• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lickwx said:
It’s not a few lol. None of it made sense , Charlotte warmed 1.3 degrees Asheville 1.5 but Boone cooled and Raleigh and Greensboro didn’t budge . Nashville warmed like 2 degrees lmao , it’s embarrassing really.
Click to expand...

I'm almost certain a large portion of the warming in cities is due to the increased overnight lows due to UHI. I check all the reporting stations in the Peachtree City NOAA region, and I can tell you for certain that there is some very flawed recording of temperatures going on. I'll provide an example.

This is a station near my area, completely unacceptable:

1625841422487.png
 
NoSnowATL said:
Its simple and I've said it a few million times. Just stop trying to control the climate and let whatever happens happen. My guess is that we die from a asteroid before we die from GW.
Click to expand...
People need a cause to fight for, to make themselves feel important and everybody else is ignorant.
 
Lickwx said:
It’s not a few lol. None of it made sense , Charlotte warmed 1.3 degrees Asheville 1.5 but Boone cooled and Raleigh and Greensboro didn’t budge . Nashville warmed like 2 degrees lmao , it’s embarrassing really.
Click to expand...
Yes you definitely gave us all the reports a couple months back talking about this.
 
J.C. said:
I'm almost certain a large portion of the warming in cities is due to the increased overnight lows due to UHI. I check all the reporting stations in the Peachtree City NOAA region, and I can tell you for certain that there is some very flawed recording of temperatures going on. I'll provide an example.

This is a station near my area, completely unacceptable:

View attachment 86368
Click to expand...
Thank you, no one wants to talk about that
 
Something to keep in mind is the UHI effect. Many stations used to be somewhat rural or had less of an UHI effect years ago and now as cities have grown larger and expanded, the UHI creates a warmer microclimate especially in large cities. There have been studies that have shown cities can routinely be 5-10F warmer than the surrounding rural and country areas.
 
J.C. said:
Am I the only one that thinks that a potentially longer growing season in the more northern and southern latitudes would be a positive outcome with regards to food production? Its like climate alarmist want the late 1700s mini ice age all over again.
Click to expand...

Not at all. There clearly are some benefits to GW. A warmer world is quite probably a better world when netting all things out. The alarmists will gloss these over of course. The globe has warmed about ~3 F since the late 1800s. That in itself is a good thing even if it is something I don't personally prefer.
 
Think of the world as your bathroom mirror when you take a shower. Hot water makes the room more humid, where the steam collects on your cooler mirror. Which in the real world, warmer temps will melt ice, and, helps evaporate more moisture, that will in return, cause more clouds and more rain globally. Personally, I don't believe mankind affects the temperature, If not just a little bit. People do not understand the mathematics of the amount of energy that is needed to warm the Earth 1 degree. Imagine trying to raise the temperature of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic ocean by 1 degree. I believe I read that it would that it would take the amount of energy of several nuclear blasts. Also, I'm not sure how much of this extra energy is lost at night, But I would think a good amount would be lost floating back out to space at night. The only thing that make that type of energy is the sun. The sun is stronger than you think. It can burn your skin in hours and fade paint. I pretty sure that my engine in my car makes more heat, than the carbon out of my tail pipe. Also, that carbon is just being put back into the carbon cycle, which some has warned we are becoming carbon poor in nature.. Like I said , it is my opinion but I believe there are small fluctuations in amount of energy the sun puts out . Also you have to include major events like multiple Volcano eruptions also.
P.s. Just the amount of water in the oceans, not lakes, clouds, ice or rivers. Imagine how hot you get your stove top to warm water. (352,670,000,000,000,000,000 gallon-sized milk containers! Recent estimates put the volume of the Earth's oceans at 1.332 cubic kilometers. This is equivalent to around , or 352 quintillion, gallons of water.)
 
Last edited:
VegasEagle said:
Think of the world as your bathroom mirror when you take a shower. Hot water makes the room more humid, where the steam collects on your cooler mirror. Which in the real world, warmer temps will melt ice, and, helps evaporate more moisture, that will in return, cause more clouds and more rain globally. Personally, I don't believe mankind affects the temperature, If not just a little bit. People do not understand the mathematics of the amount of energy that is needed to warm the Earth 1 degree. Imagine trying to raise the temperature of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic ocean by 1 degree. I believe I read that it would that it would take the amount of energy of several nuclear blasts. Also, I'm not sure how much of this extra energy is lost at night, But I would think a good amount would be lost floating back out to space at night. The only thing that make that type of energy is the sun. The sun is stronger than you think. It can burn your skin in hours and fade paint. I pretty sure that my engine in my car makes more heat, than the carbon out of my tail pipe. Also, that carbon is just being put back into the carbon cycle, which some has warned we are becoming carbon poor in nature.. Like I said , it is my opinion but I believe there are small fluctuations in amount of energy the sun puts out . Also you have to include major events like multiple Volcano eruptions also.
P.s. Just the amount of water in the oceans, not lakes, clouds, ice or rivers. Imagine how hot you get your stove top to warm water. (352,670,000,000,000,000,000 gallon-sized milk containers! Recent estimates put the volume of the Earth's oceans at 1.332 cubic kilometers. This is equivalent to around , or 352 quintillion, gallons of water.)
Click to expand...

The science on this is pretty cut and dry, we know the radiative forcing value of GHG's.....there is also some pretty good understanding of how much CO2 sink there is into global oceans, forest etc....the oceans are the primary sequester of CO2 gas and how FAST can they sequester versus the rate we are producing them is the problem. Mankind is releasing 30-40 gigatons of CO2 annually....oceans can sequester around 3-4 billion tons......so a tenth of what we are producing, global forest/landmass another 8-12 billion, at best the Earth is able to handle not even half of what we are producing annually.....this is why the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is raising at a rate that exceeds anything in the fossil record. This is 100% on us, we are directly responsible for whatever amount of warming we are seeing from this excess CO2....

Take a look at this...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Here is the NOAA chart showing the radiative forcing changes from https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-forcing

1625926051832.png

Since we know how much radiative forcing that extra CO2 produces we are able to make pretty good guesses at how much warming that is causing....and its more than just a little bit.....but I agree that its probably not as much as the warming alarmist claim. This gets the the crux of the issue, one side is chicken little saying the sky is falling and the other side is like if its any warming its just a bit and no big deal....I use to be pretty much on the side of we are not really causing much warming/it has been warmer in the past argument but when I dug down I realized the numbers are not lying and the math and physics involved are pretty undeniable when you look at it without any biases.
 
Downeastnc said:
The science on this is pretty cut and dry, we know the radiative forcing value of GHG's.....there is also some pretty good understanding of how much CO2 sink there is into global oceans, forest etc....the oceans are the primary sequester of CO2 gas and how FAST can they sequester versus the rate we are producing them is the problem. Mankind is releasing 30-40 gigatons of CO2 annually....oceans can sequester around 3-4 billion tons......so a tenth of what we are producing, global forest/landmass another 8-12 billion, at best the Earth is able to handle not even half of what we are producing annually.....this is why the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is raising at a rate that exceeds anything in the fossil record. This is 100% on us, we are directly responsible for whatever amount of warming we are seeing from this excess CO2....

Take a look at this...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Here is the NOAA chart showing the radiative forcing changes from https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-forcing

View attachment 86397

Since we know how much radiative forcing that extra CO2 produces we are able to make pretty good guesses at how much warming that is causing....and its more than just a little bit.....but I agree that its probably not as much as the warming alarmist claim. This gets the the crux of the issue, one side is chicken little saying the sky is falling and the other side is like if its any warming its just a bit and no big deal....I use to be pretty much on the side of we are not really causing much warming/it has been warmer in the past argument but when I dug down I realized the numbers are not lying and the math and physics involved are pretty undeniable when you look at it without any biases.
Click to expand...
Question, how and where did this Greenhouse gas atmospheric absorption theory get started and where was it tested?
 
Fact is the "experts assured us now for 20 years that the Arctic Ice would be gone in the summer (has not), 8 tornadoes would increase (have not) Hurricanes would be more numerous (have not), fires would engulf the planet (have not), snows would be a thing of the past (have not, well except for Columbia SC), droughts would increase in severity (have not), storms would be more severe (have not), temps would rise exponentially due to feedbacks (have not) and ad infinitum. When are these computer models going to be correct? I'll wait right here for the date.
 
MichaelJ said:
Question, how and where did this Greenhouse gas atmospheric absorption theory get started and where was it tested?
Click to expand...

Theory? It is not a theory.....if there was no system in place to sequester CO2 then what do you reckon the Earth would look like after hundreds of millions of years of CO2 being gassed out with no way to sequester it ( hint look up Venus ) ........do yourself a favor and read up on some of this stuff before you start sayin stuff like the carbon cycle is a theory....
 
Downeastnc said:
Theory? It is not a theory.....if there was no system in place to sequester CO2 then what do you reckon the Earth would look like after hundreds of millions of years of CO2 being gassed out with no way to sequester it ( hint look up Venus ) ........do yourself a favor and read up on some of this stuff before you start sayin stuff like the carbon cycle is a theory....
Click to expand...
I am lost , he did not say anything about the carbon cycle. Is it another way of saying Greenhouse gas atmospheric absorption theory? I will make it simple, explain the billions of barrels of oil.
 
VegasEagle said:
I am lost , he did not say anything about the carbon cycle. Is it another way of saying Greenhouse gas atmospheric absorption theory? I will make it simple, explain the billions of barrels of oil.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as the "Greenhouse gas atmospheric absorption theory...go re read the exchange I was talking about how man is producing more CO2 than the Earth's carbon cycle can handle...if we are making twice as much CO2 than the carbon cycle can handle, what happens to the excess CO2....it builds up in the air....I mean how do you explain these charts....given that we know we are doubling the capacity of what the earth can handle Co2 wise ANNUALLY it no real surprise that the charts looks the way they do, it is undeniable that we humans are rapidly increasing CO2 concentrations the only question is not if we are contributing to the warming but rather how much and what are the ramifications of not changing our CO2 output for several more decades.

Global-atmospheric-CO2-concentrations-from-1700-to-2021.jpg

or even further back.....

BAMS_SOTC_2019_co2_paleo_1000px.jpg
 
The truth is almost certainly somewhere between and well away from either extreme of far leftist catastrophic alarmists and far rightist denial that AGW even exists at all. It is politicized way too much, which sucks as I really hate political BS/tribalism. This is so far from black and white, but folks on both sides love to make it as if it were since they love to talk more about how the other side is wrong than anything else.
 
GaWx said:
The truth is almost certainly somewhere between and well away from either extreme of far leftist catastrophic alarmists and far rightist denial that AGW even exists at all. It is politicized way too much, which sucks as I really hate political BS/tribalism. This is so far from black and white, but folks on both sides love to make it as if it were since they love to talk more about how the other side is wrong than anything else.
Click to expand...

This is the problem with this topic, people cant see past their political biases and just look at the data.....there are several truths that both sides need to accept....

1) Man is certainly contributing to the warming, its impossible for us not to be.....

2) We cant pinpoint the exact amount of impact manmade GHG's are having but its not none and it grows more significant every day...
 
Downeastnc said:
This is the problem with this topic, people cant see past their political biases and just look at the data.....there are several truths that both sides need to accept....

1) Man is certainly contributing to the warming, its impossible for us not to be.....

2) We cant pinpoint the exact amount of impact manmade GHG's are having but its not none and it grows more significant every day...
Click to expand...

I agree with #1 totally. I mean even the 3 brilliant and knowledgeable skeptical folks @MichaelJ mentioned that support his own middle of the road position that even he said is similar to mine, have clearly stated they believe AGW exists. One of them, the brilliant Dr. Roy Spencer said:," I routinely take other skeptics to task for believing such things as 'there is no greenhouse effect',"

and

"I believe the climate system has warmed (we produce one of the global datasets that shows just that, which is widely used in the climate community), and that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning contributes to that warming"

Spencer, Curry, and Christy are skeptics not because they don't believe in AGW but because they don't believe in the alarmist catastrophic scenarios often shown by models and also spouted by leftists for political purposes. Look above for all the quotes I posted from all three of them.

In other words, these three believe that John Coleman is full of BS, but that also the leftist Democrats are full of BS.

You then said:
"2) We cant pinpoint the exact amount of impact manmade GHG's are having but its not none and it grows more significant every day.."

Regarding your #2, I agree with the first part 100% as nobody knows the exact amount of impact.

Regarding the 2nd part, I have several things to say: it does appear it is growing more significant every day but I also feel that at some point negative feedback of some kind (possibly unknown) may come in and halt the warming well before climate models say so. It could even happen soon for all I know. Or perhaps some totally different climo factor enters the picture and causes enough cooling to counter the AGW.

Also, I feel that you should have included what @J.C. mentioned: that increased food production and increased greening of our planet are likely positive effects of AGW. By the way, increased greening may itself eventually impart enough negative feedback to halt GW. Also, fewer people freezing to death, lower heating costs, etc. It is conceivable that AGW is a net positive for our planet. I don't know that, but it is something the left will never even mention for obvious reasons. I'm saying this even as one not far from the coast who is concerned about future sea level rises affecting Tybee Island, etc.
 
Last edited:
Downeastnc said:
There is no such thing as the "Greenhouse gas atmospheric absorption theory...go re read the exchange I was talking about how man is producing more CO2 than the Earth's carbon cycle can handle...if we are making twice as much CO2 than the carbon cycle can handle, what happens to the excess CO2....it builds up in the air....I mean how do you explain these charts....given that we know we are doubling the capacity of what the earth can handle Co2 wise ANNUALLY it no real surprise that the charts looks the way they do, it is undeniable that we humans are rapidly increasing CO2 concentrations the only question is not if we are contributing to the warming but rather how much and what are the ramifications of not changing our CO2 output for several more decades.

View attachment 86409

or even further back.....

View attachment 86410
Click to expand...
Who says that this is a bad thing. Explain oil and it's role in the carbon cycle.
 
GaWx said:
I agree with #1 totally. I mean even the 3 brilliant and knowledgeable skeptical folks @MichaelJ mentioned that support his own middle of the road position that even he said is similar to mine, have clearly stated they believe AGW exists. One of them, the brilliant Dr. Roy Spencer said:," I routinely take other skeptics to task for believing such things as 'there is no greenhouse effect',"

and

"I believe the climate system has warmed (we produce one of the global datasets that shows just that, which is widely used in the climate community), and that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning contributes to that warming"

Spencer, Curry, and Christy are skeptics not because they don't believe in AGW but because they don't believe in the alarmist catastrophic scenarios often shown by models and also spouted by leftists for political purposes. Look above for all the quotes I posted from all three of them.

In other words, these three believe that John Coleman is full of BS, but that also the leftist Democrats are full of BS.

You then said:
"2) We cant pinpoint the exact amount of impact manmade GHG's are having but its not none and it grows more significant every day.."

Regarding your #2, I agree with the first part 100% as nobody knows the exact amount of impact.

Regarding the 2nd part, I have several things to say: it does appear it is growing more significant every day but I also feel that at some point negative feedback of some kind (possibly unknown) may come in and halt the warming well before climate models say so. It could even happen soon for all I know. Or perhaps some totally different climo factor enters the picture and causes enough cooling to counter the AGW.

Also, I feel that you should have included what JC mentioned: that increased food production and increased greening of our planet are likely positive effects of AGW. By the way, increased greening may itself eventually impart enough negative feedback to halt GW. Also, fewer people freezing to death, lower heating costs, etc. It is conceivable that AGW is a net positive for our planet. I don't know that, but it is something the left will never even mention for obvious reasons. I'm saying this even as one not far from the coast who is concerned about future sea level rises affecting Tybee Island, etc.
Click to expand...

I agree the reforestation of the tundra will help act as a huge carbon sink, but the planet has a natural cycle, a ebb and flow that we are currently throwing out of whack......honestly trying to put a positive spin on it is a bit like polishing a turd, it looks good but it still smells like ----....the problem with this all is we simply do not know what or even if there is a "tipping point".....or if there is a counter point etc built into the system, the roll of the dice is huge here as if there is a tipping point and we pass it then all bets are off...

So there could be some "good" things that come from warming, and warming is going to occur anyways since we are in a interglacial period....still at the end of the day we are putting more into the system than the system can handle, as someone who works with complex machines and systems I can not think of one single one of them that reacts well to overloading......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top