• 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!

2025--Hottest January on Record Shocks Scientists

Lord of Planar said:
What current papers are showing is that CO2 does not really do much at all.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Thousands of "current papers" are written every year, produced by nearly every leading university and research institutions on earth. The authors' consensus is that CO2 acts as a blanket, trapping heat in the atmosphere, warming the planet.

Whose "current papers" are you referencing?
 
iguanaman said:
Like Musk and others use our rights against us you choose to use science against us. Yes climate is complex but that does not mean that warming is not simply being caused by burning fossil fuel, trillions of tons of it. There simply is nothing else along with the obvious feedbacks that could possibly make such dramatic change in our temperature in just a few decades and you should know that. The earth has given us enough rope to hang ourselves and you seem happy to oblige.
Click to expand...
Scientific data itself is not politically biased, How it is represented, or misrepresented can be biased.
The observed data is clearly showing that the positive Net energy flow is happening in the shortwave spectrum.
The longwave spectrum is actually reducing the total net energy into Earth.(Cooling).
This study was cited Yesterday, but agrees with what I am saying.
Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate
For this period, the observations show a trend in net downward radiation of 0.41 ± 0.22 W m−2 decade−1 that is the result of the sum of a 0.65 ± 0.17 W m−2 decade−1 trend in absorbed solar radiation (ASR) and a −0.24 ± 0.13 W m−2 decade−1 trend in downward radiation due to an increase in OLR (Figures 2a–2c). TOA fluxes are defined positive downwards so that a positive anomaly/trend corresponds to a heat gain and a negative anomaly corresponds to a heat loss.
Click to expand...
A negative trend in the downward longwave radiation, is a Heat Loss!
All of our Heat Gain, is coming from shortwave ASR, reduced by the loss on the longwave side.
We can validate this by the numbers in the above quote.
Net gain is 0.41 W m-2 that results from 0.65 W m-2 + -0.24 W m-2.
0.65 + (-0.24) = 0.41!
 
Volunteer said:
Wrong. Thousands of "current papers" are written every year, produced by nearly every leading university and research institutions on earth. The authors' consensus is that CO2 acts as a blanket, trapping heat in the atmosphere, warming the planet.

Whose "current papers" are you referencing?
Click to expand...
Actually most of the studies related to Human caused climate change are IF-THEN studies, where They
begin with IF the IPCC's predictions are correct, THEN this will happen.
There are very few studies that attempt to validate if added CO2 is actually doing much of anything, that is assumed.
 
Volunteer said:
No, there have been many thousands of those studies, peer reviewed.
Click to expand...
So cite one of them, that shows empirical data that added CO2 causes warming?
No as I said (And you did not quote) most of the studies are IF-THEN studies, not actual
studies of the climate sensitivity of added CO2.
Among the studies focused on CO2 climate sensitivity, many of those are looking at why the computer models are running hot.
 
longview said:
So cite one of them, that shows empirical data that added CO2 causes warming?
No as I said (And you did not quote) most of the studies are IF-THEN studies, not actual
studies of the climate sensitivity of added CO2.
Among the studies focused on CO2 climate sensitivity, many of those are looking at why the computer models are running hot.
Click to expand...
cup.columbia.edu

Climate Change | Columbia University Press

This second edition of Climate Change is an accessible and comprehensive guide to the science behind global warming. Exquisitely illustrated, the text is gea... | CUP
cup.columbia.edu cup.columbia.edu

Studies are cited in this book.
 
Volunteer said:
cup.columbia.edu

Climate Change | Columbia University Press

This second edition of Climate Change is an accessible and comprehensive guide to the science behind global warming. Exquisitely illustrated, the text is gea... | CUP
cup.columbia.edu cup.columbia.edu

Studies are cited in this book.
Click to expand...
If the studies are cited in that book, then you should be able to cite and quote from those studies you say exists?
Your comment is like someone saying that the proof of the existence of an omnipotent deity exists in the Bible,
i.e. it does not count unless you can quote the relevant passage!
 
Volunteer said:
Wrong. Thousands of "current papers" are written every year, produced by nearly every leading university and research institutions on earth. The authors' consensus is that CO2 acts as a blanket, trapping heat in the atmosphere, warming the planet.

Whose "current papers" are you referencing?
Click to expand...
Consensus is how class presidents are elected. Not science proven.

Are you still in High School?
 
Volunteer said:
I believe you are able to do that, too. I judge you to be a good reader.
Click to expand...
Actually, as I am not a mind reader, I could never know with any certainty what citation and quote you are thinking
of that supports your position.
 
Volunteer said:
I showed some of my papers. What papers are you referencing?
Click to expand...
Your papers do not show anything quantitative about CO2. I would have picked up on it if they did. I don't even remember what you showed, but if you are referring to a recent one showing more downward IR over a few years time with more CO2, I explained what happens. The greenhouse gasses return a percentage of the upward IR. The literature never explains this, but that is how it works. There was a recent paper shared by you or someone else that indicated an increase of downward spectra indicating more downward IR from CO2. But guess what. When the surface heat increases, so does the upward longwave, and then more returned longwave.

This papers did not show an increase of longwave with increased CO2, but increased longwave with increased temperature.

Easy to be confused if you so not see all the facts.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Your papers do not show anything quantitative about CO2. I don't even remember what you showed
Click to expand...
I provided a link, yesterday, to the book by Edmond A. Mathez and Jason E. Smerdon. It shows plenty of quantitative CO2 stuff.

Where are the "current papers" you have referenced?
 
Volunteer said:
I provided a link, yesterday, to the book by Edmond A. Mathez and Jason E. Smerdon. It shows plenty of quantitative CO2 stuff.

Where are the "current papers" you have referenced?
Click to expand...
I cannot help but notice that you did not cite or quote anything from that book that
shows empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming.
 
Volunteer said:
No, there have been many thousands of those studies, peer reviewed.
Click to expand...

Cite one peer reviewed study that has empirically proved that humans are primarily culpable for modern warming then ?

Heads up politically sponsored climate modelled junk science isnt it 😉

Meanwhile here are the facts, we are in a very modest natural warming phase that has been greatly exceeded by mother nature in both its level and rate of change many times over the last 10K years

Easterbrook’s-version-of-the-GISP2-based-temperature-reconstruction-graph.png
 
Last edited:
This February was the 3rd warmest February on record globally. Link
 
Brack said:
This February was the 3rd warmest February on record globally. Link
Click to expand...
The records are only good back to about 150 years ago, before that the temporal resolution is so low that any number of earlier monthly records could have happened.
 
longview said:
The records are only good back to about 150 years ago, before that the temporal resolution is so low that any number of earlier monthly records could have happened.
Click to expand...
Then there is the Urban Heat Island Effect affecting meteorological stations as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom