TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC

Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by Raffy.Roma, Feb 3, 2013.

  1. nwdiver

    nwdiver Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,622
    Location:
    United States
    It's not a 'rationalization'... it's an explanation. CO2 is the largest known climate forcing but it's not the only one. The idea that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere wouldn't cause significant warming is absurd. The physics is clear CO2 doesn't block incoming energy but does block outgoing energy. Further... the amount of thermal energy increase (mostly in the oceans) matches very closely to what would be expected.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like x 2
  2. u00mem9

    u00mem9 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    507
    Location:
    USA
    Yes, that's basically a good summary. Maybe we can all agree that 90% of what gets written and stated are repeated general statements (including in this thread). I've spent some time trying to understand what's really supported by evidence. When I discovered the adjustments to the historical record of temps and read the rationale for time of observation adjustments I basically lost all confidence that objective analysis was applied there. If you are familiar with the details and want to discuss, I'm interested. But if you aren't familiar you can catch up with a couple short papers at noaa site. IMO they are laughable...but by all means.

    Also I learned that 97% of scientists don't agree, 97% of publications agree...those are very different things. Again, looks like propaganda rather than scientific analysis.

    But I have no reason to doubt the recent CO2 trends, so the net increase in energy makes sense.

    Re: temp data...most of the places I checked initially didn't show much change...and perhaps more significant, the change did not match the dramatic rise popularly shown for global warming where the last 5 years look like an asymptote that goes vertical in 2020. For me that makes that story look like more propaganda. Just get caught manipulating that data, and everyone is going to ignore the CO2 situation as part of the mess. It's dangerous to the cause, but no one seems worried because the end justifies the means. I just don't agree and think it will ultimately be self defeating.

    Obviously there are some people here who have expertise and conviction they are right about this topic. I'm sure it's painful listening to people like me feeling their way around in the dark. I'm sympathetic (I have to listen to this forum attempt to discuss automotive engineering, after all!! ;) ). But I strongly suggest leaving the conspiracy theories about fossil fuel's master plan to destroy the Earth out of it. Even if you are right, I don't think you are convincing anyone. Put the effort into technical discussion and minimize the reposts of media articles that are, themselves, reposts of a summary article.
     
  3. SageBrush

    SageBrush Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,031
    Location:
    Colorado
    Within the range of temperatures we are talking about the heat capacity the Earth's different compartments is, I presume, pretty stable. I've always take the CO2 sensitivity as a reflection of these (in aggregate) heat capacities, although there are other mechanisms as well.
     
  4. ohmman

    ohmman Maximum Plaid Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2014
    Messages:
    5,534
    Location:
    North Bay, CA
    I agree that there is a tendency for the media to overstate event attribution to climate change. But then, they take the abstract from any study and turn it into religion. I also believe there is a certain amount of publication bias behind the science.

    We can start a conversation on time of observation adjustments, if that's where you're hung up. I'm happy to discuss. I participated in a data science competition that dealt with weather data, so I had a little experience with what might be called "data manipulation" but is more accurately data smoothing. I may be able to contribute to your understanding, but I may not.

    In the meantime, I have finally found a good source for historical average temperatures by region. You really made it hard by requesting that. I had a tough time just tracking down the sources I posted earlier. This covers the US quite broadly, and you can filter by state, region, and some cities.

    Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
     
    • Like x 4
  5. Raffy.Roma

    Raffy.Roma Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    3,221
    Location:
    Rome (Italy)
    Absolutely correct. Perfect explanation for Green House Effect. Not only with increasing of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere the thermal energy increases but also the Ocean Acidification issue worsens with damages to the coral reef and to the life in the oceans.
     
    • Like x 2
  6. ggies07

    ggies07 Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    2,367
    Location:
    Ft. Worth, TX
  7. flankspeed8

    flankspeed8 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    Messages:
    658
    Location:
    Vermillion, MN
  8. dhrivnak

    dhrivnak Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,213
    Location:
    NE Tennessee
    It will deter future pipelines and that is good.
     
    • Like x 1

Share This Page