| Author | Message | ||
     Reepicheep |
Well, this whole thread was worth it if it gets people to stop calling me a republican.  That ice core plot is interesting, and worth some digging. The temperature axis is whacky though, why on earth are they using that relative figure? And how did they get the temperature? | ||
| Reepicheep |
Here is a page with a lot of nice plots (with a sane Y axis for temperature) for those ice cores: http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core -graph/ Here is a nice one from there...  It shows reasonable correlation, but there are some obvious and glaring problems if you are using them to claim CO2 increases cause temperature increases. Unless global temperatures are psychic and see the future. The CO2 generally lags the temperature change. If it was causal it would lead it, or at least track it (since this is a geological timescale). The catastrophic man made global warming folks start with some kind of incantation around that this is just evidence that C02 is an amplifier. Which may or may not be true, but that is a way different argument then the one claimed, and far different than the simple fairy tale the global warming people are telling. I'd like to do a little research on how they calculated temps. CO2 is easy because they have the trapped air still there I believe. They can just measure it. Temps seem trickier. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Interesting... from this page: http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-clim ate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/
So, while it could take years to dig through a rigorous analysis, here is one key take home I get from that. This is a projection based on empirical adjustments that depend on actual historical temperature data. So these historical projections would be highly subject to manipulation of historical measured temperature data. Change the historical temperature data to be lower, but leave the current temps high, and that will change the constants you use and manipulate this historical data as well. Which would make me sound like a ranting madman, except that it has been proven historical temperature data was manipulated.  This is just the temp part. The CO2 concentrations appear to be straightforward to directly and objectively measure. It's the temp data that is indirectly guessed. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Here is a nice description of how they do the temperature projections: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-are- past-temperatures/ | ||
| Sifo |
Here is a interesting article from adding "debunked" to sifos pretty little search for missing heat. https://eos.org/articles/tracking-the-missing-heat -from-the-global-warming-hiatus So at least you are now on board with the fact that we are experiencing a pause in any atmospheric warming. Yet you are still believing the computer models that predict more warming. Great, lets examine what we have just "learned". 1) Computer models have been predicting atmospheric warming due to increased CO2. 2) Atmospheric warming has taken a pause while CO2 has continued to rise. 3) Scientists have suddenly realized that the ocean is a huge heat sink which has recently been turned on forcing the climate to not act as predicted by the computer models. 4) The computer models are still correct. Is that about right? Well it's not right with me. No doubt ocean currents ebb and flow. We know of many current cycles in the oceans that operate on a wide variety of time scales. Your article deals with heat in the ocean being moved to the Indian ocean. No doubt that is happening. They fail to explain how any of that changed the absorption of heat from the atmosphere. That is what needs to be explained to claim that the oceans are taking on the heat from atmospheric warming. It's really pretty simple stuff. Certainly the water hasn't changed it's thermal properties. We certainly haven't made any significant changes to the surface area of the ocean. So what suddenly changed? More to the point though, we just aren't seeing the heat in the atmosphere that should be there from an increased greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gasses trap heat quite high in the atmosphere. Some of that heat travels out to space. Some of that heat travels to the surface of the earth. Even if the earth is magically providing a new heat sink, you would see the heat at the upper regions of the atmosphere. The funny thing here is that this is the theory that I pointed out was garbage when I first mentioned the pause in the warming. You claimed I didn't know what I was talking about. You've just managed to show I was exactly correct in the first place. Thanks. BTW, the ice core data doesn't go back the million to 20 million years that you have been discussing. They do demonstrate the fact that CO2 has followed temperature during that period though. It's hard to see in the graphs at that scale, but it's well documented in the data. Why do you not want to address why we have never had a runaway greenhouse with very high CO2 levels in the past. People like James Hansen from NASA have told us that we are on the brink of a runaway greenhouse that will give us a climate like Venus, where lead is molten on the surface. You make some claim about complex life not being around, but how does that affect the physics involved? On a side note, Reep is a NeoCon!  (Message edited by SIFO on December 02, 2015) (Message edited by SIFO on December 02, 2015) | ||
| Aesquire |
Thanks Reep, saved me a bunch of cut & paste. CO2 lags temperature because warm seas release it. Like warm beer goes flat faster. Increased CO2 shows a warming trend. ( not the other way around ) I "believe" in science. That's WHY I'm skeptic. | ||
| Sifo |
have the warmest years on record not been since 2000??? I didn't mean to ignore this question. First off, what record are you talking about? Satellite? Instrument? Proxy? You certainly don't mean the Proxy records, because it's been warmer in the past. So you must either mean satellite, or instrument. Both have the same coincidental issue with simply trying do divine a trend from looking at them. The thermometer was invented during the Little Ice age, so the instrument record happens to start during a known cold period. The Satellite record started in 1979 during another known cold period when folks like yourself were trying to convince people that burning oil and coal was going to trigger a new ice age. Either will show a rising trend line until we go into a new cycle. Looking longer term though... No. the warmest years on record have not been since 2000. Well documented anecdotally with things like the Vikings settling in Greenland and the English making good wine from their own vineyards just to name a couple. | ||
| Sifo |
 | ||
| Sifo |
One last thing from Tod's link on "Tracking the missing heat". We have this quote from the article...
Don't the laws of thermodynamics state that heat travels toward cold? Is he really implying that in a couple of decades we have (without noticing) warmed the oceans to the point that they will now start pushing that heat into the colder atmosphere? Of course that would have to mean that greenhouse warming has indeed stopped. It does make one wonder about the understanding the writer has of the material he writes about. | ||
| Sifo |
And the idea that its about "world control" is just mental Thanks for the insult, but do you have any clue what is going on? The UN is trying to gain control to tax any country it deems fit for their carbon usage. If you can't see "world control" in that, it may just be you who are mental. | ||
| Reepicheep |
*stamping feet* I am a libertarian leaning fiscal conservative *stamping feet* | ||
| Aesquire |
Lighten up Francis. | ||
| Pwnzor |
Tod's cut-and-paste explanation of the word "theory" only sets my point in concrete. Thanks buddy. The climate is changing. It changes with or without us. God will call us home, and we will all certainly die. Blah, blah, blah. | ||
| Aesquire |
Now, if you Really want to save the planet, donate to Skywatch , and push for a real space program so we can send Bruce Willis up to blow up the oncoming asteroid. That's a 100% certain threat. ( Bruce might be retired, but we can send Ben ) | ||
| Reepicheep |
The thing I like about this kind of debate held here on badweb is that they tend to be fact oriented, and I almost always learn something while adding a lot of precision to my own thoughts on the matter. I sympathize with Todd having to come up against a smart and hostile audience. But I do wish there were more independently derivable facts based on core principals being brought into the debate for catastrophic man made global warming. I really am willing to change when facts prove me wrong. I did it regarding concussions and youth sports, even though I was coaching youth football at the time. I still hate the way PBS and everyone else pushing it went about the whole thing (as an emotionally driven mash of crap scientific assertions) but when I dug down far enough to the actual facts of the matter I had to agree with many of their assertions at the end of the day. I'd do it for man made catastrophic global warming too. I know the crap psuedo science getting reported is crap psuedo science. I'm trying to learn if there is genuine but misreported actual science somewhere far enough down the rabbit hole. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Putting aside everything else and just walking along the CO2 and temperature plots on that chart... with an intuitive sense honed by 20+ years of dealing with plots and big data and trying to figure something out... That looks like a classic case of two variables being driven by some third variable I can't see. The two roughly track each other, but sometimes one leads, sometimes the other leads, sometimes one spikes and the other is flat, sometimes one is climbing while the other is falling. If somebody that worked for me brought me that plot and tried to claim that either one caused the change in the other, I'd have concluded 10 minutes into digging that they need to go back to the drawing board and find the other factor. I'm not God, and I am often wrong. But if you have flown in a commercial jet in the last 20 years, the odds are good that one of the reasons it didn't fall out of the sky was related to data collected by a system I played a large part in designing and building. I'm not basing my challenge to the narrative of catastrophic global warming based on a political party, something I watched on fox news, or trying to make myself "feel better" about something or to prove somebody else is wrong. | ||
| Hootowl |
"the 37 Billion dollars oil companies receive in subsidies from us each year?" Unadulterated bullshit. | ||
| Hootowl |
"And so you are saying that humans caused the environmental changes of the middle east." No. Can you not read? "And wait wait it only happened in Israel????" It only happened in what is now Israel, yes. Thousands of years ago. | ||
| Aesquire |
I thought we covered human environmental damage in the fertile crescent. What part of deliberate destruction was unclear? Soil erosion? This is Tod's freaking job, isn't it? Of course that was all before Marx. Or modern suvs. | ||
| Aesquire |
A good point. We do not have a climate problem. We have an energy problem. https://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/27056-2/ | ||
| Macbuell |
I don't think anyone can rationally argue we are not polluting and hurting our planet. What aggravates me is when they use falsified data to support their argument and then say the Science is settled. And then, any differing opinion, even if supported by fact, is shouted down as heresy. It might as well be an inquisition. With methods such as that I can only question their true motives. | ||
| Hootowl |
"I thought we covered human environmental damage in the fertile crescent" We did. But that damage didn't cause the desert. The rain shadow did. If it weren't for the Himalayas, that whole place would be green. | ||
| Aesquire |
My example was Persia, ( modern Iran & Iraq & more ), but you are right, it's Climate as it was known before the Con got going. Just like Colorado is dry because the Rockies trip the rain on the West slopes. Sheep, long term land use & erosion, all have an effect. The examples of Persia & Tamerlane, and multiple wars in the Israel area, are deliberate destruction. I could be wrong on this, but IIRC, "Climate" is a regional thing, not the planet. ( typical thief leftists, altering word meanings to fit their agenda ) It might as well be an inquisition. It is. In England being an Eco-freak, driving the people you work with nuts harping on recycling, their evil effects on the climate with their unfair energy use, etc. has actually been declared a protected religion. They can't fire you for that. It's been decided in Court. Considering the massive leap of faith required to continue to believe the Climate Con folk, .... let's be fair, most of the Greenie Movement people, ..... after decades of dire doom predictions that didn't happen, Tod's faith in the people that lie to him HAS to be considered a religion. And you, ( and I ) are a Heretic, and MUST BE Purged of our Sins. As I often point out, there are 2 1/2 religions popular on the planet today where the Lie is considered an act of holiness, ( a Mitzvah, blessing & commandment of the Lord ) if it advances the Faith. Islam, Marxism, Greenies. | ||
| Hootowl |
http://phys.org/news/2015-11-phase-carbon-diamond- room-temperature.html New phase of carbon discovered. Material science is pretty cool. | ||
| Sifo |
It's funny, the "missing heat" problem has been an issue for well over a decade now. I'm trying to put myself in Tod's shoes on this. Try to imagine being convinced enough that the temperature has continued rising that when a graph showing it leveled off is posted you call it fake data. When enough proof is provided, you simply go to a very half baked theory to explain it away. I really think that if I were in that position I would really start questioning my current sources of information on this subject. How is it that for well over a decade, I have been kept in the dark about such simple, undisputed facts? How have I been kept unaware that the warming has stopped. How have I been kept unaware of the missing heat problem? I really think that I would feel like I have been made the fool. To find that the "facts" that I have been feed for well over a decade have been conceded long ago, by virtually every serious scientist on both sides of the issue. At what point do you decide that you just might need to reexamine where you are getting your information? I don't mean to sound too harsh on Tod, but to me it would be quite a slap in the face. Tod has obviously spent a fair amount of time getting fed his talking points. How did he manage to miss one of the most important pieces of information in the debate. The simple fact that the warming has been stalled for close to two decades? Again, until the stalled warming can be explained, all the rest of the CO2 debate becomes mute. It seems quite inconceivable that for two decades this heat was going into the ocean without being detected by satellite instruments. Of course there is some room for debate on the flat temps for close to two decades. If not for the constant "adjustments" to the data, the trend line would be toward cooling. Of course the methods being employed in making these adjustments are being kept secret. The actual adjustments are kept secret too. The ONLY reason we know it's been done is because of private archives of the data that can be compared. At this point though, we have to take it on faith that the people making the secret adjustments aren't adjusting the first release of data. Personally, with their record on transparency so far, I find myself being very skeptical of new data that is being produced. Tod says it's fine to adjust data. I agree that sometimes it's necessary, and the reasons, and methods should be explainable. Perhaps Tod would be willing to share why he thinks that instrument data that is roughly a century old suddenly needs adjustment? Did we find that the thermometers in question, many of which don't even exist anymore, were out of calibration? While that could be an explanation, it wouldn't account for the adjustments that have been observed. I would love to hear his take on this, or anything else I brought up in this post. Reepicheep Reepublican Coincidence?  | ||
| Hootowl |
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate -change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/ Good read. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Reepicheep was a free mouse thank you. | ||
| Hootowl |
A most honorable mouse. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2015/12/2/obamas-orga nizing-for-action-call-out-the-climate-change-deni ers | ||
| Ducbsa |
Well, we now know the Paris conference is serious about saving the planet: "A number of cabinet secretaries are also in Paris for the United Nations conference, including IRS Commissioner John Koskinen https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/impeach-th e-irs-director/2015/10/07/a3c3b024-6c57-11e5-b31c- d80d62b53e28_story.html, whose car service tab is $5,400." http://freebeacon.com/issues/obamas-motorcade-for- climate-change-talks-costing-784825/ Maybe the AGW fans here can help the skeptics understand why our $19T+ debt should have the added cost of the IRS Commissioner attending the BS-fest in Paris? |
