Global Warming: The actual charts

Discussion in 'World News, Current Events & Politics' started by Nerdtendo, Jul 16, 2019.

?
  1. Yes

    9 vote(s)
    56.3%
  2. Yes but the bottom option

    7 vote(s)
    43.8%
  1. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    18
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    Deforestation is a real problem when it comes to global warming and climate change, but vegans (particularly American vegans) are not to blame. The United States also has little to nothing to do with soybean production in other countries, since we don't really import soy.

    Cutting down rainforests doesn't increase oxygen production, and it doesn't decrease carbon dioxide concentration. Rainforests are a carbon sink. It absorbs more carbon than it releases. You also have to remember that the seasons affect carbon dioxide concentrations. Forests take in carbon in the spring (when trees grow, leaves grow, etc.), and they release carbon in the fall (when leaves rot, etc.). However, some of that carbon isn't released back into the air in the autumn because it's trapped in the trees themselves.

    The Earth naturally goes through periods of warming and cooling, often due in part to naturally changing carbon dioxide concentrations, but that's not what is happening now. Humans are drastically changing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, which causally affects the Earth's temperatures. The rate at which carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere is unprecedented in Earth's entire history, and it's currently about twice as much as it has been in the last 800,000 years.
     
  2. zomborg

    zomborg Makin Temp great again

    Member
    4
    Apr 17, 2015
    United States
    Wow that second article you posted really surprised me :blink: I did not realize rainforests do not really absorb carbon from the atmosphere.
     
  3. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    18
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    I took the time to read "your" points and was working on responding to the first few before I realized from a Google search that they were all copy/pasted. I'm not interested in responding to a barrage of copy/pasted bullet points that I would probably be taking more time to read than you did. If you want me to talk to you, you're going to have to talk to me. That's how discourse works.

    I made my points, explained my points, and used the charts and links as evidence. You copy/pasted bullet points without making nor explaining any points. I am sorry you don't see the difference.

    In the last 800,000 years, carbon dioxide has never gone higher 280 ppm. Since the industrial revolution, however, carbon dioxide levels have reached approximately 413 ppm. That's a significant increase, and it's only getting worse. Your "0.00022 percent" was debunked long ago as wildly inaccurate and misleading. It's like me saying that the 10,000 gallons of water I'm about to put into my pool this summer is only 1% of the water I've ever put into it. While technically true if I've refilled my pool 100 times in the past, it's misleading and says nothing about whether or not 10,000 gallons is a lot or if my pool can hold that much.

    None of this is relevant. Carbon dioxide doesn't have to be the most common greenhouse gas for it to be the major cause of human-made climate change. It also doesn't take a lot of something to be a greenhouse gas. We're talking about parts per million, after all.

    Yes, and changing carbon dioxide concentrations are correlated with temperature changes. There are also other factors that affect the climate, but carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are big ones.

    There are other variables that affect climate. Sometimes, one thing leads to warmth, which leads to increased carbon dioxide, which leads to more warmth, etc. That's called a positive feedback loop. It doesn't change that increased carbon dioxide levels means increased heat.

    Temperatures did not "fall for four decades" after 1940. Temperatures, on average, went up approximately 0.1 degrees C between 1940 and 1980. Between 1980 and 2019, the change has been more than 0.7 degrees C.

    No, they're not. It's not even consistent with trends over the last 2,000 years, let alone the last 100 years.
    1.

    There's no real evidence for this, and the findings I believe you are referring to have been independently verified, so it's irrelevant.

    It didn't actually show this. You didn't provide a source, but if it's what I believe you're talking about, it was one scientist who made bold claims about a single team without any corroborating evidence.

    Read about the Soon-and-Baliunas controversy. His methodology was flawed, and he's been heavily criticized by the scientific community. He also failed to disclose over a million dollars he received from the fossil fuel industry during his work.

    1-2 degrees doesn't sound like a lot, but it is a lot when we are talking about the climate of the entire Earth. The difference between the present and a major ice age is only a few degrees when we are talking about a global scale.
    The temperature increase is not within natural rates. See the chart above for natural rates over the past 2,000 years and natural rates over the past 800,000 years.

    I hope you know you're talking about drastic changes to Earth's climate that occurred in part due to changes in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Also, what's your point?

    Rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere causes more harm than good, and most importantly, it is a direct cause of global warming. Whether or not you think global warming is "positive" to some species is also irrelevant to the conversation.

    1. Ice data actually shows that temperature is very much correlated to carbon dioxide levels.
    2. In some cases in climate history, a smaller climate event can cause a positive feedback loop. For example, colder temperatures caused by something unrelated to greenhouse gases can then reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases, which can decrease the temperature even more, which can then reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases even more. Your point is irrelevant and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how climate science works. Nothing about this suggests there's "little evidence that concentrations of CO2 are the cause of climate change."

    Saying computer models can be maliciously manipulated is irrelevant to whether or not climate predictions are true. If you're going to say there's something wrong with the math or science, you need to show the problem.

    Virtually all of the evidence shows that increased carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet.

    Different plants in different areas are going to respond to climate change brought upon by human-caused global warming differently. Generally speaking though, areas with the most deforestation that are the biggest carbon sinks will shrink in response to heat and droughts. This could cause a positive feedback loop.

    The evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet is overwhelming, and there's virtually no evidence that counters it. Human-caused global warming and climate change is real.

    The "hockey stick chart" has been replicated more than two dozen times, including by McShane and Wyner. I suggest this reading on why climate-deniers really want to disprove the "hocket stick chart," how they tried to do it, and why they inevitably failed.

    I'm not saying it was debunked. I'm saying it doesn't make the point you think it makes.

    Virtually every climate scientist (>99%) agrees that human-caused global warming is real. The problem isn't funding (the fossil fuel industry throws money at anything that could discredit climate change). The problem isn't the media. The problem is the anti-global warming side doesn't have science on its side. When there's scientific evidence that burning fossil fuels isn't warming the planet, that's when it's time to believe it. Right now though, the scientific evidence is clear: Burning fossil fuels adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and it's acting as a greenhouse gas that is warming the planet.

    There's no profit motive in perpetuating a myth that burning fossil fuels is causing global warming. A lot of the corruption can be found on the fossil fuel industry side. I referenced one example earlier in this post.

    Rainforests are indeed carbon sinks.

    Now, I have spent more time than I wanted responding to you, but I told myself it was okay as long as I laid down some ground rules afterwards. We have now responded to each other's posts in full, but I don't really want to do this essay back-and-forth more than I already have. So, if you want me to respond to your posts:
    1. You can pick a single point of mine to contradict, and we can take them one at a time. If you attempt to tackle more than one point at a time, I will not participate.
    2. I will not move on from a topic until one of us concedes the topic. We are dealing with a lot of objective facts here, and I'm not going to let you get away with moving on to another topic without conceding that you were wrong.
    You're perfectly free to ignore my rules (I expect you will, which will give me a break). If you don't follow these rules though, do not expect a substantive response.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by Lacius, Jul 19, 2019
  4. Loyalty

    Loyalty Member

    Newcomer
    1
    May 19, 2019
    United States
    Again, I just point out that all science does not support that.... they just don't know... Environmentalist are tying to spin it as due to deforesting, but it is not clear if the old untouched forests are actually the ones emitting more than it absorbs. Seems it varies on how liberal a publication is or how conservative. Things like who funds your research makes a difference (and you and me both know it)...

    QUOTE: A study now suggests that tropical forests today return more carbon back into the atmosphere than they remove from it as carbon dioxide (CO2). As plant matter (including leaves, tree trunks and roots) break down — or rot — their carbon will be recycled back into the environment. Much of it will enter the atmosphere as CO2. /End Quote

    Another article QUOTE: Although no one doubts that forests are taking up some of the CO2 emitted by human activity, scientists are still unsure which forests are sequestering the most carbon, and how much is stored in long-lasting wood versus in roots and soil.

    There can also be bias in how researchers have typically chosen plots and measured biomass, Muller-Landau says. Tropical forests can be hot, humid, buggy, dangerous and in some cases nearly impossible to reach. So rather than sample randomly, scientists often choose study sites based on ease of access. And biomass estimates vary depending on the choice of species-specific equations used to convert circumference and height measurements; for many tropical trees, reliable equations are still being worked out. /End Quote

    https://www.nature.com/news/the-hunt-for-the-world-s-missing-carbon-1.17867

    Most oxygen is produced in the top few feet of the ocean... More CO2 means it probable will benefit for it. Those Algae are more important than all the rainforests.

    http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/12/important-organism/
     
    zomborg likes this.
  5. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    18
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    As I said, rainforests absorb more carbon than they release back into the atmosphere, which is what makes them a carbon sink, but a lot of that carbon is seasonally released back into the atmosphere. I'm not sure what your point is, given you didn't contradict anything I said.
     
  6. Loyalty

    Loyalty Member

    Newcomer
    1
    May 19, 2019
    United States
    You did read where some reports say the forest release twice as much CO2 as they absorb... so what I am saying is nobody knows. The environmentalist sites try to spin it as because of deforestation X happens, but nobody knows, it may just as well be the old forest were not a carbon trap... in one of my previous articles it pointed out that X amount was captured by forest but pointed out that if it was trapping as much as they claimed it would be far far far more... another article also mentioned the "missing carbon sink" that scientist can't find (because forest are not doing what they though it was doing). I imagine they will find the debts of the ocean does more carbon trapping then they thought. But then again, what do I know.

    I just know God set up a system that works, and it is more sturdy than most scientist give it credit for.... Now to read an article on where the Prince revised his "dooms day" date back again... because it didn't pan out like the alarmist thought... and made him look foolish.
     
    Last edited by Loyalty, Jul 19, 2019
    zomborg likes this.
  7. Nerdtendo
    OP

    Nerdtendo Your friendly neighborhood idiot

    Member
    8
    Sep 29, 2016
    United States
    Got this ad when lurking. I think the internet is trying to tell me it hates me
    Screenshot_2019-07-18-20-18-23.
     
    Lacius likes this.
  8. Loyalty

    Loyalty Member

    Newcomer
    1
    May 19, 2019
    United States
    zomborg likes this.
  9. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    18
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    It's not physically possible for a tree to release more carbon dioxide than it takes in. Carbon dioxide has to come from somewhere.

    I don't believe in any gods, since there's no reason to think any exist, but the subject of God is irrelevant. Humans are burning fossil fuels, not God.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    This is a flawed analysis. It's saying 1.6% of the study abstracts mentioned human causes, even though that wasn't the scope of the vast majority of studies analyzed. So, it's irrelevant to how many climatologists believe human-caused global warming is real.
     
    Last edited by Lacius, Jul 19, 2019
  10. Loyalty

    Loyalty Member

    Newcomer
    1
    May 19, 2019
    United States

    Hold it, it wasn't flawed when you claim greater than 99 percent (but your link only said 97%), but suddenly when someone used the data as given and breaks it down it is flawed.

    I see ... You chose to use the headline that said one thing (man caused this)... but the data said that that headline was flawed.... Whatever, I see how you play.



    Microorganisms metabolizing all that dead wood.

    I found another interesting article....

    https://uanews.arizona.edu/story/dead-forests-release-less-carbon-into-atmosphere-than-expected

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    BTW... you may notice I edit my posts a lot... I am a horrible speller and I find flaws constantly... also I am still learning the ropes here. I am not a fan of fast paced discussions, so understand if I reply days later. Old fart that has roamed in a young man's playground.
     
    Last edited by Loyalty, Jul 19, 2019
    zomborg likes this.
  11. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    18
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    You seem to have misunderstood or misread. My link doesn't say anything about 1.6%: Yours does. That's the one that's flawed.

    Microorganisms cannot release more carbon dioxide from dead wood than was absorbed from the atmosphere to make the wood in the first place. Carbon doesn't come out of nowhere.

    No worries about your edits. I do the same thing.
     
  12. Glyptofane

    Glyptofane Death Dealer

    Member
    7
    Feb 12, 2009
    United States
    You are the one who sources them, so not irrelevant.
     
    zomborg likes this.
  13. H1B1Esquire

    H1B1Esquire RxTools, the ultimate CFW machine.

    Member
    9
    Nov 2, 2016
    United States
    Earth, bro-dude.
    Fucc yea, bby.
    Seriously, we may be at the point we can "modify" certain moss to produce more O2 by growing on certain trees that _______™.

    Honestly, if a firm paid me enough, I'd solve all of these "crises" "we" face.....and very efficiently, to boot.
     
  14. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    18
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    1. I've explained why the quality of Snopes is irrelevant to whether or not his point about "30,000 signatures" is correct (it's not).
    2. The Snopes article is accurate, and Snopes broadly is a reputable source.
     
  15. Ratatattat

    Ratatattat GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    3
    Mar 16, 2016
    United States
    I won't take your word for it nor the fairy tale from the supposed tree huger either. You are totally avoiding the fact of just where is that carbon. And your oxygen statement is senseless also.
     
  16. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
    @Soy Burgers: Cattle consumes vastly more soy (or equivalent) to produce a unit of beef, than a unit of soy. 'Biofuels' (Currently not good for anything at all) - even more so.

    But in the end those pieces of rainforest get torched to get space for plantations, that produce whatever makes most money at that point. So its all about raising the worth of 'standing trees', and if thats not possible (too costly), doing it through political channels (basically demanding a form of 'corruption').

    This would be a case where corruption could be declared morally good, btw. ;)

    That said - people looking at beef as a food to aspire too, is something that could be modified (lets say through PR). And would produce minimal 'harm'.

    In Europe we currently have a configuration, where we are going into open trade relations with south america, which will swamp us with beef. So the more people not going for that, the more it would be beneficial for our economy in that trade configuration. So now it could be even seen as patriotic. ;)

    Free choice is still a minimum requirement though.

    And if you try to guilttrip people into the next recession by consuming less - for heaven - and you give them all kinds of good tips on how to not aspire to any economic development as middle class. You still are below bottom feeder category in my book.

    That said - getting people to eat less meat - kind of something that has limited potential to 'hurt' lives or outlooks, so - not the stupidest idea. If you start preaching it though, I still would like to hit you in your mouth (figuratively speaking).
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jul 19, 2019
  17. Loyalty

    Loyalty Member

    Newcomer
    1
    May 19, 2019
    United States
    It is some sort of Fallacy to condemn the source and not the substance of an article. So I agree. I don't care for the Washington Post, but that doesn't mean everything they write is wrong. You may not like Fox News, but not everything they write is wrong. Most news from sources like CNN, CNBC, Fox and The New York Times is presented to appeal to their demographic. Which means they will write it to best spin it to make their audience happy to read it. Snopes is the same and yes it is slanted when they can get away with it. But that doesn't mean everything they write is wrong. You just better watch them on political matters cause they will stretch the truth or ignore it when they think they can get away with it.

    For example: During the democratic convention (for Hillary) it was rightfully pointed out that beyond the opening ceremonies no US flags were displayed. Snopes tried its best to cover for them, even displaying pictures taken from different time frames.

    https://dailycaller.com/2016/07/28/...k-of-american-flags-at-democratic-convention/

    Yeah, Snopes is not what I consider a good source on political matters without doing your own investigation, they will slant as hard left as they can get away with.

    ____________________________
    ____________________________

    Back on subject... I am at least glad everyone (for the most part) did accept one point I brought up. That Soy was profitable enough that Brazil is clearing the land to make for more of its production. I ruffled a few feathers with my "Soy burger" joke but whatever the use of the Soy (Soy Burgers, Cow feed, or Fish feed which a lot of areas use), it is being used to deforest the Amazon. I just wanted to point out that the science for its effect probable ain't what the doomsday people are predicting.

    I noticed that when presented with "can't release more carbon than put in" was thrown at me, and I pointed out that micros and bugs eat the rotten wood that yes more carbon can be released than absorbed. That point was ignored and the real carbon sink question still remains. As one scientist suggested, cut down the forest and bury the wood instead of letting it rot or be burned... I think Brazil would have cause to kill a few scientists that would try to destroy their economy like that.
     
    Last edited by Loyalty, Jul 19, 2019
    zomborg likes this.
  18. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    18
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    You ignored my point that microbes and insects cannot release more carbon from a tree than was absorbed to make the tree in the first place. That is physically impossible. You're objectively wrong on this one.
     
  19. zomborg

    zomborg Makin Temp great again

    Member
    4
    Apr 17, 2015
    United States
    So I began this debate with my original post. Therefore I should dictate what rules we should observe. Reminds me of when I was a young boy. I had friends whom if I didn't play the game the way they wanted it to be, they would take their ball and go home. But, for now, I will observe your rules. I will pick just one of your points for address.


    So in a nutshell, The climate - gate scandal came about when an unknown hacker, hacked into a server containing emails between a group of scientists at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK. A chief member of the team was prominent scientist Michael Mann of hockey stick fame.

    Many things were revealed when the emails on the server were released to the public via internet. There were really too many to list here but I will just share with you a sampling of some highlights.

    Several emails shows that scientists “artificially adjusted” temperature data to hide the decline in temperatures after 1960. The graphs cited by global warming advocates to argue for continued man-made global warming in the modern era are therefore largely fraudulent.

    The leaked documents are the hard evidence, that there has been no unprecedented warming and that global mean temperatures since the industrial revolution have not been in the least bit unusual. These documents also confirm that there has even been a cooling over the last decade, as many have long suspected

    CO2 continues to rise yet temperature does not. The causal link between CO2 and temperature have been shown to be a fraud. CO2 cannot be driving temperature, the hard evidence of this fact is contained within these leaked documents.

    Here is one of the most frequently circulated emails :

    "From: Phil Jones
    To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
    Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
    Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
    Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

    Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
    Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
    first thing tomorrow.
    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
    to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
    1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
    land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
    N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
    for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
    data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
    Thanks for the comments, Ray.

    Cheers
    Phil"


    Now those first few points are interesting in themselves but we've only scratched the surface. In the following points I will provide quick snapshots of the actual emails with the juiciest parts highlighted. I have obtained the original emails (60mb).Excuse the imperfect highlighting as I am currently in an environment with low stability.

    Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published skeptic papers
    .

    [​IMG]



    Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request

    [​IMG]


    Phil Jones says he has used Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline

    [​IMG]


    Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.

    [​IMG]


    Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data”. Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.

    [​IMG]


    Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible.

    [​IMG]


    Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.

    [​IMG]


    Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with skeptics

    [​IMG]



    Ok, so that was just a small sampling of the emails which contain the proof that tree huggers and climate alarmists need to hear BUT

    As embarrassing as the e-mails are, some of the documents are more embarrassing. They include a five-page PDF document titled The Rules of the Game, that appears to be a primer for propagating the AGW message to the average person.

    The real smoking gun proving deception and fraud can be found in the code of climate models which prove that temperature numbers were “artificially adjusted” to hide the decline in global warming since the 1960’s.

    Man-made climate change proponents gamed their data models to make them produce the results they wanted.

    This next quote is from another email but in 60mb of emails I'm having trouble finding it again. If anyone wants to read the the entire 60mb of emails just pm me. I attached a few at the bottom of this post. Anyhow, here's the quote :

    "Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
    ; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
    ; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
    ; the real temperatures
    "

    This shows that scientists “artificially adjusted” temperature data to hide the decline in temperatures after 1960. The graphs cited by global warming advocates to argue for continued man-made global warming in the modern era are therefore largely fraudulent.

    The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is the regulatory body that established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the politicized organization that has attempted to slam the lid shut on global warming skepticism by claiming it is the supreme authority, despite the fact that scientists used by the IPCC were caught manipulating data and conspiring to hide evidence of global cooling during the climategate scandal.

    UK scientist Piers Corbyn:
    The data, real data, over the last one thousand, ten thousand or million years, shows there is no relationship between carbon dioxide and world temperatures or climate extremes. Now we can see that actually the people in charge of data have been fiddling it, and they have been hiding the real decline in world temperatures in an attempt to keep their so called moral high ground,” Corbyn said.

    UAE climate science professor Mike Hulme:
    [Upcoming UN climate conference in Copenhagen] “is about raw politics, not about the politics of science. […] It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science. It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.

    And finally, to get even more detail if you are not already overwhelmed, please click here for one of my sources.
     

    Attached Files:

  20. chrisrlink

    chrisrlink Intel Pentium III Hamster inside

    Member
    9
    Aug 27, 2009
    United States
    inside your crappy old PC
    funny how it got hotter since Trump reverse EPA rules at least here it it it's been 90's all month about here in virginia (a temperate state ecological wise) thats not normal 70-80's yes but tomorrow and sunday are 99 F at this point I rather have WW3 happen then us boiling to death...slowly
     
Loading...