CO2 increased 44% since 1850. No effect on temperature. Experimental result

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > CO2 increased 44% since 1850. No effect on temperature. Experimental result

CO2 increased 44% since 1850. No effect on temperature. Experimental result24-09-2016 01:32
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	is conclusive. CO2 has no effect on temperature.
24-09-2016 01:41
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	We can't measure the temperature of the Earth well enough to say that it hasn't changed. I'm not sure you understand the margin of error of observations - our observations have too much error to say that the Earth has probably warmed up, but that doesn't mean that they conclusively say that the Earth hasn't warmed up. Basically, the error is too high for the observations to say anything at all. For all we know, the temperature might be skyrocketing - or it might be shooting down. We wouldn't know. Edited on 24-09-2016 01:41
24-09-2016 02:05
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	jwoodward48 wrote: We can't measure the temperature of the Earth well enough to say that it hasn't changed. I'm not sure you understand the margin of error of observations - our observations have too much error to say that the Earth has probably warmed up, but that doesn't mean that they conclusively say that the Earth hasn't warmed up. Basically, the error is too high for the observations to say anything at all. For all we know, the temperature might be skyrocketing - or it might be shooting down. We wouldn't know. That's because there is no change in temperature. If there were, it would be feelable. A 44% increase in CO2 is huge. That's like, going from ice age to warm period. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkDK2mZlOo Edited on 24-09-2016 02:06
24-09-2016 02:10
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	1. Individual observation is even more biased than any other data. 2. Yes, but our margins of error are even worse than the difference in average global surface temperature between an ice age and now - after all, now-IceAge is estimated to be on the order of a few degrees C. 3. Again, our measurements are effectively useless - you can't say the average global temperature to any degree of accuracy. We have pretty much no way of knowing what the average global surface temperature is doing! Edited on 24-09-2016 02:12
24-09-2016 03:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Everything you say here is correct: jwoodward48 wrote:We can't measure the temperature of the Earth well enough to say that it hasn't changed. I'm not sure you understand the margin of error of observations - our observations have too much error to say that the Earth has probably warmed up ...but then you say this which is incorrect: jwoodward48 wrote:, but that doesn't mean that they conclusively say that the Earth hasn't warmed up. That is exactly what it means. We conclude from the observations that we cannot determine any change or lack thereof. The observations are conclusive. jwoodward48 wrote:Basically, the error is too high for the observations to say anything at all. Absolutely correct. We conclude this from the observations which are therefore conclusive. jwoodward48 wrote: For all we know, the temperature might be skyrocketing - or it might be shooting down. We wouldn't know. Well, not skyrocketing or shooting down but increasing or decreasing. This is how you can spot someone who is a diehard religious believer even if s/he claims to be a "skeptic" (e.g. Tim the Plumber). Religions promise divine knowledge/wisdom to their worshipers that non-believers are denied. Christians believe they are blessed with God's morality which makes them better. Climate lemmings believe they are blessed with certainty of the earth's warming temperatures. They think this makes them smarter than those fukcing denier morons and they become bulveristically insulting. Just as a test, ask Tim the Plumber if the earth is definitely warming. When he responds in the affirmative, ask him how he knows. He will become abusive at that point. He will also insist that he is a "skeptic." . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

24-09-2016 03:52
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	I don't quite understand your third paragraph (after second quote). If we don't know, then it doesn't say anything. That is, the magic black box could have a cat or a dog, or even nothing, but there's no way of telling which it is. You can't claim that there is definitely a cat, but you ALSO can't claim that there is definitely nothing. That's what TCH is claiming - that if we don't know if it's warming up, that's equivalent to knowing that it's not warming up. That's false. Not you, though. You're just pointing out that we can't know, and that no conclusions can be drawn from error-laden observations, except the conclusion of "well, this data is useless". Edited on 24-09-2016 03:53
24-09-2016 04:11
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	jwoodward48 wrote: I don't quite understand your third paragraph (after second quote). If we don't know, then it doesn't say anything. That is, the magic black box could have a cat or a dog, or even nothing, but there's no way of telling which it is. Correct. THAT is your conclusion. Sometimes you have to conclude ... that you don't know ... that you cannot tell. Semantically, if observations lead to a conclusion then they are "conclusive" to the extent of your conclusions. If the test is whether you know something or not then it is conclusive when you determine that you do not know. Remember the context of whether we can tell if there is Global Warming or not. Our observations are clearly conclusive in that we cannot tell. Now let's go to YOUR context, i.e. The earth is A. warming, B. cooling or C. not changing. For this question our observations are not conclusive. This is critical to my purposes when I am debating with climate lemmings who insist they know the earth is specifically warming. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-09-2016 04:18
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Ah, we agree. I think I may have been unclear in your second quote - I meant that THC is saying that the data conclusively shows a cooling or steady temperature. This is false - neither A, B, nor C is supported by the data. The data don't show that the Earth is warming up, and they don't show that the Earth ISN'T warming up either. That's all I meant.
24-09-2016 04:22
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	jwoodward48 wrote: Ah, we agree. I think I may have been unclear in your second quote - I meant that THC is saying that the data conclusively shows a cooling or steady temperature. This is false - neither A, B, nor C is supported by the data. The data don't show that the Earth is warming up, and they don't show that the Earth ISN'T warming up either. That's all I meant. We cannot compute earth's average temperature to any useful accuracy. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-09-2016 04:24
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Yep. That's what I said, in a very lengthy and complicated way. I like your way better.
24-09-2016 06:52
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	jwoodward48 wrote: 2. Yes, but our margins of error are even worse than the difference in average global surface temperature between an ice age and now - after all, now-IceAge is estimated to be on the order of a few degrees C. Incorrect. 1 C difference is a huge effect, especially towards the poles. The little ice age was less than 1 C. An el nino year is less than 0.1 C. Between ice age and warm period is about 6 C. A 1 C difference is enough to make 90% of America's crops fail and reduce the US population to less than 1 million. If average global temperature changes by 1 C, you or anyone else will likely not survive, only billionaires will survive. Edited on 24-09-2016 06:57
24-09-2016 07:04
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	No. Stop the alarmism and just listen. First of all, the estimates are about 4.5 between Ice Ages and non-Ice Ages. Not that this fact supports me in any way, but it's true. (Not that the estimates are true, just that this is what they are.) None of that would happen if the Earth heated up by a degree. Where did you learn that? That's not based on science. We don't know what the Earth's temperature is. We really don't. Our margins of error are so tremendous that we could go halfway into an ice age and we'd hardly notice. We have no idea what the temperature is doing. And that's fine - we can't affect it, we can't predict it on the long term. Business as usual.
24-09-2016 15:50
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	jwoodward48 wrote:None of that would happen if the Earth heated up by a degree. Where did you learn that? That's not based on science. 1 C change in average temperature would put everything out of wack. The little ice age was 1 C change in average temperature. An el nino year is 0.01 C change in temperature. 1 C increase in average temperature means no snow in New York all year round. 1 C decrease in average temperature means snow in New York for more than 6 months a year.
24-09-2016 15:57
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	How do you know that? Where are your sources?
24-09-2016 16:16
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: A 1 C difference is enough to make 90% of America's crops fail and reduce the US population to less than 1 million. Since when is a slightly warmer year going to kill 90% of the crops in America? Given that for any particular farm the weather will be of the order of +/- 10c over the average for each day why would a +1c make all that much difference?

24-09-2016 17:33
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	And the weirdest part is that THC isn't even a warmist. I don't know what he is.
24-09-2016 19:57
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	He is from the internet.
24-09-2016 20:07
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	jwoodward48 wrote: And the weirdest part is that THC isn't even a warmist. I don't know what he is. He is from a society where people don't talk much about science and thus is out of his depth.
24-09-2016 21:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	spot wrote: He is from the internet. The Internet is spawning people now??? GAWD!! Run!! the Network is taking over the world!!! 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-09-2016 04:15
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Brain-Eating Aliens from Transistor Space

Join the debate CO2 increased 44% since 1850. No effect on temperature. Experimental result:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist	140	15-04-2024 19:43
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..	392	01-12-2023 21:58
'Greenhouse' Effect?	49	30-11-2023 06:45
Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat	326	07-11-2023 19:16
The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"	291	05-11-2023 22:46