• 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

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,650
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This graph speaks for itself!

Climate_Central_CO2_Temp.jpg
 
This graph speaks for itself!

View attachment 67224942

But it is good to connect the appropriate data to the question. Climate is a long term thing and moves at glacial speed. To understand it you require long data sets more in the region of millions of years than decades or even centuries. This does not mean that a decade or two are not interesting. But it is difficult to take it as proof that co2 is a major driver. This is especially true, when one considers that long data sets of millions of years seem to show climate to have been the driver. Again, this does not prove that it must be so this time. But you would need to go deeper than three short columns of numbers.
 
A head tax on births might help, you think? ;)

Last I checked, it cost in excess of $250,000 to raise a child from 0 to 18....if that's not enough deincentive...
 
Last I checked, it cost in excess of $250,000 to raise a child from 0 to 18....if that's not enough deincentive...

Most folks don’t realize the size of the hit. An up front payment to be made before birth would be a wake up call. ;)
 
Most folks don’t realize the size of the hit. An up front payment to be made before birth would be a wake up call. ;)

Most folks don't realize a lot but, saving up for having a child wouldn't be a bad idea. ;)
 
This graph speaks for itself!

View attachment 67224942

What the unlinked, unsourced graph speaks for is the importance of presentational manipulation. If the two scales on either side were not calibrated "just so" then the apparently matching curves would disappear. The graph is a visual aid for propaganda.
 
This graph speaks for itself!

View attachment 67224942

The graph may speak for itself, but it could be saying something other that what you think.
It shows that temperature and CO2 levels appear to have rose at the same rate (when you adjust the scaling).
The saying the "Correlation does not imply causation" may apply or it may not,
but it also could be that the increase in CO2 levels could be a result of the higher temperatures.
There is clear evidence in the ice core records of the temperature increase causing the CO2 increase.
But even if we make the assumption that the temperature is a response to the CO2 level, what would that mean?
While graphs are a bit subjective, yours shows an 1880 (blue line) temperature of about 0 C at 290 ppm and a 2016 temperature
of about 1 C at 400 ppm. so 1/ln (400/290)= 3.109, 3.109 X ln (2)= 2.15 C
If we have a ECS of 2.15 C IF we ever manage to achieve a doubling of CO2, should we be concerned?
Also the reality is not that bad, because 2016's average temperature will be closer to .9 C, once the effects of the El Nino
are discounted, so it will be .9/ln(403/290)=2.735, 2.735 X ln(2)=1.89 C.
This is looking a lot less alarming all the time.
Now let's add in that most of the warming is not added to the daily highs, but to the evening lows,
with most of that occurring during the cooler months, and AGW is starting to look like a positive
to an activity that is currently necessary for human existence.
 
This graph speaks for itself!

No it doesn't. Real science is more complicated than that. If you looked hard enough you could find a similar graph matching global temperatures and cases of lymphoma diagnosed, or something.
 
No it doesn't. Real science is more complicated than that. If you looked hard enough you could find a similar graph matching global temperatures and cases of lymphoma diagnosed, or something.

It's funny how a thread on Mankind Induced Climate Change turns everybody into a scientific expert. I have a Bachelors of Science and I claim no such expertise, because I'm not a Climatologist. Therefore I go to the experts. The National Climate Assessment of 2014 is authored by such experts, and reviewed by hundreds of experts, along with the National Academy of Scientists. Here is one of their statements:

Overview | National Climate Assessment

Multiple lines of independent evidence confirm that human activities are the primary cause of the global warming of the past 50 years. The burning of coal, oil, and gas, and clearing of forests have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more than 40% since the Industrial Revolution, and it has been known for almost two centuries that this carbon dioxide traps heat. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture and other human activities add to the atmospheric burden of heat-trapping gases. Data show that natural factors like the sun and volcanoes cannot have caused the warming observed over the past 50 years. Sensors on satellites have measured the sun’s output with great accuracy and found no overall increase during the past half century. Large volcanic eruptions during this period, such as Mount Pinatubo in 1991, have exerted a short-term cooling influence. In fact, if not for human activities, global climate would actually have cooled slightly over the past 50 years. The pattern of temperature change through the layers of the atmosphere, with warming near the surface and cooling higher up in the stratosphere, further confirms that it is the buildup of heat-trapping gases (also known as “greenhouse gases”) that has caused most of the Earth’s warming over the past half century.
 
It's funny how a thread on Mankind Induced Climate Change turns everybody into a scientific expert. I have a Bachelors of Science and I claim no such expertise, because I'm not a Climatologist. Therefore I go to the experts. The National Climate Assessment of 2014 is authored by such experts, and reviewed by hundreds of experts, along with the National Academy of Scientists. Here is one of their statements:

Overview | National Climate Assessment

Multiple lines of independent evidence confirm that human activities are the primary cause of the global warming of the past 50 years. The burning of coal, oil, and gas, and clearing of forests have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more than 40% since the Industrial Revolution, and it has been known for almost two centuries that this carbon dioxide traps heat. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture and other human activities add to the atmospheric burden of heat-trapping gases. Data show that natural factors like the sun and volcanoes cannot have caused the warming observed over the past 50 years. Sensors on satellites have measured the sun’s output with great accuracy and found no overall increase during the past half century. Large volcanic eruptions during this period, such as Mount Pinatubo in 1991, have exerted a short-term cooling influence. In fact, if not for human activities, global climate would actually have cooled slightly over the past 50 years. The pattern of temperature change through the layers of the atmosphere, with warming near the surface and cooling higher up in the stratosphere, further confirms that it is the buildup of heat-trapping gases (also known as “greenhouse gases”) that has caused most of the Earth’s warming over the past half century.

Yes, thank you for posting further details that agree with what I said.

You can't just post two sets of datapoints and declare it "speaks for itself." Here's an example:

autism_organic_foods.jpg
 
Except for the fact that most of the data the left is using to claim man-made climate change is from politicized science with no realistic peer review.
 
Except for the fact that most of the data the left is using to claim man-made climate change is from politicized science with no realistic peer review.

Laughable assertion. And ironic, considering that's what describes your side of the argument ;)
 
Woah, a graph. I guess that settles it. :rolleyes:

Settles it for those ignorant of science that don't realize several unrelated things can have similar trends.
 
Except for the fact that most of the data the left is using to claim man-made climate change is from politicized science with no realistic peer review.

Is that a fact? Where do you guys come up with this ****. From my link earlier.

The National Climate Assessment summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future. A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.
 
Yes, thank you for posting further details that agree with what I said.

You can't just post two sets of datapoints and declare it "speaks for itself." Here's an example:

autism_organic_foods.jpg

The correlation is one thing. The consensus of scientific experts is what really seals the deal. How many scientific experts agree with your graph? 97-98%?
 
The correlation is one thing. The consensus of scientific experts is what really seals the deal. How many scientific experts agree with your graph? 97-98%?

Except that the consensus is only that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, whose increase will cause some warming.
The range of the warming that doubling the CO2 level will caused has not changed in 20 plus years, (1.5 to 4.5C).
If there was any consensus on how much warming 2XCO2 would cause, the range would start to tighten up!
 
This graph speaks for itself!

View attachment 67224942

It was 10 degrees below normal in Indianapolis the last few days. That speaks for itself as well.

Doesn't say a thing about the cause of climate change or put climate change in the context of geographic time just as your graph does not.

I saw a news report. I think it was NBC. The info babe was talking with a scientist and they were lamenting the melting glaciers in Glacier National Park. She asked why the glaciers were melting. The scientist guy said words to the effect that it was getting warmer.

She went on to say that the glaciers had been there for 7000 years. She did not close the circle on this comment, though: THE GLACIERS WERE NOT THER 8000 YEARS AGO.

Why? Because it was warmer.

However, the CO2 was dramatically lower; about 280 ppm.

WHAT CAUSED THAT WARMING?

Did you know that the deceptive graph you posted starts the measure of climate from the coldest point of climate in this interglacial?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
<snip>


Temperature variations during the Holocene from a collection of different reconstructions and their average. The most recent period is on the right, but the recent warming is not shown on the graph.
<snip>
 
Back
Top Bottom