- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: US temperature data suggest CO2 does NOT cause warming.
Posted on 2/16/23 at 10:50 am to GumboPot
Posted on 2/16/23 at 10:50 am to GumboPot
Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. It is a trace atmospheric gas REQUIRED for life as we know it to exist on this planet. If anything, a little too little CO2 would be a much bigger problem than a little too much.
1
Posted on 2/16/23 at 10:54 am to GumboPot
1) Why do all of these graphs -only- show August 14th? If you wanted to really show this, you'd use an entire year (or even month), not a single day. But that's probably why they chose it, it allows them to mislead you without you catching on to the grift.
2) You still don't know what radiative forcing is? Weird.
2) You still don't know what radiative forcing is? Weird.
Posted on 2/16/23 at 11:03 am to GumboPot
quote:
The U.S. and a few locations in Europe and even fewer locations in Australia had temperature recording stations. U.S. has the most comprehensive data set starting around 1900. If you are seeing temperature charts that represent temperature data since the 1900's from around the world you are seeing temperature data output from climate models, not raw data. World temperature data from 1900 does not exists. You are being manipulated.
The data you showed was just from observing one day, August 14th right? Am I reading that wrong?
Plus, even without all the fancy data, I remember that we had more nights were it dropped below freezing than we do today. I get what you are saying with the raw data models instead of what they tell you, but just presenting them for the United States only would not accurately show what is going on worldwide. I'm not here to make some political statement, just want to discuss what is fact.
quote:
In physics there is a property of matter that can be used to determine the energy required to raise a specific mass of CO2 one degree. It called heat capacity. The two main atmospheric constituents in the air are nitrogen and oxygen. N2 and O2 have higher heat capacities than CO2. So it is correct to say that adding an atmospheric gas to a mixture with less heat capacity will require less energy to raise the temperature of that mixture. But CO2 is a trace gas. And for what it's worth argon makes up 1% of the atmosphere (where CO2 makes up 0.04%). Argon has almost half the heat capacity of CO2 so it takes half the energy to raise argon one degree that it does CO2.
I was more or less talking about the sun's rays coming in and reflecting off the ground, and instead of going back up into space being trapped here because of the thicker atmosphere in general. The rays are strong when they arrive and are able to break through, but once reflected not as strong and get trapped.
Posted on 2/16/23 at 11:17 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Why do all of these graphs -only- show August 14th?
Fair question. The link to download the current data set from NOAA (file called US.txt) is currently broken. That data is up to August 2021, the last time it was downloaded. Once the link to NOAA is fixed I can update the charts.
quote:
If you wanted to really show this, you'd use an entire yea
Those are the yearly averages for each year.
quote:
You still don't know what radiative forcing is?
Radiative forcing is a scientific allegory like "greenhouse effect" or Bohr's atomic model. It's used to explain a concept. In chemistry we all know Bohr's model is far from reality but it is very useful for communicating concepts so it continues to get taught.
The bottom line in terms of how you want to describe how to vibrate a CO2 molecule it has specific properties in terms of how much energy it takes to vibrate the molecule. That vibration is recorded as temperature. Feel free to describe the energy transfer as you see fit. If "radiative forcing" makes you happy then so be it. CO2 still requires 0.844 kilojoules of energy per kilogram to raise it temperature one degree kelvin regardless of scientific allegory you want to use to help you understand the energy/heat transfer.
Posted on 2/16/23 at 11:18 am to kingbob
CO2 is the result of climate change, not the cause of it.
Posted on 2/16/23 at 11:30 am to GumboPot
quote:
Those are the yearly averages for each year.
That's not what they are - they're the average temperature for each year ON THAT DAY. Which is garbage, and if you don't know that you're the mark.
As for radiative forcing, you're confusing concepts again. CO2 is known to, as its concentration increases in the atmosphere, increase the degree to which energy is retained. Hence the 'greenhouse' part of greenhouse gas.
Hope that clears up some confusion you clearly have!
Posted on 2/16/23 at 11:31 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant.
they'll be bitching a decade about having too little CO2 in the atmosphere.
This post was edited on 2/16/23 at 11:32 am
Posted on 2/16/23 at 11:33 am to BamaAtl
quote:
That's not what they are - they're the average temperature for each year ON THAT DAY. Which is garbage, and if you don't know that you're the mark.
Why is this the case? Doesn't all climate data have to isolate some data set somewhere?
Posted on 2/16/23 at 11:52 am to GumboPot
But Science Moms:
frickem.
frickem.
Posted on 2/16/23 at 11:58 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Why is this the case? Doesn't all climate data have to isolate some data set somewhere?
There are not one but two things here. One is that it only looks at data from one day out of a possible 365, the second is it's only for the United States.
Posted on 2/16/23 at 11:59 am to PsychTiger
Up-Grade commin fo yo
Posted on 2/16/23 at 12:08 pm to GumboPot
Nice post!
The climate is the next financial boom arena....it's all about the MONEY!
By far, the largest political football ever punted!
The climate is the next financial boom arena....it's all about the MONEY!
By far, the largest political football ever punted!
Posted on 2/16/23 at 12:16 pm to GumboPot
quote:
quote:
Most people with common sense know this.
Just providing the raw data (before it is manipulated) to backup intuitive common sense.
Sorry, I didn't mean it as a jab.
You have to be a special kind of stupid to think we have any control over the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere.
Posted on 2/16/23 at 12:28 pm to Zach
quote:
Most people with common sense know this.
And most people knew the real cause of global warming long ago.
It's the sun.
HERETIC!!!!!!!
Posted on 2/16/23 at 1:14 pm to lsunatchamp
quote:Yet, oddly the equator has higher solar forcing than the poles.
It has also been observed that the poles are heating up 3 times faster than the equator.
Posted on 2/16/23 at 1:16 pm to BamaAtl
quote:Nope. Increased CO2 has virtually no effect on the heat capacity of air. The differential in composition is FAR too small for that to happen. You have no idea what you're talking about.
CO2 is known to, as its concentration increases in the atmosphere, increase the degree to which energy is retained.
Posted on 2/16/23 at 1:17 pm to GumboPot
quote:Why do those chart titles say 1895-2023, but the x-axis stops before 2020?
GumboPot
Posted on 2/16/23 at 1:23 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Why do those chart titles say 1895-2023, but the x-axis stops before 2020?
An up to date data set is not available. I'm getting a "page not found" error when I try to update the data set. I emailed the author of the python script to update the us.txt data set or fixt the link. The data I used I already had downloaded a few years ago.
Posted on 2/16/23 at 1:52 pm to GumboPot
We knew this in the 1990s after they checked that data used to attack the coal industry in Britain (Led by Margaret Thatcher if you can believe it).
It is the reverse reaction. CO2 follows the warming trend it does not create it which was known science.
Warming temps create better environment for plants when moisture is added and CO2 increases.
BUT Thatcher was trying to kill the coal unions - unforeseen circumstance. Scientist and Academia realized they could get funding from government to support their desired outcome.
Ala Covid.
It is the reverse reaction. CO2 follows the warming trend it does not create it which was known science.
Warming temps create better environment for plants when moisture is added and CO2 increases.
BUT Thatcher was trying to kill the coal unions - unforeseen circumstance. Scientist and Academia realized they could get funding from government to support their desired outcome.
Ala Covid.
Posted on 2/17/23 at 11:05 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Increased CO2 has virtually no effect on the heat capacity of air.
Weird that that goes against observations and basic physics that say you're wrong.
But you're used to being wrong, so good job keeping the streak alive.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News