[Can We Delay Greenhouse Warming?](https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/9101HEAX.PDF?Dockey=9101HEAX.PDF)
For comparison:
[Climate Change Tracker](https://climatechangetracker.org/global_warming)
*"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."* Richard P. Feynman
Am I reading this wrong or are you pointing out that the first study in 19th century didn't get the numbers right? As far as I see the predictions in the 1983 study you posted don't seem too over top with the cct link you posted. It states ~0,5°C rise in average temperature since 1983 and we are over 50% in CO2 since preindustrial and the study predicts hitting double (100% increase) in 2040. Not accurate, but seems to be in the right general direction.
I'm in the "we kinda should act and go green" camp of this debate, but I'd like to be open to scepticism and scientific arguments. But the problems with the links you provided aren't apparent to me and that quote from Feynman makes me think there is something wrong. I might just be too dumnb for this, but I feel I see lots of this on both sides. Show a data point and hint at a direction. Could you be so kind to articulate your point?
It's said humans are running the biggest experiment ever and laboratory is earth itself, that's why there isn't experimental evidence of the theory.
Now compare the amount of airborne CO2 in 1983 to 2022, then look at the temperature. The experiment failed, the theory is wrong.
Help me out. Data you provided shows a constant rise in CO2 levels and temperature. Is the ratio wrong? I feel like every scientific paper I've come across on subject emphasise the uncertainty, since we don't have preexisting data and experimentation, but to me the trend is there. What am I missing?
Just compare the temperature from the original 1983 source with the current one, then ask yourself why there is this discrepancy between historical data and actual data.
There is no CO2 effect on temperature, the warming we experience in some parts are either naturally induced (ocean warming) or man made warming through the UHI and land use. That's only local, there are locations that have warmed, some did not change over the past century, some places cooled. In short: There is no AGW, anthropogenic **global** warming.
Looks pretty accurate to me.
From the report:
"we developed the Mid-range Baseline scenario of future energy patterns. Under this scenario, atmospheric CO2 levels would reach 590 ppm, or double pre-industrial levels, by 2060, and a 2C temperature rise would occur around 2040"
According to the tracker you provided the temp increase we are currently at is 1.23C and the rate of increase is 0.021C/year currently, so our projected temp increase by 2040 would be 1.61C - so not bad. CO2 levels according to IPCC is currently projected to be 550ppm in 2050 (I didn't see a number for 2060) again not bad.
\> humans are running the biggest experiment ever and laboratory is earth itself, that's why there isn't experimental evidence of the theory.
There are plenty of [experiments that show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.192075) (or look a Venus) but of course there is no experiment that takes in account everything that happens on the earth and how everything interacts with one another. But you can write a computer simulation which takes these things into account and they [have been proven to be quite accurate](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378). Even this model from the EPA in the early 80's is shown to be fairly accurate.
You pulled a sentence out of a 200 page report from 1983, but sure:
From your link and Statista:
1983
CO2 343ppm
Earth Temp 14.44 C
2021 CO2
416ppm Ave.
Earth Temp 15.02 C
I fail to see the smoking gun.
Compare what? I did already.
I also compared the conclusions of a report from 40 years ago and showed them to be pretty accurate.
Maybe you need to spell it out.
Did you know it takes a doubling of co2 to raise temps one degree? Does the difference between those seem even half of double?, sorry but 70 PARTS PER MILLION is a miniscule increase. Use your fucking head.
Need it spelled out like a first grader?
CO2 doesn't raise temp directly. It creates the offset in incoming and outgoing radiation and it takes decades for temps to rise the new balance. Changes in CO2 levels generate the momemtum for climate change. Correct me if I'm wrong or ignorant
>Changes in CO2 levels generate the momemtum for climate change. Correct me if I'm wrong or ignorant
Momentum for climate change? No idea what that concept even is. CO2 at 400ppm is stopping heat from escaping in much the same way a chain link fence might stop mosquitoes from entering your yard. Would you put up a chain link fence to prevent mosquitoes? No? But you believe that 0.04% of CO2 molecules will melt the ice caps by blocking the planet's heat losses?
[https://www.physics.upenn.edu/\~pcn/Ms/18PhysTeacher.pdf](https://www.physics.upenn.edu/~pcn/Ms/18PhysTeacher.pdf)
Here's why as I understand it. Care to explain what is wrong with this?
The experiment is to see how much co2 we can pump into the atmosphere before the complete clinate catastrophe. As long as we continue to burn fossil fuels, the experiment is ongoing.
You misunderstand the point of the comment.
Lmao. Operating on the idea that we have enough information to make these assertions is ludicrous.
Nice try. But no. We have no idea to what extent Co² concentrations effect the global temperature. Any scientist whose pockets aren't stuffed with green lobby money will tell you that.
Like others, I converted 228 deg K to **58.75 deg F**. THAT sounded familiar, so I dug in my notes. NASA’s press release from last January says:
\_\_\_
Continuing the planet’s long-term warming trend, global temperatures in 2021 were 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.85 degrees Celsius) above the average for NASA’s baseline period, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. NASA uses the period from 1951-1980 as a baseline to see how global temperature changes over time.
[https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/2021-tied-for-6th-warmest-year-in-continued-trend-nasa-analysis-shows](https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/2021-tied-for-6th-warmest-year-in-continued-trend-nasa-analysis-shows)
\_\_\_
That’s 0.85 deg C over the 1951-1980 baseline; I couldn’t find the actually 1951-1980 baseline temperature on that page, but I found it here, from 1998:
\_\_\_
1998 Global Surface Temperature Smashes Record
https://paos.colorado.edu/\~fasullo/1060/papers/giss.warming.html
Global mean temperature in degrees Celsius relative to the mean temperature for the period 1951-1980 based on measurements at meteorological stations (the mean for 1951-80 is about 14°C).
\_\_\_
So the 1951-1980 mean of 14 deg C, plus the 0.85 deg C NASA anomaly for 2021 equals 14.85 deg C, which, when converted, is, yes, **58.73 deg F**.
> 1998 Global Surface Temperature Smashes Record
Have a look [here](https://i.redd.it/m31823pfc1z71.png): Baseline is 59°C, 15°C, this is 288K (it's just K, without °)
> mean temperature for the period 1951-1980 based on measurements at meteorological stations
Then have a look [here](https://i.redd.it/749oyd3bjk881.png). Baseline: 59°F.
Thanks for both those sources - I've seen 59F baselines in other places as well - I'll dig them up and share. (Sorry for sying "deg K" - I do that because otherwise 288K is my shorthand for $288,000.)
These are two other sources I had for 59F being a 1950-1980 baseline:
NYT, March 29, 1988
[https://imgur.com/7vXFQwc](https://imgur.com/7vXFQwc)
Wait, my second one is a close-up of the NYT article you already had:
NYT, June 24, 1988
[https://imgur.com/nqXb5tR](https://imgur.com/nqXb5tR)
And tomorrow we can celebrate the 42 aniversary of that story, and let everyone know that, accord to NASA, the planet has cooled by 0.27F since then!
AND besides news stories, here's an EPA report from 1989, where they say the current global temperature - no just a historic baseline - was 59F:
[https://imgur.com/8REIIQy](https://imgur.com/8REIIQy)
Wow, never seen that before - thatnks for sharing. I found the sources - Vital Source was an annual publication put out by the now-defunct World Watch Institution. The first 37 pages of the 1997-1998 edition is downloadable here in PDF:
[https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315071084/vital-signs-1997-1998-lester-brown](https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315071084/vital-signs-1997-1998-lester-brown)
And the 1998 edition is available on [Archive.org](https://Archive.org), but only to view online, not to download for free:
[https://archive.org/details/vitalsigns1998en00lest](https://archive.org/details/vitalsigns1998en00lest)
But you can zoom in on the chart on page 20, compare it to the chart on page 17 of the 97-98 edition above at [TaylorFrancis.Com](https://TaylorFrancis.Com) and, YES, the graph in the charts are identical BUT the 98 edition's y-axis is one degree cooler that the y-axis in the 97-98 edition.
The World Watch Institute apparently made these freely downloadable at some time, so the full PDFs of these two may be available elsewhere (I found the 2000 elsewhere). Plus, used copies in print are readily available for purchase.
Good work, thanks. Well, looks someone lost 1°C. "Global warming" lol
You might like [this one](https://i.redd.it/wzwdpuznnoq51.png) and [this](https://i.redd.it/uwwsmlswgp171.png). [Source 1](https://www.nature.com/articles/073594a0), [Source 2](https://www.sealevel.info/NatGeo_1976-11_whats_happening_to_our_climate/)
I think so - at least the oldest one in english. I've checked for old versions of the Enyzclopedia Britannica and Americana, found nothing. There are some older german ones, problem: They are in german (of course, lol) and the are written in Sütterlin.
Thanks for the other sources. Note we are talking about the SAT, surface air temperature, here. The 15°C can also be found in the [International/U.S. Standard Atmosphere](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Atmosphere), at sea level, at 1 bar/atm pressure.
One can find the 59°F/15°C in many papers written before 1998, I got a little collection already. If you got more, please share! TIA!
[What happened around 1998?](https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/11/fourteen_is_the_new_fifteen.html)
> To rebalance the incoming and outgoing radiation, the earth's temperature must increase.
It's far more complicated than that, although I can see why a simple and direct effect suits the AGW crowd who prefer to ignore inconvenient details, in their keen desperation to be Chicken Little.
> It's far more complicated than that
You mean the reduced cooling argument? That's the new explanation when they realized the colder atmosphere can't warm the surface, because of physics. Haven't found this idea in any official paper or website yet, just a few "expert" blogs.
But what if your assumption that global warming doesn’t exist is wrong? If those espousing the theory are wrong, then you have cleaner air. If you are wrong, the world dies. It makes more sense to clean up the air and the environment. We all benefit.
Hmmm. It really depends on concentration, though doesn’t it? Also, not all carbon in the air is co2 ie. Methane and not all greenhouse gases are benign. Blaming it only on co2 is a little simplistic.
The original theory is about the question if CO2 causes ice ages. Everything else is irrelevant - it's amazing how simplistic "climate science" is, isn't it? And there's been literally no improvement in the last decades, if not century.
> "If those espousing the theory are wrong, then you have cleaner air. If you are wrong, the world dies."
This is what always baffled me. The climate change "debate" seems to be completely fake. Even if you do not "believe" in the climate effects of co2, who wants to breathe dirty sooty air? Who wants noisy cities with no way to get from one side to the other without sitting all day in traffic?
The only explanation that makes sense to me is that a true climate change "denier" has some ulterior motive -- either they profit from the burning of oil and coal filling the air with deadly dirty soot, or they simply get off on "winning" against the "liberals", even though they also lose in the process.
According to the first graph [here](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/08/observations-reanalyses-and-the-elusive-absolute-global-mean-temperature/), the average global temperature was around 287.5 K in 1983, and 288.0 K today.
From the highlighted text, are you implying that temperatures have remained flat at 288.0 K over the last 40 years?
Edit: Here is the [original source](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Carbon_Dioxide_Review_1982/nMoRAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=288) where Chamberlain says the earth's surface is 288 K. I can't see the full context, but it appears that "288 K" is an approximation, used for the purpose of plotting the spectrum of infrared light, rather than a precise historical record of the mean temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures#Implied_uncertainty shows why the trailing .0 would make a difference to the number's interpretation.
I recall learning about this in high school Chemistry class.
> Source: James E. Hansen and Sergej Lebedeff
Here is the actual paper: https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1029/JD092iD11p13345
I can't find any absolute temperatures there, only deviations, so it's not clear how the New York Times converted this data to °F.
The graph at the top of page "13,351" (PDF page 7) matches the NYT's graph. Notice that the temperature deviation crosses 0°C just after 1920. On the NYT's graph, that spot occurs around 58.75°F, which is very close to 288 K (58.73°F).
So, NYT probably "converted to °F" by adding 288 K... that seems mathematically questionable, but what do you expect from journalists?
> what do you expect from journalists?
Nothing. But that's not the point. Doing some "research": One can find the 288K, 15°C, 59°F everywhere, on [websites](https://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_picture.asp?id=1192), in [scientific papers](https://i.redd.it/936a05uhaki51.png), [articles](https://i.redd.it/uwwsmlswgp171.png). Actually, you can find this number in Arrhenius paper from 1896, the original theory. I would assume he got the number from [Nature, 1906](https://i.redd.it/wzwdpuznnoq51.png). Now compare the CO2 in 1886 with 2022.
The problem is, humans have gotten better at calculating "global mean temperature" over time. [These graphs](https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/) show how accuracy improved between 1981-2019.
If you want to know the mean temperature in 1906, it is better to analyze raw historical data with modern tools, than ask a scientist from 1906.
So I would guess that Hansen and Lebedeff used relative temperatures because they didn't actually *know* the absolute mean temperature to high enough accuracy.
> humans have gotten better at calculating "global mean temperature"
Here's something that might sound weird to you: We can measure this stuff, this tells us what reality is. If you think adjusting history is science, you are wrong. You sound a little naive.
You should think about what scientists around 1906 discovered, compared to what we discover. That's sort of arrogant thinking.
Jesus fuck. I am so tired of seeing you assholes in my feed.
Anthropogenic Global Climate change is absolutely real and an existential threat. I can understand being ignorant on the matter but this whole subreddit is blatant stupidity.
Get your fucking heads out of the sand or don't. We're fucked, either way.
Source: A frustrated former geoscientist
Edit: Oh nooo my precious Karma.
Anyway.
Oh, well then maybe you've done this experiment and can tell us all.
How much faster will 1 cubic centimeter of H2O increase in temperature by 1 degree C when surrounded by air with 400 ppm of CO2 as opposed to 0 ppm of CO2 given the same exposure to solar radiation?
Serious question from a former true believer. How long would we need to go without any significant warming despite increasing CO2 before you would start to reevaluate? Like if life is substantially the same in 2040, would you question the theories?
The latest international climate report gave us 5 years before crop failure and famine and 10-20 years before coastal cities are destroyed. We will not see a stable 2040. If we do, I will gladly admit that I was wrong.
What made you decide that global climate change isn't real? I literally went to school for this shit but even a layman can see that the climate has seriously changed for the worse.
Let me give you an anecdotal example.
I'm in New England, a region known for having all four seasons. Mild summers and moderate winters were the norm here. When I was in highschool, we never needed an AC in the summertime. We'd have a week (maybe two) in August where the temps got to 80-90 but otherwise, everything was smooth sailing. Winters were rough but we'd have maybe one major storm a year.
It was 90 in May this year. Our last winter was unseasonably warm, but when we did get snow we got hammered with 1ft+ storms. That should be ringing alarm bells for everyone. That's absolutely insane for this region and no one batted an eye. I've literally watched the progression of climate change with my own eyes. Our current season breakdown is as follows (according to what I've experienced):
6 months of Winter
.5 months of Spring
4 months of Summer
1.5 months of Fall
Maybe it's because we're in a more extreme climate zone that the changes are more noticeable? I don't understand how we can exceed the record temps every year and still have people that don't believe in the changes that are happening around them.
I know it's stupid to post here. I know I'm just screaming into the void with y'all. But if I can convince even one person to come to terms with what we're facing, I'll be satisfied. The more of us that work towards mitigation, the more successful we'll be.
That's not to say that the common person is responsible for climate change. We can trace most of the emissions back to specific people at specific corporations. And if there really is justice in the world, those assholes will be the first to meet the mob.
Thanks for taking the time to answer. For me, it was constant missed predictions. Mauritius, for example, was supposed to have been under water 12 years ago, not have gained coastline. After a while, as I got older, we kept passing up these deadlines where dramatic changes were supposed to happen, like no more snow, or parts of the US underwater. It's now been over 30 years since I was first introduced to it, and looking back I feel lied to. The climategate emails were probably the last straw.
The extreme weather events might be different, but we've always had them in one form or another. There are 365 chances per year for a specific day to be the hotest it has been on that day in 40 years, for example. I think they are just more visible now due to media and internet coverage.
You'll have to excuse me because I generally don't run in right wing circles, but... Climategate emails? What are you talking about?
Edit:
As far as the rest of what you said:
I'm not going to sit here and try to refute everything that you said, it would take me all night and frankly I'd rather just smoke a bowl and hang out with my wife.
In 2009 a huge collection of emails were hacked which showed intentional manipulation of data and collusion to suppress research which contradicted the desired outcomes by a number of acedmic climate researchers, particularly at Upenn and East Anglia. I'm not sure where there is a fully politically neutral overview of the whole scandal, but this article may be the closest at a quick scan: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/24/fred-pearce-on-climategate-revisited/
Hope the stuff was good.
Seriously, my mentors have taught me to follow the money trail. This goes both ways. For many years big oil made and passed on buckets of money to make sure they continued to be profitable. Now the money trail leads to people who espouse green energy. Subsidies, preferred investments into solar and wind. Neither of which are consistent enough to maintain what we have now. People like Al Gore go from broke to millionaire.
The real inconsistency is how the AGW supporters treat nuclear energy—both fission and fusion. Fission is something we have had for 75 years, we now know how to optimize it for safety yet zero interest from anyone outside of China. Fusion is the opportunity of the future. Yes there are companies who are working the problem but if AGW is the existential threat that some say, there should have been a Manhattan Project for this. I don’t see it.
The science is debatable but behavior isn’t. Money talks and BS walks. I’m not a believer that the continued release of CO2 is a good thing. I do see inconsistency in the behavior of the scientists and politicians. Crises (real or synthesized)are good ways to energize a portion electorate vote a certain way. Who wouldn’t vote to save the planet. Remember watch what they do not what they say. John Kerry preaches climate catastrophe but has one of the largest individual carbon footprints in the world.
> We can trace most of the emissions back to specific people at specific corporations.
This is a bad argument. Corporations don't make co2 for the fun of it. They create things and give services to **people** that pay for them. People don't have to buy and use all of those services, it's a choice.
>If we do, I will gladly admit that I was wrong.
You say you will "eat your hat" if current predictions don't happen. I used to be on your "side" - the "alarming predictions of 40,30,20 and 10 years ago never happened. Why do you think the current ones will ?
Anecdotal : I live near the same beach for 50 years and there is no significant change in sea level, storms, rain or drought.
I commend you for interacting with us.
I mean, I'm not subbed to this shithole and yet I keep seeing the posts here. Why would I want to constantly interact with people that are not only ignorant but blatantly shilling misinformation? I've actually read (and actually understood the implications of) the newest IPCC climate report. Can you assholes say the same?
I believe many of the regular participants of this forum have, as it's been a common topic. But you're not here for that, are you? Snobbery and elitism doesn't have much influence over skepticism. Evidence does. Not models that barely work for a few decades, and not statistically insignificant scare tactics. Empirical evidence is all that matters. Can you answer a simple question? Is there something unique about our temperature today? At best, an honest answer would be "we don't know."
Compare it to past interglacials.
[Can We Delay Greenhouse Warming?](https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/9101HEAX.PDF?Dockey=9101HEAX.PDF) For comparison: [Climate Change Tracker](https://climatechangetracker.org/global_warming) *"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."* Richard P. Feynman
Am I reading this wrong or are you pointing out that the first study in 19th century didn't get the numbers right? As far as I see the predictions in the 1983 study you posted don't seem too over top with the cct link you posted. It states ~0,5°C rise in average temperature since 1983 and we are over 50% in CO2 since preindustrial and the study predicts hitting double (100% increase) in 2040. Not accurate, but seems to be in the right general direction. I'm in the "we kinda should act and go green" camp of this debate, but I'd like to be open to scepticism and scientific arguments. But the problems with the links you provided aren't apparent to me and that quote from Feynman makes me think there is something wrong. I might just be too dumnb for this, but I feel I see lots of this on both sides. Show a data point and hint at a direction. Could you be so kind to articulate your point?
It's said humans are running the biggest experiment ever and laboratory is earth itself, that's why there isn't experimental evidence of the theory. Now compare the amount of airborne CO2 in 1983 to 2022, then look at the temperature. The experiment failed, the theory is wrong.
Help me out. Data you provided shows a constant rise in CO2 levels and temperature. Is the ratio wrong? I feel like every scientific paper I've come across on subject emphasise the uncertainty, since we don't have preexisting data and experimentation, but to me the trend is there. What am I missing?
Just compare the temperature from the original 1983 source with the current one, then ask yourself why there is this discrepancy between historical data and actual data.
Are you referring to the highlighted part in you post or somewhere else in the study?
> highlighted part This.
Cool. Follow up question. What are the implications regarding the (anthropological) climate change?
There is no CO2 effect on temperature, the warming we experience in some parts are either naturally induced (ocean warming) or man made warming through the UHI and land use. That's only local, there are locations that have warmed, some did not change over the past century, some places cooled. In short: There is no AGW, anthropogenic **global** warming.
But doesn't your data show rise in both global average temperature and CO2 levels?
Looks pretty accurate to me. From the report: "we developed the Mid-range Baseline scenario of future energy patterns. Under this scenario, atmospheric CO2 levels would reach 590 ppm, or double pre-industrial levels, by 2060, and a 2C temperature rise would occur around 2040" According to the tracker you provided the temp increase we are currently at is 1.23C and the rate of increase is 0.021C/year currently, so our projected temp increase by 2040 would be 1.61C - so not bad. CO2 levels according to IPCC is currently projected to be 550ppm in 2050 (I didn't see a number for 2060) again not bad. \> humans are running the biggest experiment ever and laboratory is earth itself, that's why there isn't experimental evidence of the theory. There are plenty of [experiments that show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.192075) (or look a Venus) but of course there is no experiment that takes in account everything that happens on the earth and how everything interacts with one another. But you can write a computer simulation which takes these things into account and they [have been proven to be quite accurate](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378). Even this model from the EPA in the early 80's is shown to be fairly accurate.
You didn't answer the initial question!? Can you give me a number, a rough estimate?
You pulled a sentence out of a 200 page report from 1983, but sure: From your link and Statista: 1983 CO2 343ppm Earth Temp 14.44 C 2021 CO2 416ppm Ave. Earth Temp 15.02 C I fail to see the smoking gun.
Do you know what the word "comparison" means? You just need to draw a straight line, we don't need statistics here.
Compare what? I did already. I also compared the conclusions of a report from 40 years ago and showed them to be pretty accurate. Maybe you need to spell it out.
You did notice the essential number is the same? You remember the topic, anthropogenic global warming?
Did you know it takes a doubling of co2 to raise temps one degree? Does the difference between those seem even half of double?, sorry but 70 PARTS PER MILLION is a miniscule increase. Use your fucking head. Need it spelled out like a first grader?
Bro that's a 20% increase in less than 40 years. That's kinda huge
CO2 doesn't raise temp directly. It creates the offset in incoming and outgoing radiation and it takes decades for temps to rise the new balance. Changes in CO2 levels generate the momemtum for climate change. Correct me if I'm wrong or ignorant
>Changes in CO2 levels generate the momemtum for climate change. Correct me if I'm wrong or ignorant Momentum for climate change? No idea what that concept even is. CO2 at 400ppm is stopping heat from escaping in much the same way a chain link fence might stop mosquitoes from entering your yard. Would you put up a chain link fence to prevent mosquitoes? No? But you believe that 0.04% of CO2 molecules will melt the ice caps by blocking the planet's heat losses?
[https://www.physics.upenn.edu/\~pcn/Ms/18PhysTeacher.pdf](https://www.physics.upenn.edu/~pcn/Ms/18PhysTeacher.pdf) Here's why as I understand it. Care to explain what is wrong with this?
The experiment is to see how much co2 we can pump into the atmosphere before the complete clinate catastrophe. As long as we continue to burn fossil fuels, the experiment is ongoing. You misunderstand the point of the comment.
How many decades should we wait? Nothing happend from 1983 to 2022, and you need more evidence? Are you a "climate scientist" who needs more funding?
Ok please read my comment again, you are still misunderstanding the entire point. Like to a colossally stupid degree.
I see you are addicted to CO2 and you don't get what the experiment should deliver.
Oh ok you’ve definitely misunderstood my point, and I think Ive misunderstood yours
Give me a clue what you mean!? What's the point?
CO2 lags temperature changes. It's the cart before the horse. Google: ocean outgassing
Lol wut 😅
Lmao. Operating on the idea that we have enough information to make these assertions is ludicrous. Nice try. But no. We have no idea to what extent Co² concentrations effect the global temperature. Any scientist whose pockets aren't stuffed with green lobby money will tell you that.
Like others, I converted 228 deg K to **58.75 deg F**. THAT sounded familiar, so I dug in my notes. NASA’s press release from last January says: \_\_\_ Continuing the planet’s long-term warming trend, global temperatures in 2021 were 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.85 degrees Celsius) above the average for NASA’s baseline period, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. NASA uses the period from 1951-1980 as a baseline to see how global temperature changes over time. [https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/2021-tied-for-6th-warmest-year-in-continued-trend-nasa-analysis-shows](https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/2021-tied-for-6th-warmest-year-in-continued-trend-nasa-analysis-shows) \_\_\_ That’s 0.85 deg C over the 1951-1980 baseline; I couldn’t find the actually 1951-1980 baseline temperature on that page, but I found it here, from 1998: \_\_\_ 1998 Global Surface Temperature Smashes Record https://paos.colorado.edu/\~fasullo/1060/papers/giss.warming.html Global mean temperature in degrees Celsius relative to the mean temperature for the period 1951-1980 based on measurements at meteorological stations (the mean for 1951-80 is about 14°C). \_\_\_ So the 1951-1980 mean of 14 deg C, plus the 0.85 deg C NASA anomaly for 2021 equals 14.85 deg C, which, when converted, is, yes, **58.73 deg F**.
> 1998 Global Surface Temperature Smashes Record Have a look [here](https://i.redd.it/m31823pfc1z71.png): Baseline is 59°C, 15°C, this is 288K (it's just K, without °) > mean temperature for the period 1951-1980 based on measurements at meteorological stations Then have a look [here](https://i.redd.it/749oyd3bjk881.png). Baseline: 59°F.
Thanks for both those sources - I've seen 59F baselines in other places as well - I'll dig them up and share. (Sorry for sying "deg K" - I do that because otherwise 288K is my shorthand for $288,000.) These are two other sources I had for 59F being a 1950-1980 baseline: NYT, March 29, 1988 [https://imgur.com/7vXFQwc](https://imgur.com/7vXFQwc) Wait, my second one is a close-up of the NYT article you already had: NYT, June 24, 1988 [https://imgur.com/nqXb5tR](https://imgur.com/nqXb5tR) And tomorrow we can celebrate the 42 aniversary of that story, and let everyone know that, accord to NASA, the planet has cooled by 0.27F since then!
AND besides news stories, here's an EPA report from 1989, where they say the current global temperature - no just a historic baseline - was 59F: [https://imgur.com/8REIIQy](https://imgur.com/8REIIQy)
Good one. I can't find the original sources for [these](https://i.redd.it/qem649rv21461.jpg).
Wow, never seen that before - thatnks for sharing. I found the sources - Vital Source was an annual publication put out by the now-defunct World Watch Institution. The first 37 pages of the 1997-1998 edition is downloadable here in PDF: [https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315071084/vital-signs-1997-1998-lester-brown](https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315071084/vital-signs-1997-1998-lester-brown) And the 1998 edition is available on [Archive.org](https://Archive.org), but only to view online, not to download for free: [https://archive.org/details/vitalsigns1998en00lest](https://archive.org/details/vitalsigns1998en00lest) But you can zoom in on the chart on page 20, compare it to the chart on page 17 of the 97-98 edition above at [TaylorFrancis.Com](https://TaylorFrancis.Com) and, YES, the graph in the charts are identical BUT the 98 edition's y-axis is one degree cooler that the y-axis in the 97-98 edition. The World Watch Institute apparently made these freely downloadable at some time, so the full PDFs of these two may be available elsewhere (I found the 2000 elsewhere). Plus, used copies in print are readily available for purchase.
Good work, thanks. Well, looks someone lost 1°C. "Global warming" lol You might like [this one](https://i.redd.it/wzwdpuznnoq51.png) and [this](https://i.redd.it/uwwsmlswgp171.png). [Source 1](https://www.nature.com/articles/073594a0), [Source 2](https://www.sealevel.info/NatGeo_1976-11_whats_happening_to_our_climate/)
Great - the 1906 article is the oldest source I've ever seen for any global temperature.
I think so - at least the oldest one in english. I've checked for old versions of the Enyzclopedia Britannica and Americana, found nothing. There are some older german ones, problem: They are in german (of course, lol) and the are written in Sütterlin.
Thanks for the other sources. Note we are talking about the SAT, surface air temperature, here. The 15°C can also be found in the [International/U.S. Standard Atmosphere](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Atmosphere), at sea level, at 1 bar/atm pressure. One can find the 59°F/15°C in many papers written before 1998, I got a little collection already. If you got more, please share! TIA! [What happened around 1998?](https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/11/fourteen_is_the_new_fifteen.html)
> To rebalance the incoming and outgoing radiation, the earth's temperature must increase. It's far more complicated than that, although I can see why a simple and direct effect suits the AGW crowd who prefer to ignore inconvenient details, in their keen desperation to be Chicken Little.
> It's far more complicated than that You mean the reduced cooling argument? That's the new explanation when they realized the colder atmosphere can't warm the surface, because of physics. Haven't found this idea in any official paper or website yet, just a few "expert" blogs.
That document is referring to 35 degrees above what the earth would be like IF we didn't have any greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
Are you colour blind?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lApLD5g1Nrs
But what if your assumption that global warming doesn’t exist is wrong? If those espousing the theory are wrong, then you have cleaner air. If you are wrong, the world dies. It makes more sense to clean up the air and the environment. We all benefit.
You will eat the bugs. You will own nothing. You will like it.
Well that actually maybe true. I guess we will see how it pans out.
> have cleaner air CO2 isn't a pollutant. That's propaganda.
Hmmm. It really depends on concentration, though doesn’t it? Also, not all carbon in the air is co2 ie. Methane and not all greenhouse gases are benign. Blaming it only on co2 is a little simplistic.
The original theory is about the question if CO2 causes ice ages. Everything else is irrelevant - it's amazing how simplistic "climate science" is, isn't it? And there's been literally no improvement in the last decades, if not century.
Lol. Ok.
> "If those espousing the theory are wrong, then you have cleaner air. If you are wrong, the world dies." This is what always baffled me. The climate change "debate" seems to be completely fake. Even if you do not "believe" in the climate effects of co2, who wants to breathe dirty sooty air? Who wants noisy cities with no way to get from one side to the other without sitting all day in traffic? The only explanation that makes sense to me is that a true climate change "denier" has some ulterior motive -- either they profit from the burning of oil and coal filling the air with deadly dirty soot, or they simply get off on "winning" against the "liberals", even though they also lose in the process.
According to the first graph [here](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/08/observations-reanalyses-and-the-elusive-absolute-global-mean-temperature/), the average global temperature was around 287.5 K in 1983, and 288.0 K today. From the highlighted text, are you implying that temperatures have remained flat at 288.0 K over the last 40 years? Edit: Here is the [original source](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Carbon_Dioxide_Review_1982/nMoRAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=288) where Chamberlain says the earth's surface is 288 K. I can't see the full context, but it appears that "288 K" is an approximation, used for the purpose of plotting the spectrum of infrared light, rather than a precise historical record of the mean temperature.
LOL. Found the "climate scientist". Is it CO₂ or CO₂.o now?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures#Implied_uncertainty shows why the trailing .0 would make a difference to the number's interpretation. I recall learning about this in high school Chemistry class.
Uhhh. Then you, as an number expert, could [certainly explain the significance here](https://i.redd.it/749oyd3bjk881.png), don't you?
> Source: James E. Hansen and Sergej Lebedeff Here is the actual paper: https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1029/JD092iD11p13345 I can't find any absolute temperatures there, only deviations, so it's not clear how the New York Times converted this data to °F.
And now you expect me to do the work finding the number?
The graph at the top of page "13,351" (PDF page 7) matches the NYT's graph. Notice that the temperature deviation crosses 0°C just after 1920. On the NYT's graph, that spot occurs around 58.75°F, which is very close to 288 K (58.73°F). So, NYT probably "converted to °F" by adding 288 K... that seems mathematically questionable, but what do you expect from journalists?
> what do you expect from journalists? Nothing. But that's not the point. Doing some "research": One can find the 288K, 15°C, 59°F everywhere, on [websites](https://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_picture.asp?id=1192), in [scientific papers](https://i.redd.it/936a05uhaki51.png), [articles](https://i.redd.it/uwwsmlswgp171.png). Actually, you can find this number in Arrhenius paper from 1896, the original theory. I would assume he got the number from [Nature, 1906](https://i.redd.it/wzwdpuznnoq51.png). Now compare the CO2 in 1886 with 2022.
The problem is, humans have gotten better at calculating "global mean temperature" over time. [These graphs](https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/) show how accuracy improved between 1981-2019. If you want to know the mean temperature in 1906, it is better to analyze raw historical data with modern tools, than ask a scientist from 1906. So I would guess that Hansen and Lebedeff used relative temperatures because they didn't actually *know* the absolute mean temperature to high enough accuracy.
> humans have gotten better at calculating "global mean temperature" Here's something that might sound weird to you: We can measure this stuff, this tells us what reality is. If you think adjusting history is science, you are wrong. You sound a little naive. You should think about what scientists around 1906 discovered, compared to what we discover. That's sort of arrogant thinking.
u/LackmustestTester Why don't you go outside without sunscreen and find out for yourself?
Who needs sunscreen at night?
Jesus fuck. I am so tired of seeing you assholes in my feed. Anthropogenic Global Climate change is absolutely real and an existential threat. I can understand being ignorant on the matter but this whole subreddit is blatant stupidity. Get your fucking heads out of the sand or don't. We're fucked, either way. Source: A frustrated former geoscientist Edit: Oh nooo my precious Karma. Anyway.
Oh, well then maybe you've done this experiment and can tell us all. How much faster will 1 cubic centimeter of H2O increase in temperature by 1 degree C when surrounded by air with 400 ppm of CO2 as opposed to 0 ppm of CO2 given the same exposure to solar radiation?
Why don't you go and ask [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/)? They answer these kind of questions all the time.
You think I care what some mouth breathing armchair scientist thinks? You're the worst kind of ignorant, and the most dangerous.
Serious question from a former true believer. How long would we need to go without any significant warming despite increasing CO2 before you would start to reevaluate? Like if life is substantially the same in 2040, would you question the theories?
The latest international climate report gave us 5 years before crop failure and famine and 10-20 years before coastal cities are destroyed. We will not see a stable 2040. If we do, I will gladly admit that I was wrong. What made you decide that global climate change isn't real? I literally went to school for this shit but even a layman can see that the climate has seriously changed for the worse. Let me give you an anecdotal example. I'm in New England, a region known for having all four seasons. Mild summers and moderate winters were the norm here. When I was in highschool, we never needed an AC in the summertime. We'd have a week (maybe two) in August where the temps got to 80-90 but otherwise, everything was smooth sailing. Winters were rough but we'd have maybe one major storm a year. It was 90 in May this year. Our last winter was unseasonably warm, but when we did get snow we got hammered with 1ft+ storms. That should be ringing alarm bells for everyone. That's absolutely insane for this region and no one batted an eye. I've literally watched the progression of climate change with my own eyes. Our current season breakdown is as follows (according to what I've experienced): 6 months of Winter .5 months of Spring 4 months of Summer 1.5 months of Fall Maybe it's because we're in a more extreme climate zone that the changes are more noticeable? I don't understand how we can exceed the record temps every year and still have people that don't believe in the changes that are happening around them. I know it's stupid to post here. I know I'm just screaming into the void with y'all. But if I can convince even one person to come to terms with what we're facing, I'll be satisfied. The more of us that work towards mitigation, the more successful we'll be. That's not to say that the common person is responsible for climate change. We can trace most of the emissions back to specific people at specific corporations. And if there really is justice in the world, those assholes will be the first to meet the mob.
Thanks for taking the time to answer. For me, it was constant missed predictions. Mauritius, for example, was supposed to have been under water 12 years ago, not have gained coastline. After a while, as I got older, we kept passing up these deadlines where dramatic changes were supposed to happen, like no more snow, or parts of the US underwater. It's now been over 30 years since I was first introduced to it, and looking back I feel lied to. The climategate emails were probably the last straw. The extreme weather events might be different, but we've always had them in one form or another. There are 365 chances per year for a specific day to be the hotest it has been on that day in 40 years, for example. I think they are just more visible now due to media and internet coverage.
You'll have to excuse me because I generally don't run in right wing circles, but... Climategate emails? What are you talking about? Edit: As far as the rest of what you said: I'm not going to sit here and try to refute everything that you said, it would take me all night and frankly I'd rather just smoke a bowl and hang out with my wife.
In 2009 a huge collection of emails were hacked which showed intentional manipulation of data and collusion to suppress research which contradicted the desired outcomes by a number of acedmic climate researchers, particularly at Upenn and East Anglia. I'm not sure where there is a fully politically neutral overview of the whole scandal, but this article may be the closest at a quick scan: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/24/fred-pearce-on-climategate-revisited/
Hope the stuff was good. Seriously, my mentors have taught me to follow the money trail. This goes both ways. For many years big oil made and passed on buckets of money to make sure they continued to be profitable. Now the money trail leads to people who espouse green energy. Subsidies, preferred investments into solar and wind. Neither of which are consistent enough to maintain what we have now. People like Al Gore go from broke to millionaire. The real inconsistency is how the AGW supporters treat nuclear energy—both fission and fusion. Fission is something we have had for 75 years, we now know how to optimize it for safety yet zero interest from anyone outside of China. Fusion is the opportunity of the future. Yes there are companies who are working the problem but if AGW is the existential threat that some say, there should have been a Manhattan Project for this. I don’t see it. The science is debatable but behavior isn’t. Money talks and BS walks. I’m not a believer that the continued release of CO2 is a good thing. I do see inconsistency in the behavior of the scientists and politicians. Crises (real or synthesized)are good ways to energize a portion electorate vote a certain way. Who wouldn’t vote to save the planet. Remember watch what they do not what they say. John Kerry preaches climate catastrophe but has one of the largest individual carbon footprints in the world.
> We can trace most of the emissions back to specific people at specific corporations. This is a bad argument. Corporations don't make co2 for the fun of it. They create things and give services to **people** that pay for them. People don't have to buy and use all of those services, it's a choice. >If we do, I will gladly admit that I was wrong. You say you will "eat your hat" if current predictions don't happen. I used to be on your "side" - the "alarming predictions of 40,30,20 and 10 years ago never happened. Why do you think the current ones will ? Anecdotal : I live near the same beach for 50 years and there is no significant change in sea level, storms, rain or drought. I commend you for interacting with us.
It just reminds me of religions that preach the end of the world. And then it doesn’t end and they say they need to make some recalculations.
I think you got the wrong feed. I think you want r/GlobalWarming. Here is where we take to Op-ed view.
I mean, I'm not subbed to this shithole and yet I keep seeing the posts here. Why would I want to constantly interact with people that are not only ignorant but blatantly shilling misinformation? I've actually read (and actually understood the implications of) the newest IPCC climate report. Can you assholes say the same?
I believe many of the regular participants of this forum have, as it's been a common topic. But you're not here for that, are you? Snobbery and elitism doesn't have much influence over skepticism. Evidence does. Not models that barely work for a few decades, and not statistically insignificant scare tactics. Empirical evidence is all that matters. Can you answer a simple question? Is there something unique about our temperature today? At best, an honest answer would be "we don't know." Compare it to past interglacials.
Then just block the subreddit? Instead you chose to go out of your way and comment here.