• 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!

Major paleoclimate paper shows...warming has been even greater than we thought.

Surface Detail said:
Yes, there's nothing wrong with the original version. Remember, though, that it doesn't include the past 150 years or so. I think the temperature of the interior of Greenland has risen by a few degrees (much more strongly than global warming due to polar amplification) over that time, so would look like a vertical line of significant length if added to the end of that graph.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this isn't CRU. We don't splice observations to proxy series.::mrgreen:
 
Surface Detail said:
Why wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

Still lower temps than earlier. Here are many graphs, running to 2000.


Global versus Greenland Holocene Temperatures

By Andy May Last week, I posted a global temperature reconstruction based mostly on Marcott, et al. 2013 proxies. The post can be found here. In the comments on the Wattsupwiththat post there was considerable discussion about the difference between my Northern Hemisphere mid-latitude (30°N to 60°N) and the GISP2 Richard Alley central Greenland temperature…

June 18, 2017 in Paleoclimatology.

An example:

061817_1919_globalversu2.png

Figure 2​
 
Lord of Planar said:
I would say the sun is the primary cause. So many however. CO2 cannot warm as much as claimed when you account for the indirect effects of the solar changes, atmospheric opacity changes, temperature monitoring site readings being skewed by evapotranspiration, soot melting ice, and more.

The IPCC for example considered 1750 to 2011 in their AR5. However, the sun started warming 1n 1713 and it takes several decades to see most the effects from changes. It is the driving force for all the downforcing from the atmosphere, so the direct and indirect forcing total, is about three times what is stated as direct forcing changes. The IPCC et. all. conveniently only talk about direct forcing changes, as adding in the indirect forcing is an inconvenient truth. Aerosols cause us problems. Especially on the snow and ice. The darkening of ice approximately doubles the melt rate. Forcing studies of CO2 are primarily based on taking a believed part of warming cause by it, and integrating it with the changes in concentrations. With so many variables being improperly accounted for, it TCS and ECS are no doubt dubious at best.
Click to expand...

You do realize that is a bit like saying a blanket won't keep you warm at night because it keeps the hot air blowing from the heating ducts out. :roll:
 
calamity said:
You do realize that is a bit like saying a blanket won't keep you warm at night because it keeps the hot air blowing from the heating ducts out. :roll:
Click to expand...

Wow...

You are so wrong. I'm sorry you don't understand cause and effect.
 
calamity said:
You do realize that is a bit like saying a blanket won't keep you warm at night because it keeps the hot air blowing from the heating ducts out. :roll:
Click to expand...
If what was under the blanket was a cold rock, the blanket would not do anything.
Most of the energy emitted from the earth, first got there from the sun,
so the blanket analogy is not a good comparison, as a person under a blanket is generating their own heat.
 
longview said:
If what was under the blanket was a cold rock, the blanket would not do anything.
Most of the energy emitted from the earth, first got there from the sun,
so the blanket analogy is not a good comparison, as a person under a blanket is generating their own heat.
Click to expand...

lol...you think the earth is a cold rock! :lol: Jesus ****ing Christ. No wonder we can't have a reasonable discussion on this subject.
 
calamity said:
lol...you think the earth is a cold rock! :lol: Jesus ****ing Christ. No wonder we can't have a reasonable discussion on this subject.
Click to expand...
If sunlight was not striking the earth continuously, it would be a very cold rock.
 
longview said:
If sunlight was not striking the earth continuously, it would be a very cold rock.
Click to expand...

You do know that said sunlight shines right through my metaphorical blanket. Right?
 
calamity said:
You do know that said sunlight shines right through my metaphorical blanket. Right?
Click to expand...
Only if the sun actually shines.
Your original comment/analogy was,
"You do realize that is a bit like saying a blanket won't keep you warm at night because it keeps the hot air blowing from the heating ducts out."
I pointed out it was a poor analogy, because a blanket slows the heat loss from the energy source under
the blanket.
In the case of the Earth the majority of the energy originates from the sun, not the earth.
 
longview said:
Only if the sun actually shines.
Your original comment/analogy was,
"You do realize that is a bit like saying a blanket won't keep you warm at night because it keeps the hot air blowing from the heating ducts out."
I pointed out it was a poor analogy, because a blanket slows the heat loss from the energy source under
the blanket.
In the case of the Earth the majority of the energy originates from the sun, not the earth.
Click to expand...

The sun's rays get through the CO2, but the heat does not radiate back out to space. Hence, the blanket analogy. :doh
 
calamity said:
The sun's rays get through the CO2, but the heat does not radiate back out to space. Hence, the blanket analogy. :doh
Click to expand...
it only works when you acknowledge that the energy first originates with the sun, if the sun was not there,
there would be almost no energy.
In your analogy the air blowing from the heating duct, is the sunlight.
 
longview said:
it only works when you acknowledge that the energy first originates with the sun, if the sun was not there,
there would be almost no energy.
In your analogy the air blowing from the heating duct, is the sunlight.
Click to expand...

Uh, try sleeping without heat in winter and tell me how well that works for ya. Ditto, no blanket. :doh
 
calamity said:
Uh, try sleeping without heat in winter and tell me how well that works for ya. Ditto, no blanket. :doh
Click to expand...
I am guessing you do not have a firm grasp on physics, being unable to identify a primary energy source vs a secondary one.
While we are at it, perhaps you would like to discuss why CO2 seems to work better at night.
 
How can this be? There hasn't been any warming in over 20 years.

The only place where evidence of warming exists is in computer models. Garbage in, garbage out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom