Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 04-18-2024, 11:02 AM
1,111 posts, read 1,252,924 times
Reputation: 1710


El Nino & La Nina yrs to be out-liers and eliminate them from the calculation,
Funny, your post #2 says I am cherry picking data that meets my agenda.

Lets examine your reference from "watts up with climate change denial" and how BS it is as usual.

First of all, what is RSS (satellite) actually saying https://www.remss.com/research/climate/

Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.18 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.32 degrees F per decade).

Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.

The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.
Now lets take look at GLM favorite watts up with all things related to maintaining fossil fuel industry profits https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/02/...-and-counting/

Just take a look at the first graph.. What the heck is this. I suspects it the derivative of the actual UAH satellite date here https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-...-temperatures/. Just take a look at the two graphs.. Totally different. There is no purpose for the first WUWT first graph other than to make it "look" like there is no warming.. BS.

Then wuwt threw out this total BS misleading gem T
here has been no trend in the UAH global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies since September 2014: 8 years 5 months and counting.
Then this POS web site then admits there is an upwards trend of 0.134 K per decade.

Just want to point out that this is over 25 percent LESS than the .18 K/dec that RSS correctly shows above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 04-18-2024, 01:30 PM
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,261 posts, read 5,139,849 times
Reputation: 17759
Note that your source claims "climate models cannot explain..." That:s because they are artificial models that don't include all the factors that influence temps. They use co2 as a fudge factor to make the curve fitting process successful....You probaly don't realize it, but the satellites don't measure temps. They measure Intensity of radiation at five selected wav.elengths and then they weight those values into a curve fitting exercise that correlates best to ground based temp data...Thy don't get it perfect so have to re-evaluate the weighting every few years to fit the new data--. That's perfectly legit science- as opposed to the outright changing of data as done by CRU and NOAA.

There's about three dozen computer models out there. The first ten or so don't even include input of variations in solar output. Most don't include inclusion of cloud cover, and there are more than likely several factors that we don't even know are involved in climate so they can't be included....yet the models all give us more or less similar printouts of temp predictions-- all of which have diverged from reality excessively over time....BTW-- did you know that Mann's famous "hockey stick" paper used a program he devised that gave a hockey stick graph REGARDLESS of the data values entered? Talk about artifact in modeling.

You should look at the model graphs thinking "IF we're right about weighting the climate factors in this model, then this is what temps will do in the future....But so far, the predictions have been way off, so we must conclude they don't have the weighting (of co2 &/or other factors ) right.

Yes, over the 44 yr observation period in the satellite data there is a +o.13deg /decade trend in temps, but from '96to '22 it was essentially zero. Add in the extra-normal El Nino yr of '23 and it rises to 0.14,...thatt:s what I mean about disregarding the outliers and we get a different impression of what's going on
All the warming has been by way of a step function. Something much more than just the monotonic rise in co2 is influencing the graph.

Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 04-18-2024 at 01:39 PM.. Reason: É
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-19-2024, 09:20 AM
1,111 posts, read 1,252,924 times
Reputation: 1710
Lets do a little fact checking with references (since lots of history of BS when no references given).

We see that terrestrial global measurements (ie, Hardcrut) show a little over .2 C per decade increase while Satellite data shows about .18 C per decade


These are both valuable data sets, both showing an increase in global temperature as CO2 levels increase.

Which is more accurate? https://science.nasa.gov/climate-cha...or-from-space/

Ground thermometers are considered more accurate than satellite measurements when it comes to tracking temperature, and here's why:
The Sat measurements also only go back to 1980 while the ground based measurments go back to around 1850.

The computer models need to use a data set as a baseline for predictions and I cant confirm this but believe they use the ground based data for both the accuracy and time lenght of data available. You will find that anytime a reference says the models are inaccurate, the compare predictions to Sat data. They are fairly accurate when compared to the data set they are based off.

Some really interesting links on climate change models including what inputs are considered



Last edited by waltcolorado; 04-19-2024 at 09:38 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-19-2024, 09:31 AM
1,111 posts, read 1,252,924 times
Reputation: 1710
in this thread, GLM attempted to convince us that some mysterious warming caused the increase in CO2. This is the special GLM warm beer, "what happened to the 800 year delay" theory to show that there is no need to stop humans burring fossil fuel.

Looks like there is another big flag to add to the growing list of unresolved issues.

The new issue is that all the climate change models have CO2 as one of the inputs and global temperature changes as an output. This is true in all cases, see the above post.

But with the GLM warm beer model, some unexplained warming came first which resulted in the CO2. So if this were modeled, warming would be the input, CO2 would be the output.

How did GLM figure this out on his own and all the scientist working on those models got it backwards and totally wrong? Is GLM smarter than all the scientist all over the world working on climate change models?

And the rest of the unresolved items for the special GLM warm beer theory..

If the warming occurred first, what caused the warming? For four decades, Satellites have been measuring the sun radiance and it is actually slightly decreasing. Yet our global temp is increasing. It can not be the sun. If not the sun, then what can you make up now?

In the CO2 feedback mechanism, the CO2 concentrations changed 600 or 800 years after the temperature change. Yet our current change has CO2 and temperature closely correlated (like happens with the basic definition of green house gas). Hmm.. why dont we have the 800 year delay?

Even when temperatures did rise above our current global temps in the past 800K years, CO2 levels never rose above 300 PPM (now 40 percent higher than this). What story can you make up that explains why something that never occurred in the past is occurring now?

Where did the CO2 come from if it didnt come from the obvious tail pipe. It did not come from the oceans as they are sinking 30 percent of what we put into the atmosphere. The ocean is also becoming more acidic because it is actually absorbing CO2 because of increased atmospheric concentration, not releasing it.

Last edited by waltcolorado; 04-19-2024 at 09:50 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-19-2024, 05:35 PM
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,261 posts, read 5,139,849 times
Reputation: 17759
Your comments on computer inputs/outputs suggest you are confused about what computer modeling is. We could, for instance use home runs hit in the National League as an input, weight them and get the same temperature out puts the co2 models give us. (Progressively more HRs have been hit in the NL over the past century, just as co2 has risen progressively.).....

The modelers come up with a formula for the inputs they chose that gives outputs for the temperatures that have been measured.....It's an exercise in curve fitting. You must have taken courses in linear algebra or applied math. Finding the best fit linear expression is usually an early lesson in such course. Same principle, just a little more complicated for non-linear systems....

.Once they have a formula that gives best fit (mimimizes variance of actual data points from the function) they run the program to give expected future data points......As time then goes by, the actual new data points are measured....If the formula is right, the new points fall near the predicted points....But the three dozen models all have been grossly wrong. They have been really lousy at predicting warming...The models must be wrong.

Their biggest mistake is the weight they give to co2 They typically call for a doubling of co2 to cause from 4 to 6degC warming when In fact it seems to be more like only 1.3degC per doubling period....and because that is a log relationship, the rise we've seen in temps over the past century, with co2 only going up about 40%, is mostly due to other factors, not co2. ,As co2 continues to rise it's translation to warming becomes even less impressive. Cf- a rise of 1.3deg for co2 going from 200ppm to 400ppm but it will take a rise from 400ppm to 800ppm for the next 1.3deg rise.

I:ve answered your other questions about source of co2-- oceans contain 1000x more co2 than the air. The two strive for equilibrium with partial pressure directly related to ocean temp. Henry's Law and Charles' Law. Partial pressure related to solubility and temp. That's why boiling water bubbles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-19-2024, 07:47 PM
1,111 posts, read 1,252,924 times
Reputation: 1710
GLM is trying to convince us that "warming causes the rise in CO2". This of course would be consistent with an agenda payed for by the fossil fuel industry to protect their profits. The warming caused the CO2, it couldnt possibly be from tailpipes.

GLM did not explain where the CO2 in the atmospheres came from (ignoring the obvious source of our tailpipes). GLM noted the oceans contain a lot of CO2 but so does rock. Ok.. We have shown in this thread that the oceans have NOT been releasing more CO2 than is taken in. The ocean is becoming more acidic because it is actually absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, not releasing it. The ocean is a natural sink for CO2 and still is, actually removing a fair amount of CO2 that we have put in the atmosphere.

Here is another discussion again proving GLM incorrect. https://news.grida.no/climate-change...nsen%20et%20al.

We know that rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the main cause of global warming. As the carbon dioxide concentration increases the greenhouse effect causes more longwave radiation to be trapped in the atmosphere, which becomes warmer. This heat is transferred first to the surface of the ocean and eventually into its deeper reaches, but it takes a long time. Decades, in fact.

Ocean surface warming lags behind global atmospheric CO2 levels by around 25 to 50 years, over which time about 60% of global warming will take place (Hansen et al. 2004).

See bolded part. The warming LAGS CO2 by 25 to 50 years. That is exactly the opposite the agenda GLM is trying to I guess sell.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-20-2024, 05:24 AM
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,261 posts, read 5,139,849 times
Reputation: 17759
Better Vette your sources more critically https://junkscience.com/2023/06/wron...imony-edition/.


Hansen is a political hack getting funding from the Dems. He famously testified before Congress making predictions about GW. He named three scenarios. The one he termed "least likely" is the one that turned out to be true. That wasn't science, just a lucky guess.

Newest studies show equilibration of ocean/ATM co2 occurs on the order of 200 yrs. Rising temps &co2 levels have been doing just that for the 200 yrs of the Industrial Revolution. Chicken or egg? https://www.newscientist.com/article...-than-thought/

Here's a summary of the UN-IPCC's latest world carbon budget.https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/ Something doesn't add up (literally). Check out the diagram of carbon budget. The top row of info should have the values of the up arrows minus the value of the down arrows equalling the value of the annual rise in ATM co2. It doesn't here....

Be that as it may, they still show the annual emission of C in gigatonnes from using FFs to be about 1% of the total ATM C. They claim about half of the emissions are retained in the ATM, so by their figures co2 should be going up by 2.4%/yr., In fact, it's only going up by 0.5%/yr (2ppm/400ppm)... ???Please explain the discrepancies?

In regards Had-CRUT and NOAA data https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2018JD028355 discrepancies in data are larger than the calculated warming.,..RSS and UAH are two different groups that use the same satellite data but independently calculate the temps as I described before. The graphs produced are remarkably similar in changes from year to year, but the RSS product is a few tenths of a deg warmer than the UAH graph, ie- the anomolies yr to yr are the same.

To throw your own question back at you-- if FF use is causing the changes in co2 now, what caused them in the distant past? Isn't it more likely that temp changes caused by Milankovich cycles, ocean cycles and solar cycles caused the changes in co2?...What else could have driven co2 changes if they forced the temp changes?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-20-2024, 05:56 AM
Location: Knoxville, TN
11,504 posts, read 6,008,999 times
Reputation: 22538
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
So.. you found a paper that draws some conclusion from

We can of course find numerous scientific references that say that CO2 has primarily caused the warming.. Little thing going on now, burning fossil fuel produces CO2 and we are burning lots of fossil fuel. Its a obvious source of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. And CO2 is a green house gas. Im going to dig up a bunch of references later.

But here is a question for you. If the warming is causing the CO2 increase, why didnt even higher temperatures 130K years ago also result in higher CO2 levels.


Look at the graphs. 130K years ago, the temperature anomaly was several degrees warmer than it is now. Yet the CO2 levels were much lower than they are now. You are saying that the warming caused CO2 levels to rise. Why did this NOT happen back 130K years ago.

You and that paper must be saying that the law of physics have changed?
Please explain why CO2 concentrations were 10 times higher 500 million years ago, at 4,000 ppm to 6,000 ppm in the absense of human existence and the burning of fossil fuels. Prehistoric SUVs?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-20-2024, 08:01 AM
1,111 posts, read 1,252,924 times
Reputation: 1710
First, Igor, here is a link you should really read.. which would allow you to ask a more relevant question.


CO2 levels are determined by the imbalance between carbon sequestration (burial in sediments, capture by plants), and carbon emissions (decomposition and volcanic activity). Imbalances in this system created a downward trend in CO2 levels, leading to a glaciation period around 300 million years ago. This was followed by a period of intense volcanic activity, doubling CO2 concentration to about 1000 ppm. Levels then dropped until they reached today’s concentrations during the Oligocene era, 33 to 23 million years ago, when temperatures were still 4 to 6 degrees C higher than today.
You will find that on your mentioned many millions of years time frame, intense periods of volcanoes raise the CO2 levels, mainly the oceans slowly remove the CO2. The time frame for all these changes are literally hundreds of thousands of times slower than what is happening now.

In our little slice of time on the planet going back 800K years where there are ice core records, CO2 levels had ranged between 300 PPM during warm periods (some warmer than present such as 130K years ago) and around 180 PPM during the cold periods. All on the link provided.

In the last couple hundred years, CO2 levels shot to now over 420 PPM. The rise is a huge amount faster than observed in the last 800K years and also way higher than observed even though its been hotter in this time frame. Current levels are not explained in any way other than mainly from burning fossil fuels.

Odd.. but it seems that from watching these forums, the Fox news, Newsmax, conservative news source have been told that volcanoes are responsible for current high CO2 levels. Not at all true, you should google and actually read the articles on that also.

Last edited by waltcolorado; 04-20-2024 at 08:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-20-2024, 03:08 PM
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,261 posts, read 5,139,849 times
Reputation: 17759
FF burning accounts for 100x more co2 emissions than volcanoes. Particulates emitted by volcanoes cause cooling. Cf- the Krakatoa eruption in the 1880s cooled the planet by 5deg for a decade. The warming trend early in the 20th century was just a return to normal as the particulates ventually cleared, not ghg induced warming.....We're stil warming from the last Ice Age and are still in it- we still have permanent polar ice, therefore are the not technically in an Interglacial period....What exactly is "normal?"

You still haven't answered the question of why did co2 rise in ancient times in order to cause warm periods? The independent thinkers among us have a good theory-- the Milanokovich cycles caused the warming and that caused the rise in co2. That gives a plausible mchanism to account for the warming and accounts for the delay in co2 changes seen In the ice core data....Your theory doesn't explain that delay.....That doesn't necessarily mean our theory is right, but it proves yours is wrong.....Causes cannot follow their effects. A good theory must account for all observations, not just some of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top