Remember me
▼ Content

MAY 2020 CLIMATE SUMMARY



Page 1 of 212>
MAY 2020 CLIMATE SUMMARY15-06-2020 17:27
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
Warmest May on record

12 months in a row of the warmest or second warmest month on record

2020 on track to be at least the second warmest year on record

425 months in a row above the 20th century average

Siberia remains a "hot spot"

ENSO Neutral conditions prevail

19 consecutive years of below average Arctic Sea Ice in the month of May

5th consecutive year with below average Antarctic Sea Ice.

CO2 reaches its highest level (417 ppm) since humans walked the Earth.

For more details see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxp0ZJ0XH7E
15-06-2020 18:16
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1215)
DRKTS wrote:
Warmest May on record

12 months in a row of the warmest or second warmest month on record

2020 on track to be at least the second warmest year on record

425 months in a row above the 20th century average

Siberia remains a "hot spot"

ENSO Neutral conditions prevail

19 consecutive years of below average Arctic Sea Ice in the month of May

5th consecutive year with below average Antarctic Sea Ice.

CO2 reaches its highest level (417 ppm) since humans walked the Earth.

For more details see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxp0ZJ0XH7E


SCIENCE!!!! Yo, SCIENCE!!!! Where art thou, SCIENCE?!??!?!?!

No science here people... move along...
15-06-2020 18:29
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2415)
DRKTS wrote:
Warmest May on record

12 months in a row of the warmest or second warmest month on record

2020 on track to be at least the second warmest year on record

425 months in a row above the 20th century average

Siberia remains a "hot spot"

ENSO Neutral conditions prevail

19 consecutive years of below average Arctic Sea Ice in the month of May

5th consecutive year with below average Antarctic Sea Ice.

CO2 reaches its highest level (417 ppm) since humans walked the Earth.

For more details see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxp0ZJ0XH7E


Total load of bullshit...
Doesn't arctic ice melt during the summer? If we didn't live thousands of years in a warmer climate, we would have evolved hairy all over, like other mammals.

CO2, highest level? How would you possibly know that? The ideal level for most plant life, falls in the 700-800 ppm range. 150 ppm is insufficient for plants to survive. OSHA believes 1200 ppm is a safe work environment, no protective gear, or ventilation required. Why isn't CO2 more toxic to life, if we are able to do well at higher concentrations? Plants do remarkably well at twice the current level. It been studied a great deal. Commercial indoor growing commonly augment CO2 to those levels, to produce a superior product, much quicker, than outdoors. This indicates that we had much more CO2 in the environment, and it was also much warmer, no clothing required...
15-06-2020 22:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
DRKTS wrote:
425 months in a row above the 20th century average
I don't doubt it but couldn't that have been said often in the past 12,000 years?

Here is what I would like to understand better:
Does anyone think they have a handle on what is going on besides AGW? If there were no AGW impact would the temp be rising, falling or flat over the past 425 months.

If it was supposed to be falling that makes the stat of record highs very significant.

If it was supposed to be rising then it may mean very little.

I'd truly like your take on that DRKTS
15-06-2020 22:55
keepit
★★★★☆
(1689)
Tmid,
I think the earth is headed on a very long term path towards another ice age. The problem is taking care of the next 100 to 200 years. The short term warming trend is much stronger than the very long term cooling trend.
16-06-2020 00:03
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1215)
tmiddles wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
425 months in a row above the 20th century average
I don't doubt it but couldn't that have been said often in the past 12,000 years?

Here is what I would like to understand better:
Does anyone think they have a handle on what is going on besides AGW? If there were no AGW impact would the temp be rising, falling or flat over the past 425 months.

If it was supposed to be falling that makes the stat of record highs very significant.

If it was supposed to be rising then it may mean very little.

I'd truly like your take on that DRKTS

Weather happens, dude... AGW is nothing more than wacky religious dogma that rejects logic, science, and mathematics.

There is no "supposed to"...
16-06-2020 01:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7473)
gfm7175 wrote: There is no "supposed to"...

Excellent point!

Science predicts nature, it does not express hopes and dreams or lament what might have been using the subjunctive mood with any "could'a -would'a-should'a"s

There absolutely is no "supposed to."
Attached image:

16-06-2020 02:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
DRKTS wrote:
Warmest May on record

12 months in a row of the warmest or second warmest month on record

2020 on track to be at least the second warmest year on record

425 months in a row above the 20th century average

Siberia remains a "hot spot"

ENSO Neutral conditions prevail

19 consecutive years of below average Arctic Sea Ice in the month of May

5th consecutive year with below average Antarctic Sea Ice.

CO2 reaches its highest level (417 ppm) since humans walked the Earth.

...deleted Holy Video...

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. it is not possible to measure the total ice and snow on Earth. it is not possible to measure the amount of ice at any pole. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. ENSO has nothing to do with the temperature of the Earth or it's oceans. The winter Arctic ice extent for 2018/2019 is larger than 2017/2018.


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
Edited on 16-06-2020 02:32
16-06-2020 16:42
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1215)
keepit wrote:
Tmid,
I think the earth is headed on a very long term path towards another ice age. The problem is taking care of the next 100 to 200 years. The short term warming trend is much stronger than the very long term cooling trend.

keepit,
I think the earth is headed on a very short term path towards complete and total destruction (due to "dangerously high" atmospheric CO2 levels and people not "doing something" about it). The problem is deciding precisely how we all should sulk, bitch, moan, and completely piss away the final 10 years of existence that we have left.
16-06-2020 16:48
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1215)
IBdaMann wrote:**bonus point award ceremony**

Thank you, IBdaMann, for this beautiful bonus point.

**starts sobbing uncontrollably**

I'd like to thank my God, my parents, my best friends, #2 pencils, A&W cheese curds, and science.

**stops sobbing**

BOOYAH, BUMPKINS!!! Peace out, dawg!
16-06-2020 17:22
James___
★★★★★
(3176)
gfm7175 wrote:
keepit wrote:
Tmid,
I think the earth is headed on a very long term path towards another ice age. The problem is taking care of the next 100 to 200 years. The short term warming trend is much stronger than the very long term cooling trend.

keepit,
I think the earth is headed on a very short term path towards complete and total destruction (due to "dangerously high" atmospheric CO2 levels and people not "doing something" about it). The problem is deciding precisely how we all should sulk, bitch, moan, and completely piss away the final 10 years of existence that we have left.



Do you know what I like about people like you? You see no reason to advance technology while you are dependent on it. You sound like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who is pro China. Mitch and his wife Elaine desires that the US becomes more like China. And they are worth probably at least $20 million thanks to China.
Senator Mitch McConnell and President Trump have said they are going to protect coal mining jobs and they have been doing just that........in China. So I guess you miss the point 5717mfg. China from what I've read is building more coal fired power plants. Because China is communist, it seems to limit their ability to advance technology which the US can do. And when we come up with something new, then we have it made in China. And that friend is the basis of a 1 World Government.

Edited on 16-06-2020 17:31
16-06-2020 18:01
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
gfm7175 wrote:


SCIENCE!!!! Yo, SCIENCE!!!! Where art thou, SCIENCE?!??!?!?!

No science here people... move along...


Apparently you did not watch the video or don't know what science is.
16-06-2020 18:13
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1215)
DRKTS wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:


SCIENCE!!!! Yo, SCIENCE!!!! Where art thou, SCIENCE?!??!?!?!

No science here people... move along...


Apparently you did not watch the video or don't know what science is.

I'll admit that I didn't watch your linked video. A personal rule of mine is that I do not watch any video links, especially ones that people use in replacement of forming their own arguments. I expect my interlocutors to be able to form their own arguments (this means that ZERO links to holy videos or holy websites are allowed with me, except for when a website link happens to augment one's own argumentation).

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
16-06-2020 18:13
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
HarveyH55 wrote:


Total load of bullshit...
Doesn't arctic ice melt during the summer? If we didn't live thousands of years in a warmer climate, we would have evolved hairy all over, like other mammals.

CO2, highest level? How would you possibly know that? The ideal level for most plant life, falls in the 700-800 ppm range. 150 ppm is insufficient for plants to survive. OSHA believes 1200 ppm is a safe work environment, no protective gear, or ventilation required. Why isn't CO2 more toxic to life, if we are able to do well at higher concentrations? Plants do remarkably well at twice the current level. It been studied a great deal. Commercial indoor growing commonly augment CO2 to those levels, to produce a superior product, much quicker, than outdoors. This indicates that we had much more CO2 in the environment, and it was also much warmer, no clothing required...


Yes the Arctic melts in the summer - the graph I showed was compared with previous Mays so the melting should be the same but for the last 19 years in a row there has been more melting than average.

Past CO2 levels are derived from ice cores, sediments, etc.

CO2 is good for SOME plants, especially in controlled environments (water and nutrients) - CO2 can kill as several sudden lake emissions have led to the deaths of villagers and their cattle.

The questions are:
1) How much land are you willing to lose as sea levels rise?
2) How much lower can ocean pH go before it destroys the food chain that 1/3 of the world's population depends on?
3) How much higher can we permit global temperatures to go before the global economy collapses?
16-06-2020 18:19
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
tmiddles wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
425 months in a row above the 20th century average
I don't doubt it but couldn't that have been said often in the past 12,000 years?

Here is what I would like to understand better:
Does anyone think they have a handle on what is going on besides AGW? If there were no AGW impact would the temp be rising, falling or flat over the past 425 months.

If it was supposed to be falling that makes the stat of record highs very significant.

If it was supposed to be rising then it may mean very little.

I'd truly like your take on that DRKTS


When you take all the natural factors that change global temperatures into account then global temperatures should have fallen by about 0.1C over the last 100 years.

See http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused/image/image_view_fullscreen

That is why you see some estimates of AGW saying that it explains 110% of the warming since 1900.
16-06-2020 18:29
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
gfm7175 wrote:

Weather happens, dude... AGW is nothing more than wacky religious dogma that rejects logic, science, and mathematics.

There is no "supposed to"...


There are 3 possibilities for the year to year variation of temperature

It can be average

It can be below average

It can be above average.

In a non warming world the above and below months would average out to the average (by definition)

So what is the likelihood of getting 425 consecutive months in a row above average? It is like a heads/tails coin toss but the coin has 3 sides.

So that would be 3 ^ (425-1) or 1 in 2x10^(202). That is more that the number of atoms in the Universe (10^(89))

I'll take those odds!
16-06-2020 18:32
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Warmest May on record

12 months in a row of the warmest or second warmest month on record

2020 on track to be at least the second warmest year on record

425 months in a row above the 20th century average

Siberia remains a "hot spot"

ENSO Neutral conditions prevail

19 consecutive years of below average Arctic Sea Ice in the month of May

5th consecutive year with below average Antarctic Sea Ice.

CO2 reaches its highest level (417 ppm) since humans walked the Earth.

...deleted Holy Video...

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. it is not possible to measure the total ice and snow on Earth. it is not possible to measure the amount of ice at any pole. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. ENSO has nothing to do with the temperature of the Earth or it's oceans. The winter Arctic ice extent for 2018/2019 is larger than 2017/2018.


Lots of not possibles in there but the only one that counts is that seems impossible for you to understand basic data especially if it punctures our delusional bubble.
16-06-2020 18:42
James___
★★★★★
(3176)
DRKTS wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:

Weather happens, dude... AGW is nothing more than wacky religious dogma that rejects logic, science, and mathematics.

There is no "supposed to"...


There are 3 possibilities for the year to year variation of temperature

It can be average

It can be below average

It can be above average.

In a non warming world the above and below months would average out to the average (by definition)

So what is the likelihood of getting 425 consecutive months in a row above average? It is like a heads/tails coin toss but the coin has 3 sides.

So that would be 3 ^ (425-1) or 1 in 2x10^(202). That is more that the number of atoms in the Universe (10^(89))

I'll take those odds!



And you're going back to when ozone depletion was still decreasing. And it still might be decreasing today. If we consider this as being representative of the Earth's total ozone, at the end Australia was on fire (generating CO2 which helps ozone to occur naturally according to the IPCC) and a hole in the ozone layer occurred over the Arctic instead. The fires in Australia created what's known as an SSW (sudden stratospheric warming) event which prevented polar straospheric clouds from forming (those clouds create the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica). And does a depleted ozone layer allow more solar radiation to warm the Earth? It does. So what are the odds of what you support happening while the ozone layer is becoming depleted?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/Ozone

I'd say this is the result of the SSW over Antarctica.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/spring-2020-brings-rare-ozone-%E2%80%9Chole%E2%80%9D-arctic
Edited on 16-06-2020 19:21
16-06-2020 18:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7473)
DRKTS wrote: Yes the Arctic melts in the summer - the graph I showed was compared with previous Mays so the melting should be the same but for the last 19 years in a row there has been more melting than average.

Incorrect.

Look up the term "monotone decreasing." That is what polar ice extent would need to be for your dogma to have any validity.

The ice extent is not and your dogma does not.

DRKTS wrote:Past CO2 levels are derived from ice cores, sediments, etc.

... and in completely unscientific fashion there was no margin of error mentioned. Of course, WACKY religious boolsch't never has any margin of error; it is divinely inspired to perfection.

DRKTS wrote:CO2 is good for SOME plants,

For which plants are you claiming that CO2 is harmful?

DRKTS wrote: CO2 can kill as several sudden lake emissions have led to the deaths of villagers and their cattle.

Nitrogen comprises 80% of our atmosphere, and it will kill all life if you increase that to 100% (a mere 25% increase).

DRKTS wrote:The questions are:

Nope. They are not, for the following reasons.

DRKTS wrote: 1) How much land are you willing to lose as sea levels rise?

No person's "willingness to lose land" has any effect on the ocean which has not risen perceptibly since 1940.

DRKTS wrote: 2) How much lower can ocean pH go before it destroys the food chain that 1/3 of the world's population depends on?

This is how you give yourself away as being a scientifically illiterate moron.

Life is acidic and thrives in acidic environments; alkaline environments are hostile to most life. The ocean has never acidified however if the ocean were to actually transition to being acidic, it would start to teem with life in a virtual bio-explosion.

Join me for a drink. You take a healthy shot of Drain-O and I'll take an equal shot of lime juice. The Drain-O is just as alkaline as the lime juice is acidic so you shouldn't have a problem with that, right?

Natural geological processes cause the ocean to become more alkaline, which is why it has always been alkaline and never acidic. Your question is simply preaching of WACKY warmizombie dogma targetting the gullible and scientifically illiterate.

You are a gullible moron.

DRKTS wrote: 3) How much higher can we permit global temperatures to go before the global economy collapses?

According to what scientific model is "our" permission a factor in the earth's average global temperature?

Did I mention that you are a gullible moron?


.


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
16-06-2020 20:02
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1215)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote: CO2 can kill as several sudden lake emissions have led to the deaths of villagers and their cattle.

Nitrogen comprises 80% of our atmosphere, and it will kill all life if you increase that to 100% (a mere 25% increase).

.

Oh no... you're going to have him TOTALLY confused now... hahahahaha
16-06-2020 20:46
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2415)
DRKTS wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:


Total load of bullshit...
Doesn't arctic ice melt during the summer? If we didn't live thousands of years in a warmer climate, we would have evolved hairy all over, like other mammals.

CO2, highest level? How would you possibly know that? The ideal level for most plant life, falls in the 700-800 ppm range. 150 ppm is insufficient for plants to survive. OSHA believes 1200 ppm is a safe work environment, no protective gear, or ventilation required. Why isn't CO2 more toxic to life, if we are able to do well at higher concentrations? Plants do remarkably well at twice the current level. It been studied a great deal. Commercial indoor growing commonly augment CO2 to those levels, to produce a superior product, much quicker, than outdoors. This indicates that we had much more CO2 in the environment, and it was also much warmer, no clothing required...


Yes the Arctic melts in the summer - the graph I showed was compared with previous Mays so the melting should be the same but for the last 19 years in a row there has been more melting than average.

Past CO2 levels are derived from ice cores, sediments, etc.

CO2 is good for SOME plants, especially in controlled environments (water and nutrients) - CO2 can kill as several sudden lake emissions have led to the deaths of villagers and their cattle.

The questions are:
1) How much land are you willing to lose as sea levels rise?
2) How much lower can ocean pH go before it destroys the food chain that 1/3 of the world's population depends on?
3) How much higher can we permit global temperatures to go before the global economy collapses?


1) How much land are you willing to lose as sea levels rise?

When is this suppose to start? I remember Rev. Al Gore prophesying Florida was going to be underwater. Never happened, and I'm not seeing any 'signs' that it's even started. I've lived in the same home, in Florida for 30 years. It's very flat, low-lying land. Even an inch or two rise, would mess things up quite a bit. We get a lot of rain, quickly, which needs to run off, or we get flooding. Much of it gets channeled through lakes, and a series of canals, out to the ocean. We would need to constantly be dredging our canals deeper, to keep up. But the land is already pretty close to sea-level, and we wouldn't be able to go much deeper, before saltwater comes in, rather than storm water going out. Rising sea levels would be a major concern for this state, headline news. Non-issue...

2) How much lower can ocean pH go before it destroys the food chain that 1/3 of the world's population depends on?

Another non-issue. There might be a few localized instances of pH issues, repeat, might. But that's a lot of water. 4/5ths of the planet is covered with water. Every living thing, follows the food, and tolerable environmental conditions. The fish, and everything else, will do fine, no far away. People want to eat, they can follow the food, or find something else worth eating. Nature rules, we don't control it, we just adapt to it, if we want to survive.

3) How much higher can we permit global temperatures to go before the global economy collapses?[/quote]

Are you kidding me? I moved to Florida, because I like a warmer climate. Can't imaging anyone enjoying chasing polar bears away from their trashcans. Our species is adapted to a warm climate, no fur, like most mammals.

Economic collapse is more like to come from the left leaning morons in charge. We had an overly aggressive response to a cold virus. There is global rioting looting, over the death of a felon, Fentanyl Floyd. The defoliation of hundreds, of thousands of acres of prime farm land, to plant solar panels, and windmills.
16-06-2020 21:26
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1215)
DRKTS wrote:
CO2 is good for SOME plants, especially in controlled environments (water and nutrients) - CO2 can kill as several sudden lake emissions have led to the deaths of villagers and their cattle.

Which plants are harmed by CO2?

DRKTS wrote:
The questions are:
1) How much land are you willing to lose as sea levels rise?

What "sea level rise"?

DRKTS wrote:
2) How much lower can ocean pH go before it destroys the food chain that 1/3 of the world's population depends on?

Life is acidic, dude...

DRKTS wrote:
3) How much higher can we permit global temperatures to go before the global economy collapses?

How did you go about measuring "global temperature"? Can I see your raw data?

I didn't know that we were in control of global temperatures... Should we just set the thermostat down a bit lower then??
Edited on 16-06-2020 21:28
16-06-2020 21:44
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1215)
DRKTS wrote:
When you take all the natural factors that change global temperatures into account

Can you list out even a few of these "natural factors" for me?

DRKTS wrote:
then global temperatures should have fallen by about 0.1C over the last 100 years.

I'm going to turn the global temperature thermostat down a few notches... Happy now?

DRKTS wrote:...deleted holy link...

That is why you see some estimates of AGW saying that it explains 110% of the warming since 1900.

Meaningless until you define the "natural factors" that "change global temperatures".
16-06-2020 21:48
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1215)
DRKTS wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:

Weather happens, dude... AGW is nothing more than wacky religious dogma that rejects logic, science, and mathematics.

There is no "supposed to"...


There are 3 possibilities for the year to year variation of temperature

It can be average

It can be below average

It can be above average.

In a non warming world the above and below months would average out to the average (by definition)

So what is the likelihood of getting 425 consecutive months in a row above average? It is like a heads/tails coin toss but the coin has 3 sides.

So that would be 3 ^ (425-1) or 1 in 2x10^(202). That is more that the number of atoms in the Universe (10^(89))

I'll take those odds!

Why are you using a random number as "the average" and why am I supposed to accept that random number as being meaningful in any way?
16-06-2020 23:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
DRKTS wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:


SCIENCE!!!! Yo, SCIENCE!!!! Where art thou, SCIENCE?!??!?!?!

No science here people... move along...


Apparently you did not watch the video or don't know what science is.


Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. It is nothing more. It is nothing less.

This simple statement, however, has a lot of important effects. Among them:

* science is not data. Data is the result of an observation, and that in and of itself is subject to the problems of phenomenology. Data is evidence only.
* science does not use supporting evidence. It only uses conflicting evidence.
* no theory is ever proven True, whether it's a theory of science or not.
* a theory of science can be shown to be False. When that happens, it ceases to be a theory at all. It becomes a fallacy.
* science is not a university, study, research program, government agency, credential, license, or any scientist or group of scientists. It isn't even people at all. It is just the theories themselves.
* science is not a video or an URL. The Science Guy show is not science. Wikipedia is not science.
* science is not a book or a paper.
* science explains, but in and of itself is incapable of prediction, since it is an open functional system. Transcribing a theory into mathematical form gives a theory the power of prediction, as mathematics is a closed functional system. Hence, most theories are known by their equations, such as F=mA. Such an equation is also known as a 'law' of science (such as Newton's Law of Motion, just given). The 'three laws of motion' you learned in your typical crappy grade school stem from this one equation. It is the equation that allows you to predict what will happen in any given situation concerning motion as it relates to force and acceleration.

There is no equation for 'global warming', 'climate change', or 'greenhouse effect'. Indeed, these three terms are not even defined.


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
17-06-2020 00:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
DRKTS wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:


Total load of bullshit...
Doesn't arctic ice melt during the summer? If we didn't live thousands of years in a warmer climate, we would have evolved hairy all over, like other mammals.

CO2, highest level? How would you possibly know that? The ideal level for most plant life, falls in the 700-800 ppm range. 150 ppm is insufficient for plants to survive. OSHA believes 1200 ppm is a safe work environment, no protective gear, or ventilation required. Why isn't CO2 more toxic to life, if we are able to do well at higher concentrations? Plants do remarkably well at twice the current level. It been studied a great deal. Commercial indoor growing commonly augment CO2 to those levels, to produce a superior product, much quicker, than outdoors. This indicates that we had much more CO2 in the environment, and it was also much warmer, no clothing required...


Yes the Arctic melts in the summer - the graph I showed was compared with previous Mays so the melting should be the same but for the last 19 years in a row there has been more melting than average.

Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the amount of ice in the Arctic.
DRKTS wrote:
Past CO2 levels are derived from ice cores, sediments, etc.

It is not possible to measure the atmospheric global CO2 content. Stating CO2 or temperature using ice cores, sediments, etc. are conjecture. Science does not use proxy measurements.
DRKTS wrote:
CO2 is good for SOME plants, especially in controlled environments (water and nutrients) - CO2 can kill as several sudden lake emissions have led to the deaths of villagers and their cattle.

CO2 is good for all plants. Plants combine CO2, water, and sunlight to produce carbohydrates. Food for the plant, and us.
DRKTS wrote:
The questions are:
1) How much land are you willing to lose as sea levels rise?

Melting sea ice does not cause any ocean level to rise. Melting an ice cube in a glass of water won't cause the water level to rise either.

It is not possible to measure the global sea level. There is no valid reference point. There is, however, historical information. Air bases built across the Pacific ocean during WW2 on small islands where the runway was only 6 feet above sea level are still 6 feet above sea level.

DRKTS wrote:
2) How much lower can ocean pH go before it destroys the food chain that 1/3 of the world's population depends on?

Ocean water is alkaline. Rain water is naturally acidic. How do you suppose it becomes alkaline by the time it returns to the ocean??
DRKTS wrote:
3) How much higher can we permit global temperatures to go before the global economy collapses?

CO2 has not capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

The only thing that causes the temperature of the Earth to rise is increased output from the Sun, or by moving closure to the Sun. We can't control either. We cannot give our permission for either.

Economies do better in warmer temperatures. See Egypt, where an entire empire was built. Also see Rome. Farmers generally plant in Spring, so the plants can benefit from the nicer weather and increased sunlight during summer. They generally don't plant in Fall, unless Winters are mild in that area. While plants are not sensitive to temperature, they are sensitive to damage by freezing in some cases.

Economies are functions of people conducting the everyday affairs. Since people live everywhere on Earth, including Antarctica, there are economies everywhere on 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
17-06-2020 00:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
DRKTS wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
425 months in a row above the 20th century average
I don't doubt it but couldn't that have been said often in the past 12,000 years?

Here is what I would like to understand better:
Does anyone think they have a handle on what is going on besides AGW? If there were no AGW impact would the temp be rising, falling or flat over the past 425 months.

If it was supposed to be falling that makes the stat of record highs very significant.

If it was supposed to be rising then it may mean very little.

I'd truly like your take on that DRKTS


When you take all the natural factors that change global temperatures into account then global temperatures should have fallen by about 0.1C over the last 100 years.

There is no 'should be' in science. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
DRKTS wrote:
...deleted Holy Link...

Form your own arguments. Stop stealing the arguments of others as your own.
DRKTS wrote:
That is why you see some estimates of AGW saying that it explains 110% of the warming since 1900.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Argument from randU fallacy. You are just making up numbers.


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
17-06-2020 00:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
DRKTS wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:

Weather happens, dude... AGW is nothing more than wacky religious dogma that rejects logic, science, and mathematics.

There is no "supposed to"...


There are 3 possibilities for the year to year variation of temperature

It can be average

It can be below average

It can be above average.

In a non warming world the above and below months would average out to the average (by definition)

So what is the likelihood of getting 425 consecutive months in a row above average? It is like a heads/tails coin toss but the coin has 3 sides.

So that would be 3 ^ (425-1) or 1 in 2x10^(202). That is more that the number of atoms in the Universe (10^(89))

I'll take those odds!

Making up numbers again. Argument from randU fallacy.


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
17-06-2020 00:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Warmest May on record

12 months in a row of the warmest or second warmest month on record

2020 on track to be at least the second warmest year on record

425 months in a row above the 20th century average

Siberia remains a "hot spot"

ENSO Neutral conditions prevail

19 consecutive years of below average Arctic Sea Ice in the month of May

5th consecutive year with below average Antarctic Sea Ice.

CO2 reaches its highest level (417 ppm) since humans walked the Earth.

...deleted Holy Video...

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. it is not possible to measure the total ice and snow on Earth. it is not possible to measure the amount of ice at any pole. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. ENSO has nothing to do with the temperature of the Earth or it's oceans. The winter Arctic ice extent for 2018/2019 is larger than 2017/2018.


Lots of not possibles in there but the only one that counts is that seems impossible for you to understand basic data especially if it punctures our delusional bubble.

Random numbers are not data, dude.


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
17-06-2020 02:42
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
keepit wrote:
I think the earth is headed on a very long term path towards another ice age. The problem is taking care of the next 100 to 200 years.
Yeah well said.

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:If it was supposed to be falling ...
There is no "supposed to"...
Were you actually confused about what I was communicating? I can put it in different words for you:
If the temperature would have been falling otherwise. Make sense?\

Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Or Denver right ITN? Or GFM's house. Just say it's not possible to measure the temperature of anything as you've never given an example.

DRKTS wrote:
The questions are:
1) How much land are you willing to lose as sea levels rise?
2) How much lower can ocean pH go before it destroys the food chain that 1/3 of the world's population depends on?
3) How much higher can we permit global temperatures to go before the global economy collapses?
But of course those questions come AFTER each one of those events is substantiated. The scale of what is happening is critically important. The Sun is burning out but so slowly it doesn't concern us for example.

DRKTS wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
If it was supposed to be falling that makes the stat of record highs very significant.

When you take all the natural factors that change global temperatures into account then global temperatures should have fallen by about 0.1C over the last 100 years.
See
(I found a postable version for you above).

Thank you! That is exactly what I wanted to see. My first question/topic here was about an island that was identified as sinking and in the news report they mentioned the first half had sunk in the 1800s. So I was like wait a minute! Tangier Island , should it be used as an example? That chart does actually show the blue line being flat +0.01 though doesn't it?

I'd really like to talk more with you directly on here DRKTS. I'm sick of ITN/IBD taking up all our time.

DRKTS wrote:
In a non warming world the above and below months would average out to the average (by definition)
Well said. A seemingly chaotic/random event that depends on probability, like rolling a die for example, will describe it's true character more and more clearly with repetition.

So DRKTS regarding the image you found above. It was included here:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused/
Where is states:"To understand why 'this current' global warming is human caused and not natural cycle, one needs to get an idea of what the natural cycle is and what are the basic mechanisms that cause climate change in the natural cycle. The absolute essentials that you need to understand are the drivers:
Greenhouse Gases
Milankovitch Cycles"
So thanks again for finding this for me.

I think looking at the ability to measure and predict the past temperature patterns is worthwhile. I'm wondering if anyone has taken the factors like Milankovitch Cycles in the past and compared them with what we've learned about temperature in the past. Even just being able to correlate relatively warmer and cooler spans of time would be a start.
17-06-2020 03:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:
I think the earth is headed on a very long term path towards another ice age. The problem is taking care of the next 100 to 200 years.
Yeah well said.

Take care of what? Define the problem.
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:If it was supposed to be falling ...
There is no "supposed to"...
Were you actually confused about what I was communicating? I can put it in different words for you:
If the temperature would have been falling otherwise. Make sense?

No. From when to when? Why those particular times? Why not any other particular times. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Or Denver right ITN? Or GFM's house. Just say it's not possible to measure the temperature of anything as you've never given an example.

Lie. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
The questions are:
1) How much land are you willing to lose as sea levels rise?
2) How much lower can ocean pH go before it destroys the food chain that 1/3 of the world's population depends on?
3) How much higher can we permit global temperatures to go before the global economy collapses?
But of course those questions come AFTER each one of those events is substantiated. The scale of what is happening is critically important. The Sun is burning out but so slowly it doesn't concern us for example.

Random numbers are no substantiation of anything.
tmiddles wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
If it was supposed to be falling that makes the stat of record highs very significant.

When you take all the natural factors that change global temperatures into account then global temperatures should have fallen by about 0.1C over the last 100 years.
...deleted graph of random numbers...

Thank you! That is exactly what I wanted to see. My first question/topic here was about an island that was identified as sinking and in the news report they mentioned the first half had sunk in the 1800s. So I was like wait a minute! Tangier Island , should it be used as an example? That chart does actually show the blue line being flat +0.01 though doesn't it?

Random numbers. it is not possible to measure the global sea level.
tmiddles wrote:
I'd really like to talk more with you directly on here DRKTS. I'm sick of ITN/IBD taking up all our time.

Stop denying science. Stop denying mathematics. Stop asking the same questions over and over even though they've been answered. Stop making the same fallacies over and over. You are the only one wasting your own time. Obviously, time isn't precious to you.
tmiddles wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
In a non warming world the above and below months would average out to the average (by definition)
Well said. A seemingly chaotic/random event that depends on probability, like rolling a die for example, will describe it's true character more and more clearly with repetition.

Math error. Use of probability math on an open system.
tmiddles wrote:
So DRKTS regarding the image you found above. It was included here:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused/
Where is states:"To understand why 'this current' global warming is human caused and not natural cycle, one needs to get an idea of what the natural cycle is and what are the basic mechanisms that cause climate change in the natural cycle. The absolute essentials that you need to understand are the drivers:

Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'.
tmiddles wrote:
Greenhouse Gases

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
Milankovitch Cycles"
So thanks again for finding this for me.

Conjecture.
tmiddles wrote:
I think looking at the ability to measure and predict the past temperature patterns is worthwhile.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone has taken the factors like Milankovitch Cycles in the past and compared them with what we've learned about temperature in the past.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
Even just being able to correlate relatively warmer and cooler spans of time would be a start.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the 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
17-06-2020 04:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
Into the Night wrote:
Take care of what? Define the problem.
The temp increasing rapidly.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
If the temperature would have been falling otherwise. Make sense?

No. From when to when? Why those particular times? Why not any other particular times.
The Earth has an annual temperature cycle due to it's orbit. We are aware of when CO2 emissions from human activity increase dramatically and that is in the last 100 year. But it is the temperature increase per year that is relevant, not the span of years looked at.

Into the Night wrote:Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'.
You continue to ask that and then ignore the answer. Both terms refer to an increase in the mean temp of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere.

Into the Night wrote:No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
The Sun warms Earth and only the Sun. The atmosphere allows for more of that thermal energy to be present.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
17-06-2020 16:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7473)
tgoebbles wrote: The temp increasing rapidly.

* Is that happening?
* What is the rate of increase?


tgoebbles wrote: We are aware of when CO2 emissions from human activity increase dramatically and that is in the last 100 year. But it is the temperature increase per year that is relevant, not the span of years looked at.

* What does CO2 have to do with temperature?
* I thought that plants consume CO2 and produce oxygen? Am I mistaken?
* Doesn't producing more CO2 therefore result in producing more oxygen?
* What is the temperature increase per year?


These derivative questions stem from more fundamental questions that you EVADE. I will cover them below.

tgoebbles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'.
You continue to ask that and then ignore the answer.

You have never "answered the question." You either offer ambiguous descriptions comprised of additional undefined terms or you violate physics. It is you who won't/can't provide a definition that isn't immediately dismissed.

... and you EVADE all the direct questions that would obviously expose your crazy beliefs for the WACKY religious fanaticism that it is.

1. Does Greenhouse Effect involve an increase to the earth's average global temperature or not?

You have not answered this "yes-or-no" question with simply a "yes" or a "no."

You avoid answering this question because such an answer would lead one to be able to authoritatively pin-point the manner in which your WACKY dogma violates physics.

2. Why should any rational adult believe in Greenhouse Effect? ... or in Global Warming? ... or in Climate Change?

No warmizombie has ever offered an unambiguous answer to this question that does not violate physcis (or logic).

tgoebbles wrote: Both terms refer to an increase in the mean temp of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere.

This reference obviously excludes the atmosphere above the bottom-most (undefined) layer of the atmosphere ... which either veils your egregious violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics or it veils your alternating egregious violations of the 1st law of thermodynamics and of Stefan-Boltzmann.

Ergo, for you:

3. According to your model, what happens to the average temperature of the rest of the atmosphere, presuming an increase in the temperature of the bottom-most (undefined) layer of the atmosphere?

tgoebbles wrote: The Sun warms Earth and only the Sun. The atmosphere allows for more of that thermal energy to be present.

You used the verb "allows" with respect to the atmosphere. How does an atmosphere "allow" something that would otherwise not be "allowed" to occur? Ergo, for you we have another:

4. How can the atmosphere alter the rate at which the earth loses electromagnetic radiation to something other than what Stefan-Boltzmann specifies, thus "allowing" Radiance to emit at a more leisurely pace?

I will refer to these as the "Core Questions" that you need to explain for your assertions to be valid.


[*find-COREQUESTIONS]


.


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
17-06-2020 17:42
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
IBdaMann wrote:...Is that happening?..increase?...temperature?...Am I mistaken?
So many questions for a guy that consistently dodges my posts!

I will direct you back to the debate you're currently ducking: here
and
here

If you actually want to debate these things I'm ready.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
17-06-2020 18:58
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1215)
So you're now dodging by whining about dodging??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
17-06-2020 19:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Take care of what? Define the problem.
The temp increasing rapidly.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You are making shit up.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
If the temperature would have been falling otherwise. Make sense?

No. From when to when? Why those particular times? Why not any other particular times.
The Earth has an annual temperature cycle due to it's orbit. We are aware of when CO2 emissions from human activity increase dramatically and that is in the last 100 year.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. There wasn't even a single station monitoring atmospheric CO2 at all until 1956. You are making shit up.
tmiddles wrote:
But it is the temperature increase per year that is relevant, not the span of years looked at.

Why the two moments in time of 100 years ago and now? Why not any other points in time?
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'.
You continue to ask that and then ignore the answer.

You have not answered. You cannot define a word using undefined words.
tmiddles wrote:
Both terms refer to an increase in the mean temp of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere.

So 'climate change' is 'global warming'? Define 'global warming'. You cannot define a word using an undefined word. You cannot define a word with itself either.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
The Sun warms Earth and only the Sun. The atmosphere allows for more of that thermal energy to be present.

The atmosphere is mass, same as the Earth. Total thermal energy is not temperature. Mantra 20a4.

No argument presented. Buzzword fallacies. Redefinition fallacies. Denial of science.


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
17-06-2020 19:09
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
gfm7175 wrote:
So you're now dodging
what are you saying I'm not answering? I linked to both threads IBD has not followed up on which address his questions.

Keeping the board organized is something we can all do as a comminuity
17-06-2020 19:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7473)
tmiddles wrote: If you actually want to debate these things I'm ready.


I have tried to explain things to you and your only response is "You are WRONG!"

I have tried discussing with you but you have misrepresented everything I have written at one point or another and have mocked me for positions that I have not held.

I have tried debating with you but you EVADE all salient points because you never had any intention of debating anything.

So ... since you are the one with the affirmative claim of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect ... you either need to start answering the core questions and then every other question you generate, in whatever thread I happen to ask ... or you are simply dismissed.

At the moment, you are dismissed.

If that's where it ends then great. We're done.

.


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
17-06-2020 19:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted evasion...Mantras 17...15a...15b...15a...15b...6...10h...29...


No argument presented. Repetition fallacy. RQAA. Spamming. Denial of science.


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
17-06-2020 19:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 29...15a...6...


No argument presented. RQAA. Spamming.


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
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate MAY 2020 CLIMATE SUMMARY:

Remember me

▲ 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