• 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.
Shawn said:
You know what chaps my a$$ though? (i support/supported trump); is his stupid rhetoric on

All humans know co2 is bad. Oxygen is good. Our survival is based on it. .
Click to expand...
c02 also has very good benefits, it's not just something bad.
Shawn said:
You know what chaps my a$$ though? (i support/supported trump); is his stupid rhetoric on Twitter about how this cold weather is a reason to have global warming or not, as a whole. Once again. Political.

If you remove the government & politics from the debate, guess what? People will listen. Right now, its a divisive. Sucks. But people naturally, want to be opposite of each other. All the idiots in Washington have to do is draw a line in the sand to make people think one way or another. Think about it for a second.

All humans know co2 is bad. Oxygen is good. Our survival is based on it. The government has used it as a tool, for both the left and right, to divide people.
Click to expand...
I asked Dr. Roy Spencer, climate scientist, for a reply to what you said here, and here it is:
Human survival (as all animals) is dependent on food, and the food chain collapses if there's no CO2 for photosynthesis. So, while oxygen is necessary for humans, oxygen AND CO2 is necessary for ALL life on Earth to exist. Yet, only 4 parts of 10,000 of the atmosphere are CO2, while O2 is 2,095 parts out of 10,000. Maybe we need way MORE CO2, just to be on the safe side?
 
Stormlover said:
c02 also has very good benefits, it's not just something bad.
I asked Dr. Roy Spencer, climate scientist, for a reply to what you said here, and here it is:
Human survival (as all animals) is dependent on food, and the food chain collapses if there's no CO2 for photosynthesis. So, while oxygen is necessary for humans, oxygen AND CO2 is necessary for ALL life on Earth to exist. Yet, only 4 parts of 10,000 of the atmosphere are CO2, while O2 is 2,095 parts out of 10,000. Maybe we need way MORE CO2, just to be on the safe side?
Click to expand...
We keep cutting down trees, though. :( There is so much logging going on around here and up in the mountains.
 
Little Food for Tought:

Take your hand over a fire after its been burning and the flame long gone. All you see is a couple of minature embers glaring red. You still feel the heat but not nearly as intense as you do when the fire is flaming.

Now think of the Earth as the fire pit. When the sun is beaming down on one side its warming any and everything under its rays. The sun has been doing this since the begining of time. Also since the begining of time the sun has been warming the same land masses, oceans etc. However their is one big subtle change and thats the volume of Asphalt,Brick, buildings etc. Urbanization/development is a way bigger contributor to GW than fuel emmisions. Now when the sun goes down evryone on here knows what happens, we radiate but way less in urban areas compared to rural. So our big fire pit the earth has these embers putting off more and more heat each night as time progresses.

Yet youll never hear the govt chastise urban development and its effect on the enviroment. Reason being is they cant fit it into their political narrative and tax/grab power from that angle like they can the co2 avenue streams aka Big Oil/energy etc.
We all need to become better stewards of our enviroment and do our part, but we all need to get real in identifying the roots to the problem. Also one of the biggest beefs I have with GW aurgument and I dont feel like typing 100s of words to explain is the metrics we use to gather and analyze climate data in order to make past,present and future comparisons. Thats a whole other can of worms Ill save for another time.
 
NCSNOW said:
Little Food for Tought:

Take your hand over a fire after its been burning and the flame long gone. All you see is a couple of minature embers glaring red. You still feel the heat but not nearly as intense as you do when the fire is flaming.

Now think of the Earth as the fire pit. When the sun is beaming down on one side its warming any and everything under its rays. The sun has been doing this since the begining of time. Also since the begining of time the sun has been warming the same land masses, oceans etc. However their is one big subtle change and thats the volume of Asphalt,Brick, buildings etc. Urbanization/development is a way bigger contributor to GW than fuel emmisions. Now when the sun goes down evryone on here knows what happens, we radiate but way less in urban areas compared to rural. So our big fire pit the earth has these embers putting off more and more heat each night as time progresses.

Yet youll never hear the govt chastise urban development and its effect on the enviroment. Reason being is they cant fit it into their political narrative and tax/grab power from that angle like they can the co2 avenue streams aka Big Oil/energy etc.
We all need to become better stewards of our enviroment and do our part, but we all need to get real in identifying the roots to the problem. Also one of the biggest beefs I have with GW aurgument and I dont feel like typing 100s of words to explain is the metrics we use to gather and analyze climate data in order to make past,present and future comparisons. Thats a whole other can of worms Ill save for another time.
Click to expand...

Good post. I can get behind that idea of there is just too many people, building, destroying the natural land. That is a lot of my gripe, in fact. I used to live in the middle of nowhere, and now I have neighborhoods all around me and can't even see the stars right anymore. This place I am at was here well before anyone else; and I happened to have a good amount of land. I'm about to just leave and go elsewhere, where I can be at peace and have privacy and clean air. Then, within 15-20 years, the same process will repeat.
 
Another comment from Dr. Spencer:
and yet, satellites have been measuring global greening over the last few decades, especially in semi-arid areas. Sheesh. The headline is also dishonest...it would be physically impossible. All of that evaporated water from the ocean, none of it will fall on land, huh?

about this:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/science/earth-become-desert-2050-global-11795575
 
Stormlover said:
Another comment from Dr. Spencer:
and yet, satellites have been measuring global greening over the last few decades, especially in semi-arid areas. Sheesh. The headline is also dishonest...it would be physically impossible. All of that evaporated water from the ocean, none of it will fall on land, huh?

about this:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/science/earth-become-desert-2050-global-11795575
Click to expand...
That's the most ridiculous article headline ever. If you go with the whole sea levels rising argument, it means there is more water available, and there would be more rain in areas that get a constant wind flow. The reason we have deserts is because if moisture not getting over mountains, land, or unfavorable weather patterns. Earth would have to significantly cool for it to become a desert. That is the opposite if global warming and is just silly to think that the Earth can cool that rapidly to stop evaporation from the oceans. I doubt we see a drastic change that fast.
 
ForsythSnow said:
That's the most ridiculous article headline ever. If you go with the whole sea levels rising argument, it means there is more water available, and there would be more rain in areas that get a constant wind flow. The reason we have deserts is because if moisture not getting over mountains, land, or unfavorable weather patterns. Earth would have to significantly cool for it to become a desert. That is the opposite if global warming and is just silly to think that the Earth can cool that rapidly to stop evaporation from the oceans. I doubt we see a drastic change that fast.
Click to expand...
That's what is so amazing about so many of the fearmongers on GW, they are so far over the top that it's hard for anyone to buy what they are selling.
 
Climate changes because it always has and will. How much of that can be attributed to man is an open question but I believe it to be rather small, and most of that is due to land use changes not CO2. Personally I am more concerned with pollution (air/water/oceans etc) caused by man than I am CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide and other GHG emissions. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be smarter about our energy consumption but not enough to ruin the global economy in doing so. We have a planet of over 7,000,000,000 and it is increasing, so more food sources, jobs, infrastructure will have to be developed for that increasing population and that involves massive amounts of affordable energy being needed largely in the form of fossil fuels, coal, Nuclear and not solar panels, wind turbines etc. If I could only develop that perpetual energy machine I would be rich! :p
 
1300m said:
Here's some more research I did, spurred on by Climate Central worshipper Nate Johnson and WRAL weather.

First his post:
View attachment 2699

I'll admit, I was skeptical of this chart, so I decided to recreate it.

View attachment 2700

Looks the same right? So Nate is right, it's clearly getting warmer and he even says in his post he looked at other COOP sites across the state and saw similar results. So I decided to check to.

Let's start right down the road in Chapel Hill:

View attachment 2701

Nope, the 1985-89 period was clearly the warmest and no significant trend has emerged since then.

Moving on to Fayetteville:

View attachment 2702

No trend there, either.

Finally, Clayton:

View attachment 2703

Nope, no trend there.

RDU shows a clear trend towards more and more hot days, while Chapel Hill, Clayton, and Fayetteville all agree that we saw more 95F+ days in 85-89 than any period since then! I'm also curious if only RDU is getting into the global climate models (my suspicion).

I think what drew my ire the most from Johnson's post was when he said "we looked at some of the co-op observer sites around the area and we see similar trends there too". A) I don't believe they looked at all, and B) if they did, I wonder which ones they were because I see no trends that support the RDU data from the three more rural sites I looked at. I have long-believed that the microscale urban heat island effect at certain ASOS stations is the main buoy that keeps the global warming alarmists afloat, and I think this definitely supports that. It's just not comparing apples to apples in regards to time periods nor other monitors (as this analysis has shown).

The other really blatantly obtuse thing about this data at RDU that is hard for me to believe is that RDU truly had zero 95F+ days from 70-74 when the other three sites did, and it's also interesting that at all three of the other sites there was nearly as many (actually more in Clayton) in 70-74 as there was in 2000-04. It seems apparent that the environment around that ASOS was vastly different and resulted in at least part of the trend. Admittedly, Chapel Hill's number was low too, but yet Clayton's was high -- that isn't a signal for AGW to me. It's truly unfortunate that no one can examine this issue without a biased opinion, and I'll admit I can't do it either.
Click to expand...
I was wondering about that. It seems that as time has changed, the heat islands have grown, and that the reporting stations have likely stayed in the same locations. Adding urban sprawl causes heat and keeping heat in overnight as well. As you looked at, the other cities don't have a warming trend, but the major one appears to have it, and that is likely due to the build up in RDU. That is good info about another side to the argument that more need to look at. I'm sure if someone ran the same experiment with a city such as Blue Ridge, GA, Clayton, GA, plus a few small cities and then Atlanta, it could come out the same. Same could go for any state. Unfortunately, I'm sure that the politics would trace it to carbon and blame it on CO2 again.
 
This doesn't have individual locations but clearly show the temps in the decade of the 1930's is so far the warmest for the US
daleo-two.png
 
Anything on a Jeff Masters site is not suitable for reading IMO. Climate Change is the latest meme from the left because it has and always will change so it makes sense from a propaganda stand point ( hard to prove a negative). The devil however is in the details, not the terminology used, like what is causing the warming, has it happened in past times, will it continue or reverse, and is it really catastrophic for temps to rise a few degrees anyway? Severe storms are not increasing, sea levels are rising at a rate measured in millimeters worldwide, and the misnomer of "average" temperature is just that, so people need to quit using that fake statistic. If you would like to know why it is a fake number, let me know and I will gladly list the reasons.
 
As far as I understand it, it’s caused by CO2’s ability to absorb infrared energy. As it gets warmer the sea also gets warmer and expands. Land ice melts and adds to the sea level rise. Temps rising a few degrees is fine over the course of thousands and millions of years, but over just 100 is a different story and can be catastrophic to ecosystems as organisms cannot adapt as quickly.
The left however is pretty ridiculous but what I think is more ridiculous is assuming that anyone that thinks man-made climate change is real is just a puppet of the left. We know hurricanes are not on the increase in either frequency or intensity, we know there is no observable trend in severe weather, etc., Earth’s not a laboratory that we can conduct controlled experiments with. if anyone says otherwise then they’re not worth listening to anyway. Focus on FACTS, not rhetoric - the right AND the left have done a hell of a good job distracting people from what scientists are actively seeking: answers to questions in order to ask even more questions about the planet
 
EastAtlwx said:
try again.... there is 12 months in a year... sick and tired of people cherry picking data sets.. smh..View attachment 3634
Click to expand...
You mean this graph that you show after NOAA had "adjusted" the temperatures in the 30's to lower levels than the raw data actually originally showed? Will the 2010-20 decade also be adjusted downward in 50 years too? NOAA is the ultimate champion of cherry picking
 
MichaelJ said:
You mean this graph that you show after NOAA had "adjusted" the temperatures in the 30's to lower levels than the raw data actually originally showed? Will the 2010-20 decade also be adjusted downward in 50 years too? NOAA is the ultimate champion of cherry picking
Click to expand...

Do you even understand why those adjustments were made in the first place before spouting nonsense?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top