• 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!

[W:1458] Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Surface Detail said:
Nor the number of studies between 3°C and 6°C :roll:

The point is that the likely range is 1.5°C to 4.5°C. There are a few studies saying less, and a few studies saying more. But that is the likely range. It makes no sense to concentrate on the low estimates and ignore the high estimates.
Click to expand...

It makes no sense to use either 'estimate' (guess). It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Media_Truth said:
Great job outlining the foolishness of cherrypicking a low ECS. As you say, for Political purposes, anybody can choose their favorite range. However the likelihood is somewhere in the center.
Click to expand...

The center between two random numbers is just as meaningless as the two random numbers themselves.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Threegoofs said:
You’ve been shown, REPEATEDLY, the percentages of papers that show different ECS values.

It’s like Groundhog Day.

You get the data presented to you over and over, yet pretend no one knows it.

And no, I’m not going to dig up the data again and post it for you. If you haven’t grasped it the first half dozen times...
Click to expand...

It's not rational behavior.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

longview said:
If you cannot argue with the data, what else do you have?
Click to expand...

I gave my information from Worldwatch Institute. Ignore it you'd like. The net results don't bode very well for your argument either way. If the Mountain West is seeing disastrous wildfires with record acreage at your 1.3 deg C, imagine the effects at 3 or 4 deg C.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Jack Hays said:
Yup. The increasing preponderance of data indicating low ECS is the Achilles heel of the AGW alarmists' argument.
Click to expand...

Apart from the fact that that is not true. If the climate sensitivity was really low, that would put another dozen nails in the coffin of your favorite galactic cosmic rays hypothesis. Not that you would understand why.


"The range of sensitivity across all of these studies has likely narrowed slightly over time, though the average has remained fairly close to 3C. Contrary to claims on a number of climate sceptic websites, there is no evidence of any downward trend in sensitivity in recent years when all studies are considered."​

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity

And the 2017 review paper in Nature the above article (which also includes a few more studies published since 2017) is based on:

Knutti, R., Rugenstein, M. A., & Hegerl, G. C. (2017). Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity. Nature Geoscience, 10(10), 727.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nge...zPFdU4G&tracking_referrer=www.carbonbrief.org
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Surface Detail said:
Could you give a link to the study please? Googling "Kobayashi 2011" just brings up Takeru Kobayashi Sets World Record With 69 Hot Dogs, which I'm pretty sure isn't what you're referring to!
Click to expand...

You obviously didnt try very hard :roll:


https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL049444

grl28620-fig-0001.webp

This illustrates dramatically how recent modest temperature variability is being exploited for political ends. There is nothing whatsoever that is unnatural about todays temperatures which are well within the natural norms of even just the last 1000 years
 
Last edited:
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

flogger said:
You obviously didnt try very hard :roll:


https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL049444
Click to expand...

It helps to give the correct author's name. You kept posting Kobayashi not Kobashi

In fact you've used the wrong name "Kobayashi" in 25 posts.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/search.php?searchid=8631481

The particular graphic you have been posting in the past also does not appear in that paper by Kobashi et al 2011 that you linked to.

This is the image from that paper. The data is only from Greenland, so only shows temperature from one location, not global averages.

grl28620-fig-0001.webp

What was your point again?
 
Last edited:
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

flogger said:
My bad but the facts remain if you choose to see them.
Click to expand...

I see that you choose to misrepresent facts as well as ignore facts that don't suit your ideological bias.
 
Last edited:
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Media_Truth said:
I gave my information from Worldwatch Institute. Ignore it you'd like. The net results don't bode very well for your argument either way. If the Mountain West is seeing disastrous wildfires with record acreage at your 1.3 deg C, imagine the effects at 3 or 4 deg C.
Click to expand...
Or the amount or fires are not as related to the temperature, as to other factors.
 
Media_Truth said:
The January 2019 datapoint was added for Atmospheric CO2. It now stands at 410.48 PPM, up from December's 409.74 PPM.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
Click to expand...
You say that like it is supposed to mean something.
CO2 levels rise every year between September and May, is is seasonal.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
CO2 levels are still increasing, but the growth rate varies quite a bit and has been below 3.03 ppm per year since we started keeping records.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html
2018 at 2.39 ppm per year seems a bit on the low side.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Quaestio said:
Apart from the fact that that is not true. If the climate sensitivity was really low, that would put another dozen nails in the coffin of your favorite galactic cosmic rays hypothesis. Not that you would understand why.


"The range of sensitivity across all of these studies has likely narrowed slightly over time, though the average has remained fairly close to 3C. Contrary to claims on a number of climate sceptic websites, there is no evidence of any downward trend in sensitivity in recent years when all studies are considered."​

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity

And the 2017 review paper in Nature the above article (which also includes a few more studies published since 2017) is based on:

Knutti, R., Rugenstein, M. A., & Hegerl, G. C. (2017). Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity. Nature Geoscience, 10(10), 727.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nge...zPFdU4G&tracking_referrer=www.carbonbrief.org
Click to expand...

On the contrary, low climate sensitivity is fully compatible with the solar/GCR flux climate hypothesis, and is in fact powerful evidence in its favor.
There is no doubt "consensus" AGW advocates will fight hard for higher sensitivity. They know what's at stake.
 
longview said:
You say that like it is supposed to mean something.
CO2 levels rise every year between September and May, is is seasonal.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
CO2 levels are still increasing, but the growth rate varies quite a bit and has been below 3.03 ppm per year since we started keeping records.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html
2018 at 2.39 ppm per year seems a bit on the low side.
Click to expand...

A little perspective:

co2-graph.webp

2-3 ppm is actually quite large, because the trend continues upwards. CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas. Without this greenhouse gas, our earth would be a negative 60 degrees.
 
[h=2]Solar Cycle 24 Going Down As Quietest In Almost 200 Years, May Put The Brakes On Warming[/h]By P Gosselin on 30. January 2019
[h=2]The sun in December 2018[/h]Von Frank Bosse und Fritz Vahrenholt
(German text translated / edited by P Gosselin)
Our sun was also very sub-normally active in December last year. We are writing the 121st month since the beginning of cycle number 24, in December 2008, and since 2012 (when we started the blog here) we could only reformulate the opening sentence once: In September 2017 when the sun was 13% more active than the long-term (since 1755) average.
All other months were below average. With the sunspot number (SSN) of 3.1 for the monthly average for December and a total of 24 days without any spot (throughout the second half of the month the sun was spotless) we are in the middle of the cycle minimum.
berl1.jpg

Fig. 1: Solar Cycle 24 – red – is almost over. Since October 2017 (cycle month 108) we have been at the minimum and the next cycle should start at the beginning of 2020. The blue curve is the respective monthly average over the 23 cycles completed so far. The black curve (for comparison) SC 5, which was recorded around 1815 and was as similarly weak as the current cycle.​
The following chart compares all the cycles observed thus far:
berl2.jpg

Fig. 2: The sunspot activity of our sun since cycle 1 (1755). The numbers are calculated by adding the monthly differences with respect to the mean (blue in Fig.1) up to the current cycle month 121.​
Clearly SC 24 is the lowest activity since the Dalton Minimum (SC 5,6,7) around 1810 when using the entire cycle and not only the maximum activity in short peaks (see Fig. 1).
When does the new Cycle 25 begin? This is very difficult to say. In December a total of 3 spots were observed that belong to the new cycle because they are magnetically polarized the other way around than those of the old cycle. This January we are currently still seeing a lot of the “old cycle” again, so forecasts are probably premature. If something happens, here be the first to know!



 
The psychology behind clinging to an elevated estimate of climate sensitivity, despite the evidence.

[h=1]The Chains of Reasoning[/h]Posted on 29 Jan 19 by JOHN RIDGWAY • 11 Comments
If a dinner party is beginning to fizzle out, I always find it helpful to try one or two post-prandial parlour games. For example, you might want to try separating your guests into two groups. Each group is given a list of the same numbers and asked to estimate the list’s average. The only difference … Contin
 
Media_Truth said:
A little perspective:


2-3 ppm is actually quite large, because the trend continues upwards. CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas. Without this greenhouse gas, our earth would be a negative 60 degrees.
Click to expand...
Please, enough with the hyperbole!
If there was ZERO greenhouse gasses (all of them including CO2) earth would be 33 C (59 F)cooler than present,
NASA's Cosmos
Right now, the warming influence is literally a matter of life and death. It keeps the average surface temperature of the planet at 288 degrees kelvin (15 degrees Celsius or 59 degrees Fahrenheit). Without this greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature would be 255 degrees kelvin (-18 degrees Celsius or 0 degrees Fahrenheit);
Click to expand...
So no, Earth would not be "negative 60 degrees" in ether scale.
 
Threegoofs said:
Hm.

So you believe NASA.

I’ve got a website for you.

Scientific Consensus | Facts ? Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Click to expand...

"Stupid is as stupid does."

[FONT=&quot]Climate FAIL[/FONT]
[h=1]Climate Change Gets a New Language… Again[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest whatever by David Middleton The New Language of Climate Change Scientists and meteorologists on the front lines of the climate wars are testing a new strategy to get through to the skeptics and outright deniers. By BRYAN BENDER January 27, 2019 PHOENIX—Leading climate scientists and meteorologists are banking on a new strategy for talking…
[/FONT]
 
Threegoofs said:
Hm.

So you believe NASA.

I’ve got a website for you.

Scientific Consensus | Facts ? Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Click to expand...

Please read the opening sentence of your citation.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
Click to expand...
That only says that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, nothing more!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom