Tackling climate change ?

[Lord of Planar]

Yes I know what temporal resolution is

You didn't answer the part of the proxy resolutions. Are you aware of their temporal resolution?

 

[Hafnium1979]

You didn't answer the part of the proxy resolutions. Are you aware of their temporal resolution?

Are you trying to play Socrates here? I don't know the exact temporal resolution of those proxies, but of course I assume they are in the ranges discussed HERE

I also assume you didn't have particular problems with paleoclimate proxies when you went to fill up your car's gas tank (yes paleoclimatological data factors into oil exploration).

 

[Lord of Planar]

Are you trying to play Socrates here? I don't know the exact temporal resolution of those proxies, but of course I assume they are in the ranges discussed HERE

It doesn't explain them well. It does say at one point, hundreds to thousands of years. There are a few high resolution proxies in the data, bit most are low resolution. I don't remember for certain the average, but I believe its around 600 years.

So riddle me this.

If there is a peak, that takes 150 years to rise, and 150 years to fall. What do you think we would see on a proxy sample with a 600 year resolution?

 

[watsup]

Solar scientists would disagree. The solar atmosphere is far more complex than the atmosphere of the earth.,

The sun does one thing and one thing well, and that is nuclear fusion to produce energy and light. While nuclear fusion is indeed a complex natural action, the combination of elements in the proper chemical and atmospheric mixture that were needed to produce life is indeed arguably way more complex. Humans have learned how to do nuclear fusion, but have not yet learned how to produce life, per se. Out of the billions of years of Earth’s existence, only a very small percentage were the right combination for HUMAN life to exist. As such, we need not to f**k it up due to our own actions and “choices”.

 

[expat_panama]

The way the ice cores work, is that when they support the narrative they represent the global temperature,
but when they do not support the narrative, they are only local temperatures!
It really depends on the which side of the bowl you pick the cherries from!
Recent temps are cooler than earlier in the current inter glacial period, according to the ice core records,
and this interglacial period so far is cooler than several others.
That does not mean that CO2 is not causing warming, only that recent level of warming is not that unusual.

One issue w/ CO2 is the fact that the oceans (70% of the earth's surface) hold more CO2 when the temp's are cold & the opposite w/ warm epochs. Closeups of the CO2/temp graphs show a clear lead w/ temp first & CO2 second. But the CO2 story is irrelavant; like, it's not asphixiating anyone is it? Our issue is w/ warming and whatever evidence we have to that effect. So far no global average temps have been advanced.

 

[expat_panama]

So you didn't really understand the link and you don't really understand the topic yet...

My being a bad guy doesn't change the average global temperature. That temp is what it is. My question is: what is it? If NOAA can't measure it then we don't want to go to NOAA. Until we agree on what the temp is then we can't say it's higher or lower.

Please accept my apologies for my intransigence as I honestly see no way around this.

 

[Hafnium1979]

My being a bad guy doesn't change the average global temperature. That temp is what it is. My question is: what is it? If NOAA can't measure it then we don't want to go to NOAA. Until we agree on what the temp is then we can't say it's higher or lower.

You aren't a bad guy. You just need to read the link. And understand WHY anomalies are used vs regular temperature.

Please accept my apologies for my intransigence as I honestly see no way around this.

The earth has wildly different temperatures across its surface. From the very cold to the very hot. But if you want to see how they are all changing what value would it do to "average" that temperature? Not a lot.

BUT if you measure at each point how far off of the usual temperature for that point the temperatures are you can compare wildly different places on the globe and see if there is warming or cooling overall.

The value comes in making a system whereby radically different locations can still be compared over time regardless of what their average temperature is.

 

[Hafnium1979]

One issue w/ CO2 is the fact that the oceans (70% of the earth's surface) hold more CO2 when the temp's are cold & the opposite w/ warm epochs. Closeups of the CO2/temp graphs show a clear lead w/ temp first & CO2 second.

That's because CO2 can LEAD and can LAG temperature. BOTH of these points are true and BOTH are extremely well known in science. Have been known for more than a century.

But the CO2 story is irrelavant; like, it's not asphixiating anyone is it? Our issue is w/ warming and whatever evidence we have to that effect. So far no global average temps have been advanced.

Your complaints are like hearing someone demand a measure of acidity but rejecting pH.

This is how the temperatures are measured and tracked. Why is this so problematic? Is it because the math bothers you?

 

[watsup]

My being a bad guy doesn't change the average global temperature. That temp is what it is. My question is: what is it? If NOAA can't measure it then we don't want to go to NOAA. Until we agree on what the temp is then we can't say it's higher or lower.

Please accept my apologies for my intransigence as I honestly see no way around this.

You are just the typical denier who uses a single talking point phrase as a way to clsim that it somehow cancels out all of the research and data that has been done as rewards AGW. You just keep repeating it instead of digging deeper into the matter. It's what al the deniers do here. Your taking point phrase is "show me the temperature". It matters not how anyone tries to actually do so, because you will simply proclaim that it is not good enough and repeat the key phrase yet again. It's what all deniers do to avoid serious discussion of the issue.
Plus the question is stupid, simplistic, and ridiculous, but it allows you to try to put the onus on the other chatter so that you can then AUTOMATICALLY reject their input, no matter how meritorious it is. The bottom line is that this is just so much mental masturbation on your part, the very same as all the other deniers. No one of any serious mien is impressed.

 

[watsup]

That's because CO2 can LEAD and can LAG temperature. BOTH of these points are true and BOTH are extremely well known in science. Have been known for more than a century.



Your complaints are like hearing someone demand a measure of acidity but rejecting pH.

This is how the temperatures are measured and tracked. Why is this so problematic? Is it because the math bothers you?

So true! No matter how you try to explain it, he will just proclaim it not good enough and repeat his talking point yet again. It is a very lazy way to "debate".

 

[watsup]

You aren't a bad guy. You just need to read the link. And understand WHY anomalies are used vs regular temperature.



The earth has wildly different temperatures across its surface. From the very cold to the very hot. But if you want to see how they are all changing what value would it do to "average" that temperature? Not a lot.

BUT if you measure at each point how far off of the usual temperature for that point the temperatures are you can compare wildly different places on the globe and see if there is warming or cooling overall.

The value comes in making a system whereby radically different locations can still be compared over time regardless of what their average temperature is.

And the FACT that record HIGH local temperatures are being recorded at a rate that is now FIVE TIMES that of record low temperatures.

 

[Lord of Planar]

One issue w/ CO2 is the fact that the oceans (70% of the earth's surface) hold more CO2 when the temp's are cold & the opposite w/ warm epochs. Closeups of the CO2/temp graphs show a clear lead w/ temp first & CO2 second. But the CO2 story is irrelavant; like, it's not asphixiating anyone is it? Our issue is w/ warming and whatever evidence we have to that effect. So far no global average temps have been advanced.

Well, what you speak of with the oceans and balance dependent of temperature, was before we started messing with nature. It is true that we are now in a period that suggests we are increasing the temperature with CO2. We have put nature out of balance, and if we were to stop emitting CO2, nature would return to an equilibrium lower than now, dependent of SST (sea surface temperature). Probably down to about 290 ppm. It would many decades. We are about 100 to 120 ppm above natural equalization, and nature is removing about 3% of that annually. It's a long exponential curve to get back to normal. It will not be a linear return.

CO2 probably contributes to our warming. If all other variables remained fixed, then CO2 would not doubt have caused about 0.6 degrees of global warming since 1750. The problem is accounting for the other variables that respond to the changes in CO2, and their effect. Some have a warming effect and some have a cooling effect. My position is the extra negative surface radiance by clouds reflecting the shortwave back to space is greater than the positive secondary effects, and that CO2 probably causes a small amount of warming, but could even cause an overall cooling.

 

[Hafnium1979]

Well, what you speak of with the oceans and balance dependent of temperature, was before we started messing with nature. It is true that we are now in a period that suggests we are increasing the temperature with CO2. We have put nature out of balance, and if we were to stop emitting CO2, nature would return to an equilibrium lower than now, dependent of SST (sea surface temperature). Probably down to about 290 ppm. It would many decades. We are about 100 to 120 ppm above natural equalization, and nature is removing about 3% of that annually. It's a long exponential curve to get back to normal. It will not be a linear return.

CO2 probably contributes to our warming. If all other variables remained fixed, then CO2 would not doubt have caused about 0.6 degrees of global warming since 1750. The problem is accounting for the other variables that respond to the changes in CO2, and their effect. Some have a warming effect and some have a cooling effect. My position is the extra negative surface radiance by clouds reflecting the shortwave back to space is greater than the positive secondary effects, and that CO2 probably causes a small amount of warming, but could even cause an overall cooling.

So why are we seeing only warming?

 

[Lord of Planar]

My being a bad guy doesn't change the average global temperature. That temp is what it is. My question is: what is it? If NOAA can't measure it then we don't want to go to NOAA. Until we agree on what the temp is then we can't say it's higher or lower.

Please accept my apologies for my intransigence as I honestly see no way around this.

They have a number some place. It is a global average around 15C. They just don't publish it much, and I'm not going to look for it.

 

[Hafnium1979]

They have a number some place. It is a global average around 15C. They just don't publish it much, and I'm not going to look for it.

It is also less meaningful than tracking the anomaly. It would be like switching out from a better measure for a less sensitive, less meaningful measure for the concept of AGW.

 

[Lord of Planar]

My being a bad guy doesn't change the average global temperature. That temp is what it is. My question is: what is it? If NOAA can't measure it then we don't want to go to NOAA. Until we agree on what the temp is then we can't say it's higher or lower.

It appears you are looking for a temperature range based on the Celsius or Fahrenheit scale. Science seldom uses these are thy are an offset from the Kelvin scale.

Papers generally do use a "differential" value, just like Celsius is a differential value from the Kelvin scale. They designate some standard point to be zero, and pluck in the numbers form there.

You might like a comfortable 68 degrees Fahrenheit, but that would be 36 Celsius. On the Kelvin scale, that would be 309.15 degrees.

Science is accustom to using degrees kelvin when making calculations. It is not designed for the convenience of the average viewer.

Using anomalies has both pros and cons, but most of science has chosen to use the anomaly from a selected value.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It is also less meaningful than tracking the anomaly. It would be like switching out from a better measure for a less sensitive, less meaningful measure for the concept of AGW.

I wouldn't say its any less meaningful. Just easier to compare changes from different average starting points.

 

[Buzz]

The way the ice cores work, is that when they support the narrative they represent the global temperature,
but when they do not support the narrative, they are only local temperatures!

Maybe that is how it works with the uneducated, misinformed, and with climate change denialists, but that is not how it works with people who actually understand climate science.

It really depends on the which side of the bowl you pick the cherries from!

You do like to pick cherries. And here is where long goes full denial by suggesting that ice cores are representative of the whole planet...

Recent temps are cooler than earlier in the current inter glacial period, according to the ice core records, and this interglacial period so far is cooler than several others.

Oh, and just to clarify... there are no ice cores that give "recent" temps that are not at least about 50 years old or more.

That does not mean that CO2 is not causing warming, only that recent level of warming is not that unusual.

It isn't the level of recent warming that is of real concern. It is the rate of that warming that is unusual. And that rate of warming just might be the highest rate that the planet has ever seen. And at the rate the planet is warming now, it will only take a few decades for the level to become unusual as well.

 

[Buzz]

It doesn't explain them well. It does say at one point, hundreds to thousands of years. There are a few high resolution proxies in the data, bit most are low resolution. I don't remember for certain the average, but I believe its around 600 years.

So riddle me this.

If there is a peak, that takes 150 years to rise, and 150 years to fall. What do you think we would see on a proxy sample with a 600 year resolution?

I have a couple of questions for you. If the average resolution of the proxies is 600 years then what makes you think that the resolution of all the different proxy studies is 600 years? Do you think that all proxy reconstructions only use one proxy at a time? Or do you think that the resolution of studies with multiple proxies would all line up perfectly so that all of them would miss your hypothetical 300-year event?

 

[Lord of Planar]

So why are we seeing only warming?

There are several reasons I would put into evidence.

First off, if we assume an equalization of the solar-ocean-atmospheric coupling of 60% over 100 years, we see the peak solar influence in 2004. Other lengths provide little change:



Is it possible that the urban heat island effect is skewing the reading of the meteorological stations more than they are corrected for? That our "observed" readings are ratcheting up higher than they would without the city noise?

That is two of them. I usually present more, but I suspect if i have to elaborate on to many factors, this will get rather cumbersome.

 

[Buzz]

My position is the extra negative surface radiance by clouds reflecting the shortwave back to space is greater than the positive secondary effects, and that CO2 probably causes a small amount of warming, but could even cause an overall cooling.

Too bad your position is not supported by mainstream, peer-reviewed, and published climate science. Especially the part about CO2 causing more cooling than warming. Or maybe you can show us something that backs you up.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I have a couple of questions for you. If the average resolution of the proxies is 600 years then what makes you think that the resolution of all the different proxy studies is 600 years? Do you think that all proxy reconstructions only use one proxy at a time? Or do you think that the resolution of studies with multiple proxies would all line up perfectly so that all of them would miss your hypothetical 300-year event?

Do you have a question that is not loaded?

Give me a respectful question, and I will give you a respectful answer. Stop with the stupid insinuations of what I think.

 

[Buzz]

There are several reasons I would put into evidence.

First off, if we assume an equalization of the solar-ocean-atmospheric coupling of 60% over 100 years, we see the peak solar influence in 2004. Other lengths provide little change:

View attachment 67338903

Oh God... not this BS AGAIN!! You are basing your "solar-ocean-atmospheric coupling" on a Hansen study about the equalization of CO2 and not anything about the sun and its warming of the oceans. In the studies I have seen the delay in ocean warming from the Sun is a year or two. Citing this graph again is just scientific malpractice and you should be ashamed of yourself for pushing it again.

Is it possible that the urban heat island effect is skewing the reading of the meteorological stations more than they are corrected for? That our "observed" readings are ratcheting up higher than they would without the city noise?

And this is also something that you can not back up with any mainstream, peer-reviewed, and published studies. It is pretty much speculation on your part.

 

[Buzz]

Do you have a question that is not loaded?

Give me a respectful question, and I will give you a respectful answer. Stop with the stupid insinuations of what I think.

Nothing loaded or disrespectful about it... unless you take offense to me asking tough questions.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Too bad your position is not supported by mainstream, peer-reviewed, and published climate science. Especially the part about CO2 causing more cooling than warming. Or maybe you can show us something that backs you up.

What is mainstream? A group of people who share a similar viewpoint already. It is very stupid to entertain the notion that "mainstream" is science! As a topic of science matures, it often strays away from the mainstream viewpoint. Did you know that?

I wonder how you can continue to make such absolute claims and deny other scientific points of view, when science is suppose to embrace all points of view, until they are proven incorrect, one by one.

Can you prove my point of view wrong?

No. You cannot. But you continue to deny the science that I present.

You are a denier. Not I . You deny science.

Your denial of science and your entrancement of a popular viewpoint is why I compare you and other like you to cult like religious zealots.

You don't have facts, but you speak as if you do. All you have is faith! A religious like faith.