Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[govols/cc]

Ocean currents change. Ocean currents affect weather & climate. But this doesn't support an agenda.

 

[govols/cc]

I know, I have a physics degree lol: Man I crack myself up.

I guess the better question would be "what part of fundamental physics do you understand?"

Just shows going to school doesn't equate to being educated.

 

[FLVOL69]

Ocean currents change. Ocean currents affect weather & climate. But this doesn't support an agenda.

$$$$$$$$$

 

[McDad]

....

Nicely executed, Ob. How's the new job?

 

[BartW]

Do you have a chart for this ?

Gramps, O, you know I got the charts

I particularly like this one. Note the axis changes scales, reflecting the decrease in temporal resolution for deep-time reconstructioons. The different data sets are spread throughout this thread but if there's a particular scale you want to look at it shouldn't be too hard to google. The best deep-time high resolution reconstructions you'll find are for the past ~800,00 years from ice cores.

And of course the 1000-2000 year original "hockey stick" is iconic too

inb4 'get outta here with your annoying graphs and data'

 

[Obsessed]

Nicely executed, Ob. How's the new job?

Still getting all the ducks in a row. Trying to do a little more negotiating on a few things.
(Money) but feel everything should be concrete by weeks end.

Thanks for asking.

 

[govols/cc]

Gramps, O, you know I got the charts

I particularly like this one. Note the axis changes scales, reflecting the decrease in temporal resolution for deep-time reconstructioons. The different data sets are spread throughout this thread but if there's a particular scale you want to look at it shouldn't be too hard to google. The best deep-time high resolution reconstructions you'll find are for the past ~800,00 years from ice cores.

And of course the 1000-2000 year original "hockey stick" is iconic too

inb4 'get outta here with your annoying graphs and data'

So these measurements were taken starting thousands of years ago?

 

[LouderVol]

Gramps, O, you know I got the charts

I particularly like this one. Note the axis changes scales, reflecting the decrease in temporal resolution for deep-time reconstructioons. The different data sets are spread throughout this thread but if there's a particular scale you want to look at it shouldn't be too hard to google. The best deep-time high resolution reconstructions you'll find are for the past ~800,00 years from ice cores.

And of course the 1000-2000 year original "hockey stick" is iconic too

inb4 'get outta here with your annoying graphs and data'

What intrigued me on the arctic chart was that the temp change came before the increase in CO2. if you compare the spikes they are similar but the increase temps predate the increase C02, which seems like it throughs this whole argument out the window.

or i could be reading it backwards

 

[BartW]

Just shows going to school doesn't equate to being educated.

I'm sure your homeschool physics degree is very special :crazy:

So these measurements were taken starting thousands of years ago?

If there are no witnesses to a crime is it unsolvable?

If a tree falls in the forest...

 

[LouderVol]

So these measurements were taken starting thousands of years ago?

wow..... think tree rings but as arctic ice. You don't count the rings until you cut the tree down, but that doesnt mean the rings weren't forming before we cut it down.

 

[BartW]

What intrigued me on the arctic chart was that the temp change came before the increase in CO2. if you compare the spikes they are similar but the increase temps predate the increase C02, which seems like it throughs this whole argument out the window.

or i could be reading it backwards

No your eyes do not deceive you. Climate shifts in the past were triggered by orbital changes that affect the amount of sunlight we receive. Increasing temperatures actually cause the ocean to outgas CO2, which in turn increases the temperature some more and increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere even more. It's an example of a feedback loop.

Today, though, it's clear that the rising temperatures are due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The present orbital cycle was (and would continue to) impose a cooling trend.

 

[LouderVol]

No your eyes do not deceive you. Climate shifts in the past were triggered by orbital changes that affect the amount of sunlight we receive. Increasing temperatures actually cause the ocean to outgas CO2, which in turn increases the temperature some more and increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere even more. It's an example of a feedback loop.

Today, though, it's clear that the rising temperatures are due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The present orbital cycle was (and would continue to) impose a cooling trend.

its really hard to judge the scale on some of those charts (again looking at arctic chart) But it seems the climb back up started well before the modern age. I am not saying we aren't affecting climate change or whatever it is called, but my thing is I think we are overstating how much we actually are. Now the point becomes is our little bit putting the world just over the 'sweet spot' of balance? that i don't know.

 

[govols/cc]

wow..... think tree rings but as arctic ice. You don't count the rings until you cut the tree down, but that doesnt mean the rings weren't forming before we cut it down.

So you can tell the temperature of a tree years ago when you cut it down?

 

[LouderVol]

So you can tell the temperature of a tree years ago when you cut it down?

Ok this has to be trolling.
Question 1. Have you ever looked at tree rings?
Question 2. Assuming 'yes' to question 1, did you notice how all of the rings aren't the same width/diameter?

The tree grows more in good years than in bad years. In taking the ice samples you are looking vertically at the layers not horizontally at the rings. In good years (read cold) the ice grows more than in bad years. How exactly they determine the years probably has to do with the seasons and how much growth happens in those areas, but i don't know that for sure

 

[BartW]

its really hard to judge the scale on some of those charts (again looking at arctic chart) But it seems the climb back up started well before the modern age. I am not saying we aren't affecting climate change or whatever it is called, but my thing is I think we are overstating how much we actually are. Now the point becomes is our little bit putting the world just over the 'sweet spot' of balance? that i don't know.

Is it worth the risk? The scientific consensus is that we have a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Sure climate change could be milder than the consensus projection, but it could also be more severe. That's a double-edged sword. To see that, just take a look at the shape of the probability density for climate sensitivities:

(Climate sensitivity is defined as the amount of warming per doubling of atmospheric CO2)

The shape of those curves is no accident, it's physics and math. Without feedbacks the climate sensitivity is about 1.5 C, with feedbacks it's probably 2-3 C but could be as high as 8-10C. Despite the repeated accusations of 'alarmism' the fact is scientists by nature are generally very conservative in their predictions.

Regarding the temperature plot, we're on the downturn of the most recent interglacial period which started about 10,000 years ago. Perhaps these scales will elucidate the recent trend:

 

[govols/cc]

Ok this has to be trolling.
Question 1. Have you ever looked at tree rings?
Question 2. Assuming 'yes' to question 1, did you notice how all of the rings aren't the same width/diameter?

The tree grows more in good years than in bad years. In taking the ice samples you are looking vertically at the layers not horizontally at the rings. In good years (read cold) the ice grows more than in bad years. How exactly they determine the years probably has to do with the seasons and how much growth happens in those areas, but i don't know that for sure

So there was a never ending layer upon layer of ice accumulating? A tree doesn't grow less with age? Bad analogy. Why was climate change normal for billions of years but now it's not?

 

[BartW]

Ok this has to be trolling.
Question 1. Have you ever looked at tree rings?
Question 2. Assuming 'yes' to question 1, did you notice how all of the rings aren't the same width/diameter?

The tree grows more in good years than in bad years. In taking the ice samples you are looking vertically at the layers not horizontally at the rings. In good years (read cold) the ice grows more than in bad years. How exactly they determine the years probably has to do with the seasons and how much growth happens in those areas, but i don't know that for sure

Sadly he's not trolling. Well, not on purpose anyway.

It's refreshing to see a sensible skeptic grace the thread instead of the usual loony denialism. Cheers

 

[BartW]

So there was a never ending layer upon layer of ice accumulating? A tree doesn't grow less with age? Bad analogy. Why was climate change normal for billions of years but now it's not?

Yes, there are places that have been accumulating ice for hundreds of thousands of years. Antarctica, Greenland, and several alpine glaciers are examples. The thickness of the layering does reflect temperature but the temperature reconstructions are done via stable isotope geochemistry iirc. Trees grow more during warm years than cold years, thus the tree ring thicknesses can be calibrated to reconstruct temperature.

Not sure if that last question is serious...

 

[govols/cc]

Yes, there are places that have been accumulating ice for hundreds of thousands of years. Antarctica, Greenland, and several alpine glaciers are examples. The thickness of the layering does reflect temperature but the temperature reconstructions are done via stable isotope geochemistry iirc. Trees grow more during warm years than cold years, thus the tree ring thicknesses can be calibrated to reconstruct temperature.

Not sure if that last question is serious...

Why wouldn't it be serious? Climate change has been going on for billions of years. And it's odd that your example is weather for everyone else but for the climate change loons it's climate change. Climate disruption. Global warming. Whatever.

 

[LouderVol]

the two color ones clear, but can't read the b&w one, which seems to be key to your point. another fallacy is this only takes into consideration green house gases, and more specifically co2. a couple other things have to be considered imo. the salination (saltiness) of the oceans (something else i believe we are effing with too much), as well as a few things beyond our control. basically its not just big bad air pollution (which is affecting other related pieces), but several other factors are weighing in as well.

on the 10,000 year swings, we are behind schedule already, and have been due a warming for about 3000yrs or so. (look at some of your earlier charts, we are right in time for the next up swing) and if you look at the charts between the big upswings (which we are overdue for) there were other smaller ones, that we did not have.

In my humble opinion mother nature is a balancing act, winter w/ summer, spring/fall. since we went through a long cold era, mother nature is rebounding pretty harsh to get back on track to the normal. again jmo, but based on a lot of stuff i have read, including many charts similar to the ones you have presented.

 

[BartW]

Why wouldn't it be serious? Climate change has been going on for billions of years. And it's odd that your example is weather for everyone else but for the climate change loons it's climate change. Climate disruption. Global warming. Whatever.

The answer is pretty obvious...

Why was climate change normal for billions of years but now it's not?

The industrial revolution.

For millions of years climate change was driven primarily by orbital mechanics with the occasional influence from volcanic eruptions, continent rearrangements, life, etc. The CO2 cycle was stable until we altered it by taking carbon out of the ground and pumping it into the atmosphere. We've offset millions of years of carbon sequestration over mere decades. That's not normal.

I don't know what you're referencing in your weather vs. climate comment.

 

[BartW]

the two color ones clear, but can't read the b&w one, which seems to be key to your point. another fallacy is this only takes into consideration green house gases, and more specifically co2. a couple other things have to be considered imo. the salination (saltiness) of the oceans (something else i believe we are effing with too much), as well as a few things beyond our control. basically its not just big bad air pollution (which is affecting other related pieces), but several other factors are weighing in as well.

on the 10,000 year swings, we are behind schedule already, and have been due a warming for about 3000yrs or so. (look at some of your earlier charts, we are right in time for the next up swing) and if you look at the charts between the big upswings (which we are overdue for) there were other smaller ones, that we did not have.

In my humble opinion mother nature is a balancing act, winter w/ summer, spring/fall. since we went through a long cold era, mother nature is rebounding pretty harsh to get back on track to the normal. again jmo, but based on a lot of stuff i have read, including many charts similar to the ones you have presented.

What are you basing this conjecture on? We've been in the present interglacial (warm period) for ~10,000 years; it seems like we'd be due for some cooling, no? Here's another interesting figure to consider:

Btw robust temperature models take many factors besides CO2 and GHGs into account, such as albedo, aerosols, solar output, etc. I'm not familiar with any salinity problem but I'll agree we're undoubtedly ****ing up the oceans in more ways than one. Say goodbye to coral, shellfish, plankton, and everything that eats calcifying organisms (i.e. the entire ocean food web). Good thing nobody relies on the oceans for their livelihoods or anything :ermm:

 

[LouderVol]

Yes, there are places that have been accumulating ice for hundreds of thousands of years. Antarctica, Greenland, and several alpine glaciers are examples. The thickness of the layering does reflect temperature but the temperature reconstructions are done via stable isotope geochemistry iirc. Trees grow more during warm years than cold years, thus the tree ring thicknesses can be calibrated to reconstruct temperature.

Not sure if that last question is serious...

Why wouldn't it be serious? Climate change has been going on for billions of years. And it's odd that your example is weather for everyone else but for the climate change loons it's climate change. Climate disruption. Global warming. Whatever.

this is where I am actually with CC. I think this is more mother nature fixing herself than us completely screwing the pooch. as i have already stated I think we are to blame for some of it, but not all of it.

 

[LouderVol]

What are you basing this conjecture on? We've been in the present interglacial (warm period) for ~10,000 years; it seems like we'd be due for some cooling, no? Here's another interesting figure to consider:

Btw robust temperature models take many factors besides CO2 and GHGs into account, such as albedo, aerosols, solar output, etc. I'm not familiar with any salinity problem but I'll agree we're undoubtedly ****ing up the oceans in more ways than one. Say goodbye to coral, shellfish, plankton, and everything that eats calcifying organisms (i.e. the entire ocean food web). Good thing nobody relies on the oceans for their livelihoods or anything :ermm:

yeah, i got my swings backwards, not sure what i was thinking.

also that chart through me for a fricking loop man. left to right, left to right. took me 5 minutes of staring at it to figure out heads from tails. if you look at that chart again, and blow up the top of the up swings, its not a clear arc down, so while we are up there we got some interesting times ahead of us before it really starts going down. I don't profess to understand all the science but i am pretty good at reading charts, and they say rocky times ahead, look at those up swings in glacier, not clean.

 

[McDad]

I am a fan of tree rings going back hundreds of thousands of years. This unprecedented change is frightening. I think we should cut Bart in half perpendicular to his long axis and see what we can gleen from his rings.