A really stupid global warming question

In my defense, I am a computer guy and not a climate scientist.

If we are coming out of an ice age, shouldn't we kind of expect to have rising temperatures?

a reply to: network dude

It is my understanding that rapid changes are bad slow changes are good.


As an example at one time I kept a saltwater aquarium adjustments in temperature had to be done gradually otherwise it would shock and kill just about everything in the tank. Coral reefs are not much different that is why there is such a concern over coral bleaching. That is an indication something is wrong.

a reply to: network dude

AGW church doesn't argue that temperatures are supposed to go up after a glaciation. They argue that the CO2 level we have today is way above those found in prehistoric times.

I've debated for a long time with AGW proponents and at the end, they always forget the temp charts, and simply resort to the CO2 trend chart to prove their point.

Nice minion avatar, BTW.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Then it's a good thing it has been slow. It just kind of hit me that if we didn't see a warming trend, we should be concerned. How can you come out of an ice age without increasing the temps?

a reply to: swanne

I have seen that too. But if the global temps have only risen 1 degree (overall) and there was a + or - 2 degree variance in most models, then perhaps CO2 isn't the driver of rising temps. But I am far from qualified to even speculate on that.

edit to add:
it's hard not to like a minion.

a reply to: network dude

AH, but the AGW excuse is that Global Warming (from, supposedly, anthropogenic CO2) was temporarily delayed by Global Hazing (from, supposedly, anthropogenic pollution of the atmosphere).

edit to add:
Did you know they were phosphorescent when shaken?

a reply to: network dude

It is only slow to you due to your perspective in reality though you shouldn't even notice it in your lifetime baring some major outside influence such as a huge volcanic eruption.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: swanne

I have seen that too. But if the global temps have only risen 1 degree (overall) and there was a + or - 2 degree variance in most models, then perhaps CO2 isn't the driver of rising temps. But I am far from qualified to even speculate on that.

edit to add:
it's hard not to like a minion.

So there was a +1 degree change when a +2 to -2 was predicted??? +1 is in-between those two numbers.....


We know co2 makes things get hotter. Put 2 bottles of air and water in the sun. Then drop a co2 tablet into one. The one with the tablet will get way hotter.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Plus one degree in a century is not slow. It's hilariously sluggish.

And if you consider that the old instruments were probably slightly less accurate than today, that is, biased (because of their location on the ground), then you wonder if the "plus 1.4 degree F warming since the 20th century" is really that accurate.

a reply to: ArtemisE

The atmosphere is slightly more complex than a bottle of water. It also has hazing agents, clouds, etc.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: network dude

AGW church doesn't argue that temperatures are supposed to go up after a glaciation. They argue that the CO2 level we have today is way above those found in prehistoric times.

I've debated for a long time with AGW proponents and at the end, they always forget the temp charts, and simply resort to the CO2 trend chart to prove their point.

Nice minion avatar, BTW.

That's because we know co2 raises temp. We even know how much co2 equals what global temp. All the physics are there. It's undeniable that co2 absorbed more heat then nitrogen or oxygen. It's undeniable that if you add co2 tablets to a coke bottle half full of water, sitting in the sun. It gets hotter.

I am neither IT or a climate scientist if there is such a thing .There is a conglomerate of people working in science that can add some of their expertise in certain observations and data points they have collected .There seems to be this notion of settled science but I think those that make that claim are putting the cart ahead of the horse .From some of the graphs made dealing with earths history it does show we have warmed .At least for the most part we have sense the north has been covered in ice .We also see swings cool/warm from then until now .

The thing that gets me about the climate/debate war is some of the crap that has gone on behind the scenes .I guess that the best explanation for this is the IPCC and what they required for results in the data and the ones willing to promote the cause .See the IPCC is not interested in the truth but that their work will reflect that man is the cause of climate change .as if lol I am not sure if it's only a part of the bigger tool box that has things like agenda 21 and that ridiculous new educational system they are trying to get implemented .As if our older one wasn't bad enough .

There seems to be a very important part missing when trying to figure out what is going on .I think it's integrity .If the science were settled then there would be no more need to discover .Questions like ,what caused the ice age .Is it something that might happen again .Could we see Alaska and the Arctic as warm as it was in the past .How about the Antarctic .Will we ever see it ice free again .Why would a creature like the Penguin decide to put it's self through such conditions to lay a egg and raise a chick .Boggles the mind when you consider it .I mean like where did they do it before there was all that cold and ice down there .

a reply to: network dude

a reply to: swanne

Plus one degree in a century is not slow. It's hilariously sluggish.

Not according to those who are experts in the field. Though if you have evidence to the contrary I wouldn't mind seeing it.

a reply to: ArtemisE

This doesn't change the fact that global hazing is currently beating global warming.

And if you know how CO2 concentration levels are measured, then you know that CO2 has but a narrow absorption spectrum. Plus, not all of the CO2's re-emission (the mechanism behind the greenhouse effect) radiate back to Earth - a majority of it actually radiates back to space:

Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

science.nasa.gov...

Climate is not just a black-and white system. It's a rather complex, almost chaotic system.

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: network dude

AGW church doesn't argue that temperatures are supposed to go up after a glaciation. They argue that the CO2 level we have today is way above those found in prehistoric times.

I've debated for a long time with AGW proponents and at the end, they always forget the temp charts, and simply resort to the CO2 trend chart to prove their point.

Nice minion avatar, BTW.

That's because we know co2 raises temp. We even know how much co2 equals what global temp. All the physics are there. It's undeniable that co2 absorbed more heat then nitrogen or oxygen. It's undeniable that if you add co2 tablets to a coke bottle half full of water, sitting in the sun. It gets hotter.

Why arent the Govts just planting trees and using drones to stop logging in the amazon? I hope co2 is the real problem cos if we are being conned just to pay taxes then the real issues are not being solved.

Govts tell us how bad it is one minute then ignore the amazon, fukoshima, promote fracking and oil exploration. Then universities are caught red handed lying about the facts...............it smells to me. I hate pollution of any kind and do believe it is a big problem, I just hope we are not being taken for a ride with the co2 thing.

a reply to: Grimpachi

If you trust people and fear of questioning them because they are called "experts", then this is your decision. But as for me I prefer investigating if one degree is really that big a deal.

a reply to: pennydrops

100% agree with you here.

This year they literally put the FIFA at the center of the Amazon! WTF?? It's as if they want the catastrophe to happen.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Grimpachi

If you trust people and fear of questioning them because they are called "experts", then this is your decision. But as for me I prefer investigating if one degree is really that big a deal.

I asked if you have evidence to the contrary and you go on about trusting the experts. Am I supposed to trust that you know better than them?

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: ArtemisE

This doesn't change the fact that global hazing is currently beating global warming.

And if you know how CO2 concentration levels are measured, then you know that CO2 has but a narrow absorption spectrum. Plus, not all of the CO2's re-emission (the mechanism behind the greenhouse effect) radiate back to Earth - a majority of it actually radiates back to space:

Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

science.nasa.gov...

Climate is not just a black-and white system. It's a rather complex, almost chaotic system.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean we keep doing it assuming our pollution will keep our other pollution incheck. Thats a horrible idea...

Were not being lied to about climate change, were being lied too about how they would spend carbon tax money. It's really easy physics that were heating up the planet and it's gonna suck. The only question is how we fix it.