Global Warming -- LOL

May . . . or may not. That's why we have a discussion forum.

 

Only to someone who doesn't understand the issues.

 

I thought you were doing OK, no need to beat yourself up over it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I don't think most people around here are discussing climate change.

 

How are things way out there on the far right?

 

You would prefer "debating?"

 

Friggin cold and Blizzard conditions, do you even watch the news? All roads closed Utah to Nebraska..

Global warming

 

I wouldn't call it debating, either.

 

As you wish.

 

NO

NO

goes without saying ... never end up on the right side . even by mistake on a coin flip.

So .. how can everybody be wrong Children ? this is first question .. given contradictory positions one must be right .. right ? Wrong .. not in this case.

First off .. Langley gets partial marks -- There is no "Trend" of any significance from a data perspective .. time period far too short given the data set and what is being observed.... notice that in general .. the temp does not change by F-all .. so the range is super narrow .. and how do you even measure such a narrow range accurately .. across the entire earth .. where the error bars are nearly as high as your range.

so Jack and the Dr are out .. simply on the basis of flawed analysis of data set.

but nevermind that .. Yer all out .. as "Global warming" is not well measured by temperature .. at least not at this time in the graph. We simply don't expect temperature to rise that much on a relative basis 1 degree over 50-100 years type of thing.

The reason for this is because not all of the energy increase from global warming .. will go into warming har har har..

Take a glass full of ice and put into temp controlled box ... raise temp of box by 3 degree .. what happens to temp of water ?

Nothing ... ZERO .. which is why we put ice in drinks .. to keep them cold .. there is no measurable increase .. until you melt the ice .. then the temp increases really fast.

What we expect is a very small .... imperceptible increase year over year so don't expect measurable increase. What we expect to be measurable in the glass are two things .. increase in convection currents .. increase in the rate of ice melt.

and sorry lads .. kind of looks like we have both .. increasing energy in the system .. Polar Vortex destabilized ... and increased rate of ice melt.

 

Our planet’s temperature peaked in 2016 and has been in a disciplined decline since. It is in a channel 0.5°C wide with a slope of -0.03°C per annum. The atmosphere had been warming at 0.013°C per annum according to Dr Roy Spencer’s work. If the established cooling trend continues it will only take another decade to get back to the temperatures of the early 1980s. With the cooling trend firmly established, the question is: Can the proximate cause be found in the solar record?

 

Ah, so you can respond... who knew.... So, now that you've cited the conclusion, what possible catastrophe is impending based on the .038C per decade increase?

 

Jack ... you have no clue what your talking about ... just parroting some scientist but not understanding what the scientist is saying nor what the data means. Go back and read what I posted and try to figure out what I was saying . and respond .. as you have addressed ZERO from my post.

 

Your post literally ignores a host of thermodynamics rules, and frankly seems to more likely suggest that you don't understand the concepts that you want to scold others for.

The second point being you haven't given us any reason to respond to the post you produced, so why bother?

 

Dear Lost and Confused .. what "thermodynamic rule" has been ignored .. what concept not understood.

You are the one who has no idea how to read or interpret the data posted .. and who lacks understanding of what global warming actually is .. and the one who ignored a host of thermodynamic rules.

Would you like to know which one ? .. good .. but first tell me which one I ignored

 

#1015 is a reply on which I cannot improve.

 

Half a degree per century? That's okay with you?

 

We've got wayyyy too much ranting by people with no understanding of science, engineering and economics that impact the question of global warming. Rather than argue with the we-have-eight-years-left crowd, I would suggest they consider some of this....

 

What part of "Temp" not a good measure ... was difficult to grasp ?

 

That you can't improve on Strawman Fallacy is no surprise.. How about you tell us which rule of thermodynamics was broken.. back up your strawman accusation... do you know any of these rules Har har har

 

The graph presented temperature anomalies, not temperatures. Learn the difference.

 

That would be the laws of thermodynamics, not "rules."

Are you name dropping?

 

Do tell us the difference Jack >>> .. and why it matters given you were told "Temperature is a poor indicator of warming" which part did you not understand ? other than obviously all of it .. as you are still yammering about temperature .. pretending to know what a trend is

You claimed there was a rule of thermodynamics was broken .. still waiting for you to tell us what rule that might be ..

 

Anomalies vs. Temperature | Did You Know?
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov › access › monitoring › dyk

In climate change studies, temperature anomalies are more important than absolute temperature. A temperature anomaly is the difference from an average, ...

• 
  Global Surface Temperature Anomalies
  https://www.ncei.noaa.gov › access › monitoring › glob...
  
  Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more ...