes the 34c death situation he described without dying. That I have supplied evidence that shows it to be drivel.

India during the monsoon will often be like that.

The Nabotean civilisation happened during the climate of the Roman warm period. It ended when it got cooler. That time was warmer than now.
Click to expand...

No you don't understand what wet bulb temperature is .

You said that the temperature was 40C....and that if I were correct you should be dead....

Let convert to Fahrenheit. 40C is 104F degrees...So if the wet bulb temperature where 104F degrees the relative humidity would be 100%...104F with 100% relative humidity will kill you really, really fast. The human body can not shed it's metabolically generated heat when the ambient temperature is greater than the body's temperature and evaporation is not possible..At a wet bulb temperature of 35C humans simply can not survive...

Deny all you wish, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
 
Last edited:
Russell797 said:
I hope people are enjoying the escalating heat waves, droughts and wild fires...Get used to them..
Click to expand...

So you can link to any actual science that shows an increase in such events?

Actual paper which shows an increase in the frequency using statistics and stuff?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom