JohnB Posted September 16, 2011 Posted September 16, 2011 This isn't about AGW, but is about how we describe climate. When discussing the difference between climate and weather we usually look at the longer term trends, typically 30 years. I've been considering this and wondering if this is really such a good idea. I'm lousy with graphs so I hope I can paint a good enough word picture to illustrate my thoughts. Imagine a world where the climate (Global Average Temperature) changed in a monotonic fashion, but still cycled. For 30 years it goes up by .01 degrees per year and for the next 30 it went down by .01 degrees per year. Same amount, no deviation, year in and year out. This would give a distinct sawtooth pattern up and down of a change of .1 degrees/decade. With me? But what happens when we look at the 30 year periods? At the first peak we would be fine and show the warming at the correct rate of .1 degrees per decade, but now the temps are going to go down for 30 years. Using the 30 year "climate" timeframe the trend would not level off until we are 15 years into the cooling period, indeed we wouldn't show a cooling trend until the 16th year of cooling. This trend would gradually increase until we reach the bottom of the cycle when it would then show the correct rate of .1 degrees/decade. The reverse problem is now in force. The 30 year trend will continue to be negative until year 15 of the warming cycle and wouldn't actually show warming until year 16. The only time the "climate trend" would be correct is at the very top or very bottom of the cycle. Put bluntly, using a 30 year trend in this case would have zero predictive power. It would tell you that the trend is positive when it is in fact negative and has been so for 14 years and vice versa. Let's make things a bit more complicated and add a level period at the top and bottom of each cycle. So temps warm for 30 years, are stable for 10 years, cool for 30 years, are stable for 10 years and so on. Again this is an ideal condition and there are no variations at all. Now when we hit the top of the warming we will show the correct rate of .1 degrees/decade. The 30 year trend will continue to show as "warming" all the way through the stable period and for 10 years into the cooling period. (Although the rate of warming will be decreasing) At 10 years into the cooling period we would show "no trend" and from there would see an increasing cooling trend for the next 20 years until we hit the bottom of the cycle and the situation reverses again. We would be 10 years into the warming period before the trend levelled off and wouldn't show warming until year 11. Again we see the 30 year trend has virtually zero predictive power and will tell us it is warming when it is in fact stable or cooling and tell us it is cooling when it is actually warming. Since this is the case in a hypothetical system with 100% predictability I have to wonder if using a 30 year trend is such a good idea in a chaotic system like a real planeary climate. Would we be better off if we considered both 30 year and 10 year intervals? Consider these two statements, both of which are true for the Earths system over the last 30 years. Which is the better, more accurate description of the situation? 1. The Earths climate has warmed over the last 30 years. 2. The Earths climate has in general warmed over the last 30 years, however the last 10 show no real trend. Going back to our hypothetical world with the sawtooth pattern 10 years after a peak, the statements would be; 1. The world has warmed in the last 30 years. 2. The world has in general warmed in the last 30 years but has been cooling for the last 10. Given that the 30 year period was originally pretty much picked out of the air as a fair time period to use for "climate", I'm wondering if we should be too wedded to it. Note that I'm not saying we should dump the 30 year frame, simply that we might be better off using both a 30 year and a 10 year frame. Thoughts?
superball Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 hello, i think this would be a reasonable assumption, and is a factual way to express your premise. 1. The Earths climate has warmed over the last 30 years. I do not agree that a 30 year trend can do justice to your premise considering the earth is much, much older. perhaps the most accurate way to state this is by going back as far as possible, and use that as the start point on the graph. example we have been keeping records for 100 years or more. if the trend is in a uptick, it still does not prove the earth has been warming for more than 100 years. the only thing you can say is that since we been keeping records the Earth is in a warming trend. A trend in this case has no boundary, it only shows direction of the trend. Like the stock market. any thoughts?
iNow Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 I do not agree that a 30 year trend can do justice to your premise considering the earth is much, much older. perhaps the most accurate way to state this is by going back as far as possible, and use that as the start point on the graph. example we have been keeping records for 100 years or more. if the trend is in a uptick, it still does not prove the earth has been warming for more than 100 years. Like this? Or this?
superball Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 What is your source for these graphs? Graph two is speculative, because it says reconstructed. Graph one covers 311 years. Record keeping only started about 1895. Link http://www.masterresource.org/2011/07/2011-us-temp-update/ It should be determined first, what graph is most accurate. Both graphs do not follow an accurate start date?
iNow Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) The graphs are a combination of several different independent studies, so I could cite each study, or just tell you that pretty much all of them agree. Regardless, this wasn't my original source, but it has a lot of helpful information and is heavily referenced. You should explore it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change We use multiple independent sources of information to determine what the climate has done in the past. You can learn a lot about this subject by exploring paleoclimatology: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/paleoclimate/index.html And here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html And also here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology Additionally, given that you're interested in long-term trends, check out this one which relates to CO2 levels: You can read more about that one, and a lot of the other evidence about the changing climate and what's causing it here: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Edited November 16, 2011 by iNow 1
superball Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Thanks for the link. It is nice to meet you. Scientific study may suggest an increase in co2 levels is due to deforestation of rain forests. We have been chopping trees down at a fast rate in the last 100 years to allow for growth, agriculture, and homesteading. A valid observation, the use of fossil fuel alone is not the cause for the higher co2 levels observed today. That is an alarming graph. Plants, and trees should thrive under these conditions in the future, allowing for higher o2 levels as a result. What other factor may relate to a rise in co2 levels? My first question was, does a rise in co2 levels correlate to an ice age, or mini ice age according to the graphs?
iNow Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Scientific study may suggest an increase in co2 levels is due to deforestation of rain forests. We have been chopping trees down at a fast rate in the last 100 years to allow for growth, agriculture, and homesteading. Agreed that deforestation does not help the situation, and even makes it worse, but the chopping down of trees alone is not enough to explain the trends we're seeing. A valid observation, the use of fossil fuel alone is not the cause for the higher co2 levels observed today. No, CO2 comes from many sources, but the human ones (what is known as anthropogenic) are the primary right now given everything we know. Plants, and trees should thrive under these conditions in the future, allowing for higher o2 levels as a result. More plants and trees will definitely help, but alone it will be insufficient to balance the activity of 7 billion humans on this planet digging fuels which have been buried underground for millions of years and burning them into our atmosphere. What other factor may relate to a rise in co2 levels? Generally, we see some release from the oceans during evaporation, and also volcanic eruptions. Unfortunately, we've not seen a spike in either which can explain the temperature trend. Human activities are indisputably the primary explanation. My first question was, does a rise in co2 levels correlate to an ice age, or mini ice age according to the graphs? They're not necessarily related. The ice ages are more related to ocean temperatures and the warm currents in the oceans. If the CO2 causes enough warming to shift the ocean currents, then yes... that could likely lead to an ice age. The challenge is that timing this is difficult to predict, and we cannot easily predict what behaviors humans will engage in, and whether or not we'll begin to take this threat seriously and use greener technologies like solar, wind, and battery.
michel123456 Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) This is a very weird diagram. Explanation needed. One can observe tremendous industrialization 4 times during pleistocene. And during Eocene humanity was most prosperous than ever. And generally there is a lack of continuity. I hate the changing of scale in the middle of a diagram. The last diagram about CO2 mentions "for the last 650.000 years" and the graph don't go further than 450.000 years.(if i understand correctly the ambiguous labeling) There are 200.000 years missing, that's almost half the diagram. And if the intervals are of 50.000 years, I don't understand the 1950 date on the right of the diagram: the distance to the first vertical grid line corresponds roughly to 25.000 years. Edited November 16, 2011 by michel123456
superball Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) Agreed that deforestation does not help the situation, and even makes it worse, but the chopping down of trees alone is not enough to explain the trends we're seeing. Did heavy deforestation start just around the same time climate record keeping started? smile. The only thing we should say is they coenside with the time line. a little more 100 years. why would the idea be excluded, if co2 may be included? lol don't answer that.. Look how much damage can be done in as few as 10 years. http://en.wikipedia....ation_in_Borneo More plants and trees will definitely help, but alone it will be insufficient to balance the activity of 7 billion humans on this planet digging fuels which have been buried underground for millions of years and burning them into our atmosphere. There was certainly more demand in the last hundred years for lumber, most of very good size benefiting the system. I agree short term a balance may not be found, but we have composites that may be used as a replacement. carbon fiber, smile. The production of solid carbon composites is a good place to start focusing on the future, even a practical way to help clean the environment. Extracting the carbon from solution or the environment.. Generally, we see some release from the oceans during evaporation, and also volcanic eruptions. Unfortunately, we've not seen a spike in either which can explain the temperature trend. Human activities are indisputably the primary explanation. You say a temperature trend is indisputably the primary explanation, and is caused by humans, but were is your evidence of that? How do you see some release from oceans, and volcanoes as being the negligible factor? This link states otherwise. http://pubs.usgs.gov...2/of97-262.html A single volcanic eruption may produce a huge quantity of carbon dioxide, sulfur, other, also water vapor is the number one release into the atmosphere. They're not necessarily related. The ice ages are more related to ocean temperatures and the warm currents in the oceans. If the CO2 causes enough warming to shift the ocean currents, then yes... that could likely lead to an ice age. The challenge is that timing this is difficult to predict, and we cannot easily predict what behaviors humans will engage in, and whether or not we'll begin to take this threat seriously and use greener technologies like solar, wind, and battery. If co2 is not necessarily related, then why does mainstream always include it? Was this another assumption? I do like your take on using greener technologies. I agree oceanic temperatures plays a major roll considering the earth is close to 70%. Please explain how this gaseous material co2 can shift the currents, is there some strong force we are dealing with? I would be more happy if you had said the solar warmth reaching the oceans, cause heating, and change. Thanks for your previous post, I hope I do not complicate things any more than I had intended too. Smile Respectfully superball. Edited November 20, 2011 by superball
iNow Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) Did heavy deforestation start just around the same time climate record keeping started? Can you confirm that I'm reading you correctly, and that your argument is that it is not the release of CO2 which is leading to the increasing trend in global annual average temperatures, and that you are putting forth the assertion that deforestation is the primary cause of the upward trend we're experiencing? I don't disagree that deforestation makes it worse. I said exactly that above. I'm curious why you dismiss CO2, though, and why you think deforestation alone can account for the scale and speed of the changes we're seeing. You say a temperature trend is indisputably the primary explanation, and is caused by humans, but were is your evidence of that? I'm confused by your question. Are you asking for evidence that human release of CO2 into the atmosphere is leading to warming, or are you asking for evidence of something else? How do you see some release from oceans, and volcanoes as being the negligible factor? It's what the data shows. This link states otherwise. http://pubs.usgs.gov...2/of97-262.html A single volcanic eruption may produce a huge quantity of carbon dioxide, sulfur, other, also water vapor is the number one release into the atmosphere. Agreed, except we have not seen any increase in volcanism which coincides with the increase in temperatures. Further, volcanoes would temporarily reduce the temperature due to the global dimming which would come from the great amounts of ash in the air blocking sunlight. If co2 is not necessarily related, then why does mainstream always include it? Was this another assumption? No, I'm fairly certain you've misunderstood me here. I was responding to your question regarding CO2 changing ocean currents. I said they were not directly related, that ocean currents will shift as a result of warming, not CO2. However, CO2 does impact warming, so the relation is secondary or tertiary... when discussion changing ocean currents and them changing. Please explain how this gaseous material co2 can shift the currents, is there some strong force we are dealing with? See above. I would be more happy if you had said the solar warmth reaching the oceans, cause heating, and change. Nobody denies that radiation arrives from the sun. The issue is that there has not been a change in the sun which accompanies the changes in temperature we're seeing. Such claims simply don't hold up to scrutiny. http://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm EDITED TO DELETE DUPLICATE ENTRY Edited November 20, 2011 by iNow 1
superball Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) Excellent post, well planned, touche. Can you confirm that I'm reading you correctly, and that your argument is that it is not the release of CO2 which is leading to the increasing trend in global annual average temperatures, and that you are putting forth the assertion that deforestation is the primary cause of the upward trend we're experiencing? I don't disagree that deforestation makes it worse. I said exactly that above. I'm curious why you dismiss CO2, though, and why you think deforestation alone can account for the scale and speed of the changes we're seeing. No, I did not imply deforestation as the main cause, my only assertion was that it should have been considered. They exist side by side. Generally, we see some release from the oceans during evaporation, and also volcanic eruptions. Unfortunately, we've not seen a spike in either which can explain the temperature trend. Human activities are indisputably the primary explanation. You said, Generally, we see some release from the oceans during evaporation, and also volcanic eruptions. I asked why is the human a prime mover in comparison to release from oceans, and volcanoes. certainly not a negligible factor. Volume of gas can be measurable from either side, nature, or man made. Were is that chart? I see you had included a chart, but it definitly does not express current levels, or even take into account underwater releases that are genuinely unobserved. I simply say there is more coming from nature, and is not a negligible factor. Fine no measurable increase, even with that said it is an accumulative process, same as man. why would the idea be excluded, if co2 may be included? Nobody denies that radiation arrives from the sun. The issue is that there has not been a change in the sun which accompanies the changes in temperature we're seeing. Such claims simply don't hold up to scrutiny. But there is definite change on earth leading to increased radiation reaching the surface. In this case the sun did not need to change, solar rays have become more penetrating. We definitely have two different mind sets. A good thing. I am very analytical in processing information. I tend to use my words as I intended for there use. Sorry if we crossed hemispheres. PS. what is your take on my ice age proposal? could you answer some of my questions i had asked? thank you. Friends? cheers. Every thing in nature, everything included in a system has a generating effect on another system. You might say mainstream global warming scientist look at a completely empty system, with no regard for all the facts, only including there axioms that blame The human race for any changes in that system. Radioactive material, and the inability to contain it is there fault not mine. They have destroyed vast quantity of land mass, leaving it uninhabitable for generations, leaving piles of spent fuel rods in land fills, leaving that material in a delicate system such as earth enters the atmosphere, ground water, and destroys all life. Every change leads to other changes. Simple these changes are accumulative, and the main cause of change in the system is not co2. That is all I have to say about that. You may wonder why most people call global warming BS, because they include what there feeble minds allow them to. They may have a theory fine, but it needs structure and not simple assertion. you know what i am saying, not the scientists fault they are only there to cover up what is implied by these changes. Cheers. Edited November 20, 2011 by superball
superball Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) I bring your attention to the chart, climate change attribution you had posted. Looking at the lines on the graph, and its relation to model forcing. 1. The chart is for 2007, and is out dated, but ill say its a valid chart showing something, but what? The answer may not surprise you. The anthropogenic is a funny word, defined it means caused by humans: why not say human impact, not important. you may find it interesting. Back to the chart. A decline in volcanic eruptions in the last 30 years. what? You know as well as I do it has been increasing. The funny thing is it does not show a quantity, it is used as smoke, and mirrors. 2. Carbon dioxide is also one of the main volcanic contributors. The chart is not giving a quantity, invalid. It also separates green house gasses from volcanoes rather then merging them. Again no quantity is given I cant say this enough. The production of gaseous material in the atmosphere begins to change under certain conditions, that is due to the solar rays interaction, and it produces ozone, but that is only one byproduct, there are many others that are just as harmful. With that said, they simply include ozone in the chart with out providing a source for ozone production. If you say cars and human involvement I think I am going to shoot myself, and you can save your bullet. You may want to research how gaseous material interacts with sunlight, and what by products are produced. I stand by my previous statements, solar radiation is a (main) contributor to the effects you see, and the changes that are occurring. Must be included. You simply cant hold back the damns any longer it will accelerate, ( therefore the human or anthropogenic) is negated.. http://quercus.igpp....etal_nat_00.pdf This PDF on co2. Lets not argue about it any longer, if all the facts are not included, then all global warming models invalidate themselves, because of exclusion of certain well known principles. Refer to previous post. cheers. Edited November 20, 2011 by superball
iNow Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 No, I did not imply deforestation as the main cause, my only assertion was that it should have been considered. They exist side by side. What leads you to believe deforestation is not already considered in the work on climate? It is, so it seems your premise is a bit unrepresentative. I simply say there is more coming from nature, and is not a negligible factor. Nobody said it's negligible. The point is that it's not able to explain what we see. I have shared data in support of my point above and elsewhere. You are now the one making the claim that this data is somehow wrong, so the onus is on you to provide support for your position. It's one thing to say, "It's nature, and natural causes are the reason why it's warming." However, we know that there has been no significant change in solar output or irradiance, we know there has been no significant uptick in volcanic activity, and we know that pretty much every natural explanation we've encountered is insufficient to explain the speed and amount of warming we're seeing. So, it's fine if you want to say "it's natural," but you must also explain what natural mechanism accounts for the change, as those we already study simply do not. Fine no measurable increase, even with that said it is an accumulative process, same as man.why would the idea be excluded, if co2 may be included? But, it is included. It simply cannot explain the trend. It has been looked at. It has been reviewed. I recognize you dislike the answer, but we do have an answer, and it's not the natural forcing agents like solar or volcanism. Why are you so reluctant to accept what is so clear, and that human behavior is changing our climate, due primarily to our release of greenhouse gases such as CO2 into our atmosphere? It's supported by basic physics. It's supported by basic chemistry. It's supported by observation, and accepted by nearly everyone who studies this field professionally. Why do you choose to ignore what has been studied for over a century and understood for several decades? solar rays have become more penetrating. We definitely have two different mind sets. A good thing. No, not really. Sorry, but your mindset appears based on an ignorance of the data and based on what you'd like to believe instead of what the evidence shows. That's not a good thing, nor are our positions in any way equivalent or equally supported. You may wonder why most people call global warming BS No, I don't wonder that. Most people do accept global warming as valid, especially those who are most expert in the subject... People who have spent their entire lives devoted to studying and who grasp the complexities and interdependencies recognize almost without fail the truth of the matter... on the order of 98% of them agree with the conclusion that human activity is the primary cause of the trends we're seeing. http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm . 1. The chart is for 2007, and is out dated<...> The anthropogenic is a funny word <...> A decline in volcanic eruptions in the last 30 years. what? You know as well as I do it has been increasing. <...> it is used as smoke, and mirrors. <...> If you say cars and human involvement I think I am going to shoot myself, and you can save your bullet. <...> I stand by my previous statements, solar radiation is a (main) contributor to the effects you see, and the changes that are occurring. <...> all global warming models invalidate themselves, because of exclusion of certain well known principles. Sorry, no offense, but I'm pretty bored with you already. I've addressed your questions and supported my points. You're ignoring what I've shared in favor of what you wish were true. Have fun with that. I'm walking away from this discussion now because you do not appear to be approaching it in good faith.
superball Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) I bring your attention to the chart, climate change attribution you had posted. Looking at the lines on the graph, and its relation to model forcing. 1. The chart is for 2007, and is out dated, but ill say its a valid chart showing something, but what? The answer may not surprise you. The anthropogenic is a funny word, defined it means caused by humans: why not say human impact, not important. you may find it interesting. Back to the chart. A decline in volcanic eruptions in the last 30 years. what? You know as well as I do it has been increasing. The funny thing is it does not show a quantity, it is used as smoke, and mirrors. 2. Carbon dioxide is also one of the main volcanic contributors. The chart is not giving a quantity invalid. It also separates green house gasses from volcanoes rather then merging them. Again no quantity is given I cant say this enough. the production of gaseous material in the atmosphere begins to change under certain condition, that is due to the solar rays interaction, and it produces ozone. With that said, they simply include ozone in the chart with out providing a source for ozone production. If you say cars and human involvement I think I am going to shoot myself, and you can save your bullet. You may want to research how gaseous material interacts with sunlight, and what by product is produced. I stand by my previous statements, solar radiation it a main contributor to the effect you see, and the changes that are occurring. you simply cant hold back the damns any longer it will accelerate, ( therefore the human or anthropogenic) is negated.. http://quercus.igpp....etal_nat_00.pdf This PDF on co2. Let not argue about it any longer, if all the facts are not included, then all global warming models invalidate themselves, because of exclusion of certain well known principles. cheers. I am done editing, sorry. The problem we have is not disrespect, or ignorance it is related to methodology. Defined: Methodology is generally a guideline for solving a problem, with specific components such as phases, tasks, methods, techniques and tools. It can be defined as follows: "the analysis of the principles of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline" "the systematic study of methods that are, can be, or have been applied within a discipline" the study or description of methods It is a scientific discipline, it is systematic, and is descriptive. If all information is not included for the reader, the reader finds there own valid Q. A. Nobody said it's negligible. The point is that it's not able to explain what we see. In order for that statement to be true, we must assume something. Some one had said in a response science looks for superior theory. It's one thing to say, "It's nature, and natural causes are the reason why it's warming." However, we know that there has been no significant change in solar output or irradiance, we know there has been no significant uptick in volcanic activity, and we know that pretty much every natural explanation we've encountered is insufficient to explain the speed and amount of warming we're seeing. That is nonsense, the sun also expands just like planets do. Today we have evidence it is in expansion mode. You may say what proof do you have? because we have a cause, The precession related to earths axis, and the external force that must cause it. Einstein described the three requirements for his premise. I will locate that document for your shortly. Einstein proposed three tests of general relativity, subsequently called the classical tests of general relativity, http://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime4.html This may not serve my point well, but my objections are relative to the observer. cheers. So, it's fine if you want to say "it's natural," but you must also explain what natural mechanism accounts for the change, as those we already study simply do not. To answer this question you have assumed it has already been studied? Because any specific study in not included does not say it is less of a factor, and has already proposed. It may have been ignored. But, it is included. It simply cannot explain the trend. It has been looked at. It has been reviewed. I recognize you dislike the answer, but we do have an answer, and it's not the natural forcing agents like solar or volcanism. Why are you so reluctant to accept what is so clear, and that human behavior is changing our climate, due primarily to our release of greenhouse gases such as CO2 into our atmosphere? It's supported by basic physics. It's supported by basic chemistry. It's supported by observation, and accepted by nearly everyone who studies this field professionally. Why do you choose to ignore what has been studied for over a century and understood for several decades? This goes back to the last response, Because a study in not included does not say it is less of a factor, and has already proposed. No, not really. Sorry, but your mindset appears based on an ignorance of the data and based on what you'd like to believe instead of what the evidence shows. That's not a good thing, nor are our positions in any way equivalent or equally supported. scientific methods, do not assume ignorance. No, I don't wonder that. Most people do accept global warming as valid, especially those who are most expert in the subject... People who have spent their entire lives devoted to studying and who grasp the complexities and interdependencies recognize almost without fail the truth of the matter... on the order of 98% of them agree with the conclusion that human activity is the primary cause of the trends we're seeing. That may be so, but 98% of 100 men does not mean even 10% of the world population accept it. http://www.logicalsc...s/consensus.htm Sorry, no offense, but I'm pretty bored with you already. I've addressed your questions and supported my points. You're ignoring what I've shared in favor of what you wish were true. Have fun with that. I'm walking away from this discussion now because you do not appear to be approaching it in good faith. No offense taken, i have not ignored your points at all, my approach was as an observer. I have weighed the information, and I simply interject that all the facts are included. Respectfully super-ball cheers. Edited November 20, 2011 by superball
iNow Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 That may be so, but 98% of 100 men does not mean even 10% of the world population accept it. So, just to be clear, your position now is that the opinion and conclusions of people who know next to nothing about the subject should be given greater credibility and merit than the opinion and conclusions of those who study it deeply every single day of their lives? Also, let's be sure we don't lose some important perspective here. It's 98% of over 20,000 climate researchers that accept the anthropogenic explanation of the recent climate trend, not "100." That means that out of every 20,000 people who study this subject in detail every single day for years and years and years, 19,600 of them accept that human activity is what is causing the recent rise and speed of that rise, and only 400 of those 20,000 choose not to accept that. Finally, let me be clear. I am not arguing that popularity confirms truth. I am simply saying that the data supports the conclusion of that 98%, and you're choosing to ignore the conclusions of 98% of the experts on the topic. If you're going to do that, you'd damned well better have a good reason to do so, and you simply do not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you are rather lacking in the evidence department, extraordinary or otherwise. You're asserting that expansion of the sun is responsible for the warming trend and you have failed to provide evidence that the sun is expanding or that this expansion is sufficient to explain the changes we're seeing. You are asserting that the precession and tilt of the earth is the cause of the warming trend and you have failed to provide evidence that the axial tilt is in any way different than it has been for centuries past and that this tilt is sufficient to explain the amount and speed of the warming trend we're experiencing. You are asserting that there has been an increase in volcanic activity, and that this increase is sufficient to explain the speed and amount of warming we're seeing, but you have failed to provide evidence that either we've seen an increase in volcanic activity or that this activity is sufficient to explain the changes we're experiencing. You are asserting that there are details being left out of the models and you have failed to be specific about what is being missed and whether or not it can account for the change. You are asserting that your position on the topic is equivalent and equal to the position of those supported by mountains of evidence which is itself consistent across research domains even though you have offered zero evidence and appear to be arguing solely from a position of ignorance. You are asserting that the accepted position of the human cause relies on flawed assumptions without even stipulating that the conclusions are actually based on decades of research and close examination from thousands of researchers and experts. You are asserting that you are not ignorant on this topic even in the face of the evidence offered by your posts that you are. It's nice to hear that you're not ignoring my points or the data and corrections I've provided you, but you should know that your words and arguments strongly imply otherwise.
superball Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) Greetings again. I will clear up these discrepancy's for you. I had never said in any of my posts that human involvement was not a contributing factor. Now we agree. I have not said the precession was the cause of expansion Solar energy interacting with the system, it must be moved higher on the list of cause and effect. Expansion is an effect of induction. You really don't want me to go there. How does a climatologist have any clue outside of there closed system analogy. Induction is explained by physics. co2 is a factor, I never said it wasn't. the only problem is the exclusion of well known principles, and the way you have gone about providing detailed information. I ask for a quantity of material entering from both sides nature and man made. provide that and we are getting somewhere. Hence the invention of a new field of study, and the new terminology related to global warming. ( The anthropogenic view point.) I will stand on the opposite side of that view point, because I will learn more from nature than man can ever explain. A valid interjection, because they have a category for there carbon tax agenda, and that is unscientific. There are other ways to include the solar factor without saying the sun is expanding. I already had said there is definite change on earth leading to increased radiation reaching the surface. In this case the sun did not need to change, solar rays have become more penetrating. If you really need an explanation for a trend, I suggest you play the stock market. Material goes up, it interacts, it expands, it contracts, it converts to other more dangerous gaseous material bla bla bla. If you need some type of proof of precession, then i will give you one, and only one proving once, and for all it is occurring. There will be a third great quake, the only way that is possible is for something to cause it. The date will be between mid January, and mid April 2012. If that is not a fact I will bow down, and say the co2 did it. Closest possible dates. Jan 17, Feb 16, March 23 April 17. Let see how a co2 chart can explain that. Maybe they can pull it out of there hat? Respectfully, seriously, jokingly. My attacks are on the model, and not the person stating them. cheers. Edited November 20, 2011 by superball
iNow Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 So, other than a bunch of hand waving and wild assertions, you've got nothing. Bye.
superball Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) So, other than a bunch of hand waving and wild assertions, you've got nothing. Bye. Perhaps the red queen can explain it for you. The Red Queen's Hypothesis In reference to an evolutionary system, continuing adaptation is needed in order for a species to maintain its relative fitness amongst the systems being co-evolved with http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gravitational+Lensing+effect+on+flux&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart cheers.. Edited November 20, 2011 by superball
iNow Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Was that meant to add evidence of my point, or do you feel it refutes it somehow?
JohnB Posted November 23, 2011 Author Posted November 23, 2011 Two quick points. 1. That 98% (or more usually 97%) isn't out of 20,000. It came from an online questionairre and is actually 75 out of 77 people that were classified as "Climate Scientists". The silly thing is that it should have been 100% considering the vagueness of the questions. Heck, even I would have answered yes to them, so it proves little. 2. The Sun has changed in output. While TSI hasn't changed , since we've had the satellites up there to measure the content of the radiation changes. One of the principles of the Greenhouse Effect is that incoming short wave radiation (UV) is "converted" to long wave radiation (IR) at the surface. So what happens when the Sun produces more UV radiation? More of it reaches the surface and is converted to IR or "heat" and warms the planet even if CO2 remains unchanged. This means that just using TSI compared to temps doesn't show the entire picture, you need to look at the wavelengths involved. For example Measurement of Total and Spectral Solar Irradiance points out; Measurements of solar irradiance and its variation can only be made from space, and almost thirty years of observation have now established that the total solar irradiance (TSI) varies by only 0.1 to 0.3%, while certain portions of the solar spectrum, the ultraviolet for example, vary by orders of magnitude more. It has to be remembered that we are talking a total change in energy of only .8% since 1850 or thereabouts. If UV goes up by 2%, how much of that will finish up as heat in the atmosphere? Pity the full article is behind a paywall. I don't mind paying, but I think 25 Euros is a bit steep for a 4 year old pdf file.
jryan Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) The last diagram about CO2 mentions "for the last 650.000 years" and the graph don't go further than 450.000 years.(if i understand correctly the ambiguous labeling) There are 200.000 years missing, that's almost half the diagram. And if the intervals are of 50.000 years, I don't understand the 1950 date on the right of the diagram: the distance to the first vertical grid line corresponds roughly to 25.000 years. This is a VERY important point. Before the modern direct measure of CO2, the graph is naturally smoothed by time, and the time scale is in thousand year increments. You can not in good conscience or good science claim that a sampling in thousand year increments shows no CO2 levels higher than the 150 yearly incremental measurement of today. It could easily have been higher any number of times in between those incremental markers but the sampling rate wouldn't catch it. Edited January 6, 2012 by jryan
JustinW Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Why is it that I get poked fun at for making lite of global warming(really no need to answer that) when the general consensus is that it is happening, but consensus ends there? There is no consensus on cause, outcome, or time the non consensus forms of cause will affect the nonconsensus forms of outcome. Although there is general consensus that it is happening, no one can agree on anything else? If we see something happening is it really so vague as to not know the direct cause or the direct outcome? So pardon me for making lite of a situation that no one seems to know about. And I don't even fully understand the consensus on man made climate change. There has been warming and cooling trends since the beginning of time on earth hasn't there? So why isn't the consensus that it is just a period more extreme than those that have been observed through soil samples? Or is it really that pliable to relate the amount of co2 in the atmosphere with this extreme trend?
iNow Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 Why is it that I get poked fun at for making lite of global warming(really no need to answer that) when the general consensus is that it is happening, but consensus ends there? There is no consensus on cause... There may be no consensus among the ignorant masses, but the consensus is quite clear for anyone who actually studies it. http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html Although there is general consensus that it is happening, no one can agree on anything else? Again, people DO agree on cause, as well as on likely outcome if said cause is not mitigated. You must validate your sources. The sources that are NOT lying to you ALL agree. http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/ The sources that say we can't know, or don't know, or say that the experts are wrong and claim that humans are not the primary cause of the recent changes are making their arguments in bad faith, placing ideology over fact, and letting politics get in the way of evidence and empiricism. They are spinsters... They are lacking integrity and don't correct their positions no matter how often they're shown wrong... They are not representative of those who are informed, nor are they representative of those who are approaching this issue accurately and grounded in reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial If we see something happening is it really so vague as to not know the direct cause or the direct outcome? It's a complex topic, but we do actually know. Stop listening to the liars and the ignorant and start listening to the sources that demonstrate integrity, coherence, consistency, and a respect for evidence. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php So pardon me for making lite of a situation that no one seems to know about. No, I won't pardon you. If you concede you're ignorant of the situation, then resolve that ignorance. Don't use it as a reason to "make lite" of a very serious issue. If you know you lack knowledge, there's a very easy way to remedy that through study and effort. http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ And I don't even fully understand the consensus on man made climate change. There has been warming and cooling trends since the beginning of time on earth hasn't there? Your argument is a bit like this. "There have always been forest fires throughout history started by natural causes, so humans couldn't possibly start one." Viewed in this manner, you can see more easily just how very stupid it sounds. Now, replace "forest fires" with "climate change" and recognize why this is not a very intelligent suggestion. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm So why isn't the consensus that it is just a period more extreme than those that have been observed through soil samples? In short, Justin... It is more extreme, both in the pace of change and in the scope of that change. It's more extreme because we have the power to alter it, and we choose not to. Here's another thing to consider. There is no natural explanation that can account for the evidence we see. It's fine if you want to suggest that "it's natural." However, you would still then have to share what natural phenomenon can account for the changes we're seeing, and what natural phenomenon can account for the speed of that change. We know it's not volcanoes. We know it's not the sun. We know it's not the earth's tilt or orbit through the solar system, and we know it's not from meteor impacts to the earth. We know it's not any of the things which have accounted for the large shifts in climate in the long past... So, if you still think that (despite the cause being none those natural things) that "it's natural," you still need to share what natural cause can possibly explain it. We've been studying this for decades, and no natural source can account for the changes we've been experiencing. Do you know what can? Human activity. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-causes Below is a history of climate change research that underlies the conclusions that so many people continue to ignore... ignore due to the lies and deception and misguided inaccuracies they hear from ideological, political, and unscrupulous people who are either ignorant of the facts, unwilling to accept them, or trying to protect some vested economic interest. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm It's not okay to remain ignorant, Justin. If you concede you're not clear on the situation, then resolve that ignorance. If you know you lack knowledge, there's a very easy way to remedy that through study and effort. I've done what I can in a short time here in this post to give you a head start and a friendly helping hand. This is a VERY important point. Not really, no. Just because the fancy easy to understand graphic doesn't mention it doesn't mean that the data feeding that graphic is lacking. Here's are the sources feeding that image: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/
JohnB Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 Again, people DO agree on cause, as well as on likely outcome if said cause is not mitigated. You must validate your sources. The sources that are NOT lying to you ALL agree. The sources that say we can't know, or don't know, or say that the experts are wrong and claim that humans are not the primary cause of the recent changes are making their arguments in bad faith, placing ideology over fact, and letting politics get in the way of evidence and empiricism. They are spinsters... They are lacking integrity and don't correct their positions no matter how often they're shown wrong... They are not representative of those who are informed, nor are they representative of those who are approaching this issue accurately and grounded in reality. Stop listening to the liars and the ignorant and start listening to the sources that demonstrate integrity, coherence, consistency, and a respect for evidence. Below is a history of climate change research that underlies the conclusions that so many people continue to ignore... ignore due to the lies and deception and misguided inaccuracies they hear from ideological, political, and unscrupulous people who are either ignorant of the facts, unwilling to accept them, or trying to protect some vested economic interest. Jeez, and you wonder why I doubt your balance WRT American politics? Your side are akin to angels and my side are all liars, cheats, thieves, etc. So how's the weather in the US, Cyclops? Integrity? Would that be Mr. Cook over at SkS post facto editing of posts and comments? Or maybe Stefan Rahmstorf from Realclimate who was so free with falsehoods that the journalist concerned took him to court and wiped the floor with him. Of interest and showing the high integrity you are espousing; Cologne Regional Court sentenced Rahmstorf false assertions of fact for the omission - the errors were so straight at him. Meanwhile Rahmstorf has the relevant passages in his blog post rewritten. A clue to the correct one looks in vain - that is piquant, given the fact that his opponents exactly Rahmstorf accuses such behavior elsewhere in his blog, and she exhorted to honesty. So you can make false claims, get wiped in court and rewrite history but in the eyes of the believers you are still of integrity and don't lie. Similarly you can conspire with others to break the bloody law and that still gets a free pass. (Phil Jones and others) You can outright lie in official responses to FOI applications and that still keeps you on the side of the angels. So I'm now officially curious, what does it take to get out of the believers good books? We already know that lieing, cheating, misrepresentation and deletion of data isn't enough, so what is? Like it or not, there are people who have good reasons to disagree with the consensus position. Firstly and foremost is that science isn't a popularity contest. There is only one vote and Mother Nature has it, the opinion of 100,000 scentists is immaterial compared to her one vote. Climate is a complex subject which is why sceptical science isn't the greatest site to understand it. Frankly the answers are too simplistic. You must understand that they are not arguing a conclusion from the evidence, they present evidence for a foregone conclusion. (Something else that doesn't match the accepted scientific method). Let's take the "Sun" argument. Temps tracked the Solar TSI quite well up to the 80s or thereabouts. This is used as evidence that warming since 1980 or so can't be sun related. This is true as far as it goes, but it doesn't tell the whole story. There are many ways that the sun could influence the climate and we are only just starting to work these out. Length of solar cycle may be inportant, we don't know as we only have 23 of them to compare to. Similarly the content of the solar TSI can have an effect. The IR that warms the planet mostly comes from converted UV and not direct IR from the sun. If the content of the TSI were to change with it having more UV then there would be more OLR and the planet would warm. We simply don't have the relevent data to know what happened in that respect. Similarly the rather bizarre claim is made by SkS that climate is not "cyclic". since there are already identified cycles ranging from 11 to 200,000 years in length, then it can't be anything but "cyclic". On that particular point and demonstrating that it could indeed be "just natural" I present Dr Nicola Scafettas new paper.(In Press) Current model GCMs do not show the major decadal and multi decadal ocsillations very well and the models used by the IPCC for their 2007 report are so far off base that it isn't funny any more. A good test of a theory is its predictive power. So far the predictive power of GCMs that rely on the CO2 theory is quite poor. Dr Scafettas model based on impirical science and not theoretical science is doing much better, it is also more in accord with the leaked version of AR5, that we won't be seeing warming again for another 20 years or so. (There is nothing wrong with theoretical science per se, but I'll take a model based on impirical observations and physical first principles over a theoretical one any day.) In short, Justin... It is more extreme, both in the pace of change and in the scope of that change. In short, rubbish. The changes in the latter part of the 20th century are quite well within the parameters of natural climate change. Of the three warming periods since 1850 or so only the 1970-2000 warming is blamed on CO2. Its length is that same as the 1910-1940 warming period and the 1850-1880 warming period. The rate of warming for all three periods was around the .16 degree/decade mark and the three periods are statistically indistinguishable. So taken individually the most recent warming is not unusual in any way, either by "pace" or "scope". Some claim that in this case "scope" means the entire planet is warming and content that earlier warming periods, like the MWP were only local is scope and not global events thus making the 20th century warming "unusual". This is a lie. http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html The above link will take you a page showing 43 different temp reconstructions with locations from Antarctica to Greenland. It will also be noted that many of these reconstructions show the MWP as warmer than today. Again considering SkS, which denies these observed facts and claims that the MWP was local to the NH only, what does that say about their "integrity" and "respect for evidence"? But a bit more evidence about "pace and scope". The warming that some people are panicking about is the top one third of the little uptick on the very right hand end. Some might argue that it is unfair to only use one ice core as representative of the entire planet, however I do find it odd that warmers might claim this when they are quite happy to use one ice core to represent the planetary temperature when they want to compare it to CO2 over the last 800,000 years. In one respect I agree with iNow. People should listen to those who demonstrate integrity, openness and respect for evidence. A reading of both sides of the argument will quickly show those of average intelligence and who have a moral compass which side demonstrates these attributes. Which side encourages question and which side tries to shut down debate. Which side is open and constantly publishes code and data and which side constantly fight the release of code and data. Which side can be shown to have lied constantly on official documents. BTW iNow. Now that you have been shown by the evidence that neither the most recent warming period from 1970-2000 nor the rather mild warming from 1850-2000 are in any way unusual or outside the limits of natural variability then I can expect you to refrain from spreading the disinformation that the recent warming is "unprecedented" or "unusual" in either "pace or scope" in the future? 1
Essay Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Which side can be shown to have lied constantly on official documents. Constantly!?!~ ...but back on topic: If you're talking about 30 year trends, I think the graph at the top of the page is more indicative of the problem. But why talk about 30 year trends at all? It is diverting attention away from global warming theory, which is based on the GHG properties of CO2. These apply over time spans much longer than 30 years, and the theory is not based upon recent temperature trends or paleoclimate records. ~ Edited January 12, 2012 by Essay
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now