Are Government Temperature Graphs Credible?

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
24,323
Reaction score
6,474
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
D-O events say otherwise. 6 to 8C rises in a matter of a few decades.

But only in very localized areas.

I can't believe you just argued against the ocean sequestering and releasing CO2 as a reinforcing agent to climate.

But I didn't. Try reading what I actually write.

There are _two_ factors in play here, the ocean temperatures and the increasing CO2 levels. You're only taking the first into account, so you get it wrong. I take both into account, so I get it right.

If you keep pumping out CO2 and the oceans cool, the oceans absorb CO2 a little more CO2, but the CO2 levels still keep climbing, because the CO2 emissions far exceed the additional sucking-it-up factor that comes from from cooling.

And again, you're inconsistent with your stories of the effects of CO2. When it comes to warming from additional CO2, you say it's insignificant. When it comes to cooling from less CO2, you say the effect is massive. Pick one, you can't keep having it both ways.
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
24,323
Reaction score
6,474
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
That is a long running error on the warmist/alarmists part, they can't understand that the CO2 molecule is reacting to temperature changes, it is a follower not a driver.

CO2 is a forcing and a feedback. Orbital factors cause the first kick of CO2 emissions, then the CO2 takes over from there. If you're going to critique the science, it would be helpful if you knew what it was.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,367
Reaction score
8,104
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
D-O events say otherwise. 6 to 8C rises in a matter of a few decades.

But only in very localized areas.

I can't believe you just argued against the ocean sequestering and releasing CO2 as a reinforcing agent to climate.

But I didn't. Try reading what I actually write.

There are _two_ factors in play here, the ocean temperatures and the increasing CO2 levels. You're only taking the first into account, so you get it wrong. I take both into account, so I get it right.

If you keep pumping out CO2 and the oceans cool, the oceans absorb CO2 a little more CO2, but the CO2 levels still keep climbing, because the CO2 emissions far exceed the additional sucking-it-up factor that comes from from cooling.

And again, you're inconsistent with your stories of the effects of CO2. When it comes to warming from additional CO2, you say it's insignificant. When it comes to cooling from less CO2, you say the effect is massive. Pick one, you can't keep having it both ways.
You are cracking me up. I bet you will be one of the first people to say you knew there was no global warming when the shit hits the fan.

We know CO2 only reinforces climate change because the climate switches back despite the reinforcing action of CO2. So we know that CO2 does not drive that process so we know there are triggering events which initiate the transition to and from glacial to interglacial cycles.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,367
Reaction score
8,104
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
And again, you're inconsistent with your stories of the effects of CO2. When it comes to warming from additional CO2, you say it's insignificant. When it comes to cooling from less CO2, you say the effect is massive. Pick one, you can't keep having it both ways.
It's the logarithmic relationship between atmospheric CO2 and associated temperature. Decreasing concentrations have larger incremental effects than the equivalent increasing concentration.

But more significantly it's the feedback of that massive glacier parked over parts of North America, Europe and Asia, dummy.
 
OP
Sunsettommy

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
9,058
Reaction score
6,569
Points
2,050
That is a long running error on the warmist/alarmists part, they can't understand that the CO2 molecule is reacting to temperature changes, it is a follower not a driver.

CO2 is a forcing and a feedback. Orbital factors cause the first kick of CO2 emissions, then the CO2 takes over from there. If you're going to critique the science, it would be helpful if you knew what it was.

Another dumb reply since you keep ignoring the AGW conjecture which comes in two parts, you are stuck on part one, the CO2 molecule itself, that doesn't do much of any postulated additional warm forcing, while ignoring the predicted Tropospheric "hit spot" which still doesn't exist after 20 years......

The POSITIVE feedback part of the AGW conjecture never shows up which is also the part that was supposed to generate that big warming boost, but alas it is never there for you....... :crybaby:

As usual you ignore 50% of the AGW conjecture........
 

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
6,780
Reaction score
7,885
Points
1,918
No trolling, off topic complaining and no attack on the source or the writer. I do request replying on the CONTENT of the article, good or bad.

The content doesn't back up your wild claim at all. It provides no actual evidence that the NASA GISS data is bad.

Oh, READ MY LINK!


Note that I have now backed up that claim to the same degree that you backed up yours.

If you'd like a deeper discussion, then point us to the specific evidence, and discuss it in your own words. Yelling "IT'S IN MY LINK!" is not an argument.
I know the answer to why or should I say how they were able to change the graphs....

The two graphs above show that they were claiming a cooling trend and that the earth was cooling off--which is dangerous as it is harder for humans to survive cooler temperatures due to shorter growing seasons and requires more brain power for planning in advance for cooler conditions. Now they managed to change it to a warming trend in their graphs and has nothing to do with evolving computers. The answer is:

They went back and deleted input from several weather gathering stations--------primarily in Siberia several years back and opened up new ones in warmer climates is what I read several years ago. So it has nothing to do with better computers---but by changing the inputted data. ...you know FRAUD.
 
Last edited:

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
24,323
Reaction score
6,474
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Another dumb reply

Flat earthers tell me that as well.

while ignoring the predicted Tropospheric "hit spot" which still doesn't exist after 20 years......

Got it. The science shows the hotspot, that's inconvenient, so you ignore the science.

The POSITIVE feedback part of the AGW conjecture never shows up

Just what are you babbling about?
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
24,323
Reaction score
6,474
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
It's the logarithmic relationship between atmospheric CO2 and associated temperature.Decreasing concentrations have larger incremental effects than the equivalent increasing concentration.

A very tiny difference if you're just talking about +/-20 ppm, not even remotely close to being enough to explain your "Rising CO2 does nothing, falling CO2 causes a deep freeze" inconsistency.

But more significantly it's the feedback of that massive glacier parked over parts of North America, Europe and Asia, dummy.

Your inconsistency would extends to that argument as well. In your world, melting glaciers have no positive feedback, but expanding glaciers have massive negative feedback.
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
24,323
Reaction score
6,474
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
They went back and deleted input from several weather gathering stations--------primarily in Siberia several years back and opened up new ones in warmer climates is what I read several years ago.

Suuuuuuuuuure they did.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

So it has nothing to do with better computers---but by changing the inputted data. ...you know FRAUD.

By faking stories of fraud, you are committing fraud yourself.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,367
Reaction score
8,104
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
It's the logarithmic relationship between atmospheric CO2 and associated temperature.Decreasing concentrations have larger incremental effects than the equivalent increasing concentration.

A very tiny difference if you're just talking about +/-20 ppm, not even remotely close to being enough to explain your "Rising CO2 does nothing, falling CO2 causes a deep freeze" inconsistency.

But more significantly it's the feedback of that massive glacier parked over parts of North America, Europe and Asia, dummy.

Your inconsistency would extends to that argument as well. In your world, melting glaciers have no positive feedback, but expanding glaciers have massive negative feedback.
I never said that though. But you did just dismiss the influence of CO2. It's not the CO2 that drives temperature change. CO2 reinforces the temperature change.

The fact of the matter is that we don't have to guess what happens when CO2 is at 280 ppm, dummy. We have hard data that shows what happens when CO2 is at 280 ppm.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top