Remember me
▼ Content

CO2 and Global Warming Trends


CO2 and Global Warming Trends25-02-2019 15:22
James___
★★★★★
(3164)
Wake,
This is primarily for you. The rise in CO2 levels and the global annual temperature from 1880 - 1950 agrees with the same ratio of increase from 1950 - present.
This graph is correct. In reality though it does look as strange as hell, doesn't it?
The media can't do a simple comparison such as this. A 30 ppm rise and then a 90 ppm rise with a corresponding rise in temperature. It averages out. But the change in temperature doesn't agree with the constant rise in CO2 levels.
There is simply too much variation to consider CO2 as the cause of warming. This is what I realized when I did the graphs the other night. + 0.2º F. = 30 ppm.
+ 0.6º = 90 ppm. In complete agreement from 1880 - 1950 and from 1950 - present. But the change in global average temperature didn't parallel the change in CO2 levels. The link is in case the site doesn't upload the graph.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/o6avnVWjrLWAGxS49
Attached image:


Edited on 25-02-2019 15:26
25-02-2019 16:05
James___
★★★★★
(3164)
@Wake,
If you don't get it. Between 1860 and 1910, 1880 was the WARMEST year. If 1860 were used then the global annual temperature would increase by 0.4º F. with about the same 30 ppm increase in CO2 levels. Even if 1910 were used then the time frame before 1950 would not be in agreement with 1950 to present.
The linked/attached graph has an inset of the Greenland Sea abyss warming. Ozone depletion paralleled it as well. It's possible that with some scientists that CO2 makes an easy target and that if they are wrong which I think they are, I won't expect them to change their position on climate change. It could severely hurt their careers.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ygZi4YcdM7ShC1YM9
25-02-2019 19:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13280)
James___ wrote:
Wake,
This is primarily for you. The rise in CO2 levels and the global annual temperature from 1880 - 1950 agrees with the same ratio of increase from 1950 - present.
This graph is correct. In reality though it does look as strange as hell, doesn't it?
The media can't do a simple comparison such as this. A 30 ppm rise and then a 90 ppm rise with a corresponding rise in temperature. It averages out. But the change in temperature doesn't agree with the constant rise in CO2 levels.
There is simply too much variation to consider CO2 as the cause of warming. This is what I realized when I did the graphs the other night. + 0.2º F. = 30 ppm.
+ 0.6º = 90 ppm. In complete agreement from 1880 - 1950 and from 1950 - present. But the change in global average temperature didn't parallel the change in CO2 levels. The link is in case the site doesn't upload the graph.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/o6avnVWjrLWAGxS49


Random numbers. Junk data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or the global CO2 content of Earth.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
25-02-2019 20:08
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James___ wrote:
@Wake,
If you don't get it. Between 1860 and 1910, 1880 was the WARMEST year. If 1860 were used then the global annual temperature would increase by 0.4º F. with about the same 30 ppm increase in CO2 levels. Even if 1910 were used then the time frame before 1950 would not be in agreement with 1950 to present.
The linked/attached graph has an inset of the Greenland Sea abyss warming. Ozone depletion paralleled it as well. It's possible that with some scientists that CO2 makes an easy target and that if they are wrong which I think they are, I won't expect them to change their position on climate change. It could severely hurt their careers.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ygZi4YcdM7ShC1YM9


James, the Little Ice Age ended about 1860. Because of that you could expect the world to warm wouldn't you? Or do you consider that as some sort of negative natural action?

What's more, this present "warm" period we are in is much cooler than the Greek Warm Period circa 1000 BC, the Roman Warm Period during the time of Christ or the Medieval Warm Period in 1,000 AD. These are NOT included in these graphs for a reason - they would put the present warm period in perspective.

This is the same with the so-called "shrinking" polar ice packs. An American nuclear submarine surfaced into open water at the north pole in 1955 and 1956. And through very shallow ice in 1957. Yet all of the "shrinking" ice pack data starts in 1979. Why is that when we have actual data from much earlier? This is because 1979 was the largest ice pack in the Arctic Ocean on record. It was am EXTREME outlier. ANY return to normal would look like a shrinking ice pack. Presently we have the largest ice pack in the Arctice Ocean in several decades while we're being told exactly the opposite - that the polar bears (who are at record levels) are dying from the heat.

The Marianas which is a chain of ocean level islands in the south Pacific, which we were told will be underwater by now is in fact 20% LARGER than they were when this was originally announced by the IPCC.

History is a terrible thing to waste and it shows that the BS about man-made climate change is just that. They have even managed to convince Ben Shapiro who is otherwise extremely skeptical of anything government related that it is actually happening though he gives it little value as to man's additions.

Perhaps man is adding a tiny portion to the heating but certainly it hasn't had the effect of prior warm periods that occurred from totally natural processes.

I should also note that satellite data that started in 1978 does NOT show the warming that is shown in that graph. You can see this at Dr. Roy Spencer's site: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/\


Dr. Spencer ran the NASA weather satellite program so this isn't anything you can hand off as BS.
Edited on 25-02-2019 21:06
26-02-2019 00:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13280)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Wake,
If you don't get it. Between 1860 and 1910, 1880 was the WARMEST year. If 1860 were used then the global annual temperature would increase by 0.4º F. with about the same 30 ppm increase in CO2 levels. Even if 1910 were used then the time frame before 1950 would not be in agreement with 1950 to present.
The linked/attached graph has an inset of the Greenland Sea abyss warming. Ozone depletion paralleled it as well. It's possible that with some scientists that CO2 makes an easy target and that if they are wrong which I think they are, I won't expect them to change their position on climate change. It could severely hurt their careers.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ygZi4YcdM7ShC1YM9


James, the Little Ice Age ended about 1860. Because of that you could expect the world to warm wouldn't you? Or do you consider that as some sort of negative natural action?

What's more, this present "warm" period we are in is much cooler than the Greek Warm Period circa 1000 BC, the Roman Warm Period during the time of Christ or the Medieval Warm Period in 1,000 AD. These are NOT included in these graphs for a reason - they would put the present warm period in perspective.

This is the same with the so-called "shrinking" polar ice packs. An American nuclear submarine surfaced into open water at the north pole in 1955 and 1956. And through very shallow ice in 1957. Yet all of the "shrinking" ice pack data starts in 1979. Why is that when we have actual data from much earlier? This is because 1979 was the largest ice pack in the Arctic Ocean on record. It was am EXTREME outlier. ANY return to normal would look like a shrinking ice pack. Presently we have the largest ice pack in the Arctice Ocean in several decades while we're being told exactly the opposite - that the polar bears (who are at record levels) are dying from the heat.

The Marianas which is a chain of ocean level islands in the south Pacific, which we were told will be underwater by now is in fact 20% LARGER than they were when this was originally announced by the IPCC.

History is a terrible thing to waste and it shows that the BS about man-made climate change is just that. They have even managed to convince Ben Shapiro who is otherwise extremely skeptical of anything government related that it is actually happening though he gives it little value as to man's additions.

Perhaps man is adding a tiny portion to the heating but certainly it hasn't had the effect of prior warm periods that occurred from totally natural processes.

I should also note that satellite data that started in 1978 does NOT show the warming that is shown in that graph. You can see this at Dr. Roy Spencer's site: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/\


Dr. Spencer ran the NASA weather satellite program so this isn't anything you can hand off as BS.

Of course it doesn't show warming. It's not possible to measure absolute temperatures with a satellite, Wake. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. All satellites can do is measure light.

Weather satellites don't measure temperature.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
26-02-2019 03:20
James___
★★★★★
(3164)
James, the Little Ice Age ended about 1860. Because of that you could expect the world to warm wouldn't you? Or do you consider that as some sort of negative natural action?

What's more, this present "warm" period we are in is much cooler than the Greek Warm Period circa 1000 BC, the Roman Warm Period during the time of Christ or the Medieval Warm Period in 1,000 AD. These are NOT included in these graphs for a reason - they would put the present warm period in perspective.

This is the same with the so-called "shrinking" polar ice packs. An American nuclear submarine surfaced into open water at the north pole in 1955 and 1956. And through very shallow ice in 1957. Yet all of the "shrinking" ice pack data starts in 1979. Why is that when we have actual data from much earlier? This is because 1979 was the largest ice pack in the Arctic Ocean on record. It was am EXTREME outlier. ANY return to normal would look like a shrinking ice pack. Presently we have the largest ice pack in the Arctice Ocean in several decades while we're being told exactly the opposite - that the polar bears (who are at record levels) are dying from the heat.

The Marianas which is a chain of ocean level islands in the south Pacific, which we were told will be underwater by now is in fact 20% LARGER than they were when this was originally announced by the IPCC.

History is a terrible thing to waste and it shows that the BS about man-made climate change is just that. They have even managed to convince Ben Shapiro who is otherwise extremely skeptical of anything government related that it is actually happening though he gives it little value as to man's additions.

Perhaps man is adding a tiny portion to the heating but certainly it hasn't had the effect of prior warm periods that occurred from totally natural processes.

I should also note that satellite data that started in 1978 does NOT show the warming that is shown in that graph. You can see this at Dr. Roy Spencer's site: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/\


Dr. Spencer ran the NASA weather satellite program so this isn't anything you can hand off as BS.[/quote]

This graph is from the EPA. My question is, what if the oceans are radiating heat into the atmosphere? Does this graph look familiar? I've looked at Dr. Spencer's website before but he doesn't go much into geologic activity. He's a rocket scientist you know (works for NASA).
The graph is from https://phys.org/news/2017-03-ocean.html This is where the focus being on CO2 might actually be hurting any real discussion. It's like what Dr. Steffanson said, nature doesn't stay in one place and isn't politically correct.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/vSbjCUJMXkXLK6t68
Attached image:

26-02-2019 03:34
James___
★★★★★
(3164)
Some reading. I noticed in the ocean warming graph 3 volcanoes erupting. The links are to different ones.
https://today.oregonstate.edu/news/researchers-discover-deepest-known-underwater-volcanic-eruption
You might find this one interesting.
In it, she finds that the Earth's volcanism is tied to minute shifts in motion of the Earth around the sun, as well as to sea levels, in a chain of events that scientists have never before envisioned.
from 2015 so it's fairly new research.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/undersea-volcanoes-erupt-with-gravity-shifting-earth-s-climate/




Join the debate CO2 and Global Warming Trends:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The NCOVID Lock Down Prove CO2 Emission Do Not Cause Global Warming Climate Change1215-09-2020 04:37
The ACTUAL Percentage of Atmospheric CO26403-09-2020 05:12
CO2 sensor112-08-2020 19:10
Less CO21022-07-2020 02:16
CO2 level to cause harm1813-07-2020 22:08
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact