• 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.
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...
Check out this graph and note the lack of correlation of CO2 concentration and temperatures.
1626066934904.png
 
MichaelJ said:
Check out this graph and note the lack of correlation of CO2 concentration and temperatures.
View attachment 86426
Click to expand...

Here is a good article on why this chart above does not make the point you think it makes...

earth.org

A Graphical History of Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Time | Earth.Org

As the most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, CO2 levels have varied widely over the course of the Earth’s 4.54 billion year history.
earth.org earth.org

1626084852337.png


1626084865638.png

The real kicker though is this chart......it plainly shows the effects of man surpassing the ability of the earth carbon cycle to sequester the excess CO2....

1626085067260.png
 
Downeastnc said:
Here is a good article on why this chart above does not make the point you think it makes...

earth.org

A Graphical History of Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Time | Earth.Org

As the most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, CO2 levels have varied widely over the course of the Earth’s 4.54 billion year history.
earth.org earth.org

View attachment 86427


View attachment 86428

The real kicker though is this chart......it plainly shows the effects of man surpassing the ability of the earth carbon cycle to sequester the excess CO2....

View attachment 86429
Click to expand...

The climate is stable over millennial timescales due the carbon cycle and we just threw a giant wrench into it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
The climate is stable over millennial timescales due the carbon cycle and we just threw a giant wrench into it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Not according to his article "At the time, atmospheric CO2 concentration was at a whopping 3000 to 9000 ppm! The average temperature wasn’t much more than 10 degrees C above today’s, and those of you who have heard of the runaway hothouse Earth scenario may wonder why it didn’t happen then. Major factors were that the Sun was cooler, and the planet’s orbital cycles were different"
 
VegasEagle said:
Not according to his article "At the time, atmospheric CO2 concentration was at a whopping 3000 to 9000 ppm! The average temperature wasn’t much more than 10 degrees C above today’s, and those of you who have heard of the runaway hothouse Earth scenario may wonder why it didn’t happen then. Major factors were that the Sun was cooler, and the planet’s orbital cycles were different"
Click to expand...

skepticalscience.com

Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

<p>When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate.</p>
skepticalscience.com

Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.

In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions.
 
I recall a few years ago Joe Bastardi theorized we would have another cooling period due to salt in the ocean sinking down closer to the abyss. Im not sure what the hell that even means, but nonetheless what he said. He also misses some seasonal forecasts (as you all know), so not sure anything he says is worth anything in regards to cooling.
 
Downeastnc said:
skepticalscience.com

Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

<p>When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate.</p>
skepticalscience.com

Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.

In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions.
Click to expand...

I think there is definitely a negative feedback that keeps CO2 low with plants moving north and to higher elevations as it warms and the weathering process increasing with higher precipitation rates. It would take thousands of years for the levels to get back to preindustrial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The forecast for Yakutsk Russia is 85 degrees. So they are dealing with some heat too. Summit Camp Greenland is also near freezing, very warm for their standards.
 
The global warming Chicken Little's insist that the sky is falling but don’t want you to know six key facts.

First, in his new book “Unsettled,” Obama Administration Department of Energy chief scientist Steven Koonin shows that the models relied upon by the Left to predict future global warming are so poor that they cannot even reproduce the temperature changes in the 20th century.

If these models cannot reproduce past temperatures already known when the models were developed, how can they possibly reliably predict temperatures decades into the future?

Second, Koonin’s book also documents that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s own analysis indicates that any negative economic impact that global warming eventually may have will be so modest that it warrants no action.

Third, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the UN IPPC do not claim that a link has been established between global warming and natural disasters.

In 2020, the NOAA stated: “it is premature to conclude with high confidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic basin hurricane activity,” and “changes in tropical cyclone activity … are not yet detectable.”

The UN IPPC, the Wall Street Journal reported, “says that it too lacks evidence to show that warming is making storms and flooding worse.”

Fourth, as the earth’s temperature has risen, natural disasters have become far less deadly.

Since 1920, the planet’s temperature has risen by 1.29 degrees Celsius and world population has quadrupled from less than two billion to over seven and half billion – yet EM-DAT, The International Disaster Database, reports that the number of people killed by natural disasters has declined by over 80 percent, from almost 55,000 per year to less than 10,000 per year.

Fifth, some of the world’s best scientists believe that global warming will be beneficial rather than harmful.

In 2017, a group of eminent scientists – such as Richard Lindzen of MIT, William Happer of Princeton, and Judith Curry of Georgia Tech – wrote that “[o]bservations [over the last] 25 years … show that warming from increased atmospheric CO2 will be benign.”

Carbon dioxide, they noted, “is not a pollutant but a major benefit to agriculture and other life on Earth.”

Sixth, global warming saves lives. A study published in 2015 by the British medical journal The Lancet found that cold kills over 17 times more people than heat.

This study by 22 scientists from around the world – which examined over 74 million deaths in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 1985-2012, “the largest dataset ever collected to assess temperature-health associations”– reported that cold caused 7.29 percent of these deaths, while heat caused only 0.42 percent.

And small changes in the temperature matter: “moderately hot and cold temperatures” caused 88.85 percent of the temperature-related deaths, while “extreme” temperatures caused only 11.15 percent.

We must not let the Left bully us into draconian action with unfounded claims of a looming climate catastrophe. Know the facts. Global warming is not a problem.
 
I might just have to sell my Jeep for a hybrid so I can do my part. If each person would do "their part", maybe we can offset GW together. Just remember, we will be the only nation participating.
 
MichaelJ said:
The global warming Chicken Little's insist that the sky is falling but don’t want you to know six key facts.

First, in his new book “Unsettled,” Obama Administration Department of Energy chief scientist Steven Koonin shows that the models relied upon by the Left to predict future global warming are so poor that they cannot even reproduce the temperature changes in the 20th century.

If these models cannot reproduce past temperatures already known when the models were developed, how can they possibly reliably predict temperatures decades into the future?

Second, Koonin’s book also documents that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s own analysis indicates that any negative economic impact that global warming eventually may have will be so modest that it warrants no action.

Third, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the UN IPPC do not claim that a link has been established between global warming and natural disasters.

In 2020, the NOAA stated: “it is premature to conclude with high confidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic basin hurricane activity,” and “changes in tropical cyclone activity … are not yet detectable.”

The UN IPPC, the Wall Street Journal reported, “says that it too lacks evidence to show that warming is making storms and flooding worse.”

Fourth, as the earth’s temperature has risen, natural disasters have become far less deadly.

Since 1920, the planet’s temperature has risen by 1.29 degrees Celsius and world population has quadrupled from less than two billion to over seven and half billion – yet EM-DAT, The International Disaster Database, reports that the number of people killed by natural disasters has declined by over 80 percent, from almost 55,000 per year to less than 10,000 per year.

Fifth, some of the world’s best scientists believe that global warming will be beneficial rather than harmful.

In 2017, a group of eminent scientists – such as Richard Lindzen of MIT, William Happer of Princeton, and Judith Curry of Georgia Tech – wrote that “[o]bservations [over the last] 25 years … show that warming from increased atmospheric CO2 will be benign.”

Carbon dioxide, they noted, “is not a pollutant but a major benefit to agriculture and other life on Earth.”

Sixth, global warming saves lives. A study published in 2015 by the British medical journal The Lancet found that cold kills over 17 times more people than heat.

This study by 22 scientists from around the world – which examined over 74 million deaths in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 1985-2012, “the largest dataset ever collected to assess temperature-health associations”– reported that cold caused 7.29 percent of these deaths, while heat caused only 0.42 percent.

And small changes in the temperature matter: “moderately hot and cold temperatures” caused 88.85 percent of the temperature-related deaths, while “extreme” temperatures caused only 11.15 percent.

We must not let the Left bully us into draconian action with unfounded claims of a looming climate catastrophe. Know the facts. Global warming is not a problem.
Click to expand...

This sounds reasonable to me and is near where I stand (in the middle) as well as in the general area where Curry, Christy, and Spencer all are. None of this denies AGW at all, but it denies the likelihood of it becoming a catastrophe and also mentions the benefits of warming. It also mentions the unreliability of models and that the worst case scenarios predicted by them can't be relied on to be accurate.
 
GaWx said:
This sounds reasonable to me and is near where I stand (in the middle) as well as in the general area where Curry, Christy, and Spencer all are. None of this denies AGW at all, but it denies the likelihood of it becoming a catastrophe and also mentions the benefits of warming. It also mentions the unreliability of models and that the worst case scenarios predicted by them can't be relied on to be accurate.
Click to expand...
No, you need to sell your trucks, suv's, boats, 4 wheelers and find a different solution. No more jet rides to your favorite destinations and vacation spots on Earth. No more cruises for you and your family to enjoy majestic locations you otherwise wouldn't get to see. Don't even think about using 2 ply toilet paper, or eating steak because we ALL know the dangers of cow farts. These people are the ones that want to run our economy and tell us they know what's best for us. Even if that was the case, is this how you go about convincing people??
 
Extreme flooding is common now with the recent floods in Japan and now this one.

www.npr.org

Torrential Rain And Flooding Are Wreaking Havoc Across Western Germany

The storms also have struck Belgium and other European countries. More than 60 people have died and dozens remain missing. In Germany has a state of emergency and the army has been deployed.
www.npr.org www.npr.org


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
Extreme flooding is common now with the recent floods in Japan and now this one.

www.npr.org

Torrential Rain And Flooding Are Wreaking Havoc Across Western Germany

The storms also have struck Belgium and other European countries. More than 60 people have died and dozens remain missing. In Germany has a state of emergency and the army has been deployed.
www.npr.org www.npr.org


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

How can you prove this is related to AGW? Of course the climate change alarmists are going to jump on most wx catastrophes and blame them on AGW with zero proof.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top