Math degree with two science minors, including physics. I was a science major until I realized my lab technique sucked. Math is cleaner.
IPCC is not above fudging numbers to make a point. Since all their peer review is in house they can get away with a lot of it. However, at bottom it isn't the measurements that matter. it's the projections and numbers are my area. Feel free to refer to me as an expert.
You mean like how solar forcing isn't calculated, too? What a crock!
The topic of the debate is whether global warming exists and whether it's caused by man's emissions. The science says global temperatures haven't caught up with our present atmospheric CO2, because temperature lags CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
Your own article says that the all time record was 134 degrees in Death Valley... during 1913. Was there AGW during that time too?
Actually, CO2 lags temperature, but that's another topic. Solar forcing has been inaccurately calculated.
[FONT=&][FONT=&]My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion2018[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT="][I][FONT="]. . . We know from the climate-gate e-mails that the hockey stick was an example of shady science. The medieval warm period and little ice ages were in fact global and real. And, although the IPCC will not admit so, we know that the sun has a large effect on climate, and on the 20th century warming in particular. [/FONT][/I][/FONT][FONT="][I][FONT="][FONT="][I][FONT="]In the first slide we see one of the most important graphs that the IPCC is simply ignoring. Published already in 2008, you can see a very clear correlation between sea level change rate from tide gauges, and solar activity. This proves beyond any doubt that the sun has a large effect on climate. But it is ignored.[/FONT][/I][/FONT][FONT="][I] [/I][/FONT][FONT="][FONT="]To see what it implies, we should look at figure 2.[/FONT][/I][/FONT][CENTER][FONT="][/FONT][/I][/FONT] [/FONT][/CENTER][FONT="][I][FONT="]This is the contribution to the radiative forcing from different components, as summarized in the IPCC AR5. As you can see, it is claimed that the solar contribution is minute (tiny gray bar). In reality, we can use the oceans to quantify the solar forcing, and see that it was probably larger than the CO2 contribution (large light brown bar). [/FONT][/FONT][FONT="][I] [/I][/FONT][FONT="][FONT="]Any attempt to explain the 20th century warming should therefore include this large forcing. When doing so, one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming, and climate has to be relatively insensitive. How much? Only 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling, as opposed to the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5. This implies that without doing anything special, future warming will be around another 1 degree over the 21st century, meeting the Copenhagen and Paris goals.[/FONT][/I][/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="][I][FONT="]The fact that the temperature over the past 20 years has risen significantly less than IPCC models, should raise a red flag that something is wrong with the standard picture. . . . [/FONT][/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT=&]
[/FONT]
Maunder Minimum was about a 70 year period that started happening about 1645, so what's your point? 0.05 with a range from 0.00 to 0.10 isn't much for solar irradiance forcing compared to 1.68 with a range from 1.33 to 2.03 for CO2 forcing. You don't need a math or physics degree to see that, you only need to be able to read a chart and do elementary school arithmetic. Notice the chart also shows the level of confidence for the solar irradiance forcing estimation is medium, while the level of confidence for CO2 forcing is very high. If you can't post evidence the IPCC report uses the Maunder Minimum to estimate it's forcing claims, then your point is a fabrication based on cherry picking and probably a biased analysis to boot. I've never seen an IPCC report use the Maunder Minimum as a benchmark, so post one that does.
CO2 lagging temperature is nonsense. Explain the mechanism how that is possible.
Solar forcing has been calculated. [FONT="]You can read about it here: [/FONT][URL="http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/20thCentury.pdf"]Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776[/URL][FONT="] [/FONT]
CO2 lagging temperature is nonsense. Explain the mechanism how that is possible.
You have misunderstood the graph. It excludes the Maunder Minimum as an anomaly. It points out the IPCC's error, and shows the solar forcing exceeds CO2 forcing.
Why would I read nonsense and not read the explanation of how exactly the IPCC measured solar irradiance forcing and compared it directly to CO2 forcing? I have enough sense to know people can write anything they wish to write and reading it doesn't prove a thing when it lacks quality. I've been through the game where people will dispute current data on forcing, but claim some people starting around 1645 AD have some remarkably great data for not seeing sunspots, like that is suppose to make sense.
Like hell I did. I can tell that nonsense wasn't on the IPCC report, because I've read them. It's just more denier lies.
1st year physics labs are pretty basic. Senior level physical chemistry labs, not so much. I had more quantum theory in P-Chem than I did in the physics line.Those physics lab techniques do suck, mostly because they are boring as hell, elementary and few in number. All I see is talk, not evidence.
[FONT="][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png"][/URL]Fig. 1: Correlation between atmospheric CO2 and climate. Nope, it is not proof that CO2 is a major climate driver, since CO2 can be driven by temperature changes. Specifically, warmer oceans requires larger atmospheric partial pressures of CO2 to contain the dissolved gas in them. Of course, some of the temperature could be the result of CO2 amplifications, but there is no way of knowing what fraction.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Of course, the beautiful correlation between CO[/FONT][FONT="]2[/FONT][FONT="] reconstructions and temperature on Earth over the multi-millennial time scale, as it apparent in the figure, is often used to demonstrate how CO[/FONT][FONT="]2[/FONT][FONT="] plays a role in large climate variations. This often misleads the laymen to believe that CO[/FONT][FONT="]2[/FONT][FONT="] is the climate driver, whereas in fact it could be the opposite, that the global temperature affects the equilibrium levels of CO[/FONT][FONT="]2[/FONT][FONT="]. In reality it could be somewhere in between, that CO[/FONT][FONT="]2[/FONT][FONT="] is affected by the temperature and that it in turn causes a larger temperature variation. Just by itself, however, this correlation cannot be used to quantify the effect of CO[/FONT][FONT="]2[/FONT][FONT="] on the climate, which could be anywhere from no effect to all the effect. Thus, it is no proof that CO[/FONT][FONT="]2[/FONT][FONT="] is the main cause of the variations over the 20[/FONT][FONT="]th[/FONT][FONT="] century. There is no such evidence. [/FONT]
1st year physics labs are pretty basic. Senior level physical chemistry labs, not so much. I had more quantum theory in P-Chem than I did in the physics line.
In any event, if you are not seeing evidence it is because you choose to ignore it. I notice you are having trouble dealing with Jack Hays' facts as well.
Explain how temperature increases causes CO2 increases, does it kill off plants using CO2 or increase the area of plants using CO2! The albedo effect of ice verses lands with plants is vastly different. It doesn't take nature long to totally remove all carbon from a deforested area, so it isn't like an ice age glacier receding liberates that much carbon into the atmosphere. It takes around 400 years for an old growth forest to reach carbon balance and stop removing as much carbon from the atmosphere as it delivers.
BTW, picking ****ty graphs that are hard to read is an old denier trick.
Math majors are very employable. Statistics and data analysis are big and there is the whole actuarial field. That's why I got out of chemistry after 40 credit hours. Maybe you can apply your skills and actually reply to Jack. So far he has you buried neck deep, but you can rally.Oh, gee, I guess I shouldn't have been a Chemistry major, so I could know what you are talking about. I've never advised someone to be a Physics or Math major who had the slightest interest in making a living with those majors.
Dodging data is an old AGW advocate trick.
- [h=3]DOES THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE LAG CO2? MORE FLAWS IN THE SHAKUN ET AL. PAPER IN NATURE.[/h]... (and in particular, the average global temperature) lags CO 2 , that the alarmist community had a field day over it. The ... distribution function for the temperature sensitivity to CO2, then they should cut it at 5.5°C, because it simply cannot be any larger ...
shaviv - 12/03/2015 - 06:25 - 19 comments
- [h=3]THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH ABOUT THE ICE CORE CARBON DIOXIDE TEMPERATURE CORRELATIONS[/h]... just amplifying the variations already present, is that of lags. In all cases where there is a good enough resolution, one finds that the ... from the answer. Upper limit on the effects of CO2 It turns out that the CO 2 temperature correlation can be used ...
If your data isn't approved, it doesn't deserve something better than dodging or ignoring. The chicken or the egg argument will be known to mankind before CO2 levels stop increasing in the atmosphere, because the global temperature will continue to increase.
Math majors are very employable. Statistics and data analysis are big and there is the whole actuarial field. That's why I got out of chemistry after 40 credit hours. Maybe you can apply your skills and actually reply to Jack. So far he has you buried neck deep, but you can rally.
Maybe.
OK Probably not.
What in the world is "approved" data? I'm afraid you lack the tools for this discussion.
All-time record heat scorches Middle East as temperatures hit 129 degrees[h=1]
All-time record heat scorches Middle East as temperatures hit 129 degrees[/h]Temperatures soared to over 129 degrees in the Middle East Thursday and Friday, possibly setting all-time records for the Eastern Hemisphere.
The temperature in Mitribah, Kuwait, Thursday soared to 129.2 degrees, which if verified, would be Earth's hottest temperature ever reliably measured outside of Death Valley, Calif., according to the Weather Underground's weather historian Christopher C. Burt.
On Friday, Basra, Iraq, reached that same torrid temperature, setting an all-time record for that nation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The temperature in Kuwait in the sun hit 145 degrees today, 129 in the shade. Two of the world's four all-time hottest temperatures have occurred in the past 3 years. No, this is not normal for Kuwait. Sure, everyone knows it gets hot in deserts, but to hit an all time record, for the 4th time in 3 years is disturbingly evidence of global warming.
Show a study supported by peer review that will verify the data and analysis as authentic. That's how real science works.
:lamo
As I said, you're a data dodger. The author is the Chairman of the Raccah Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.
The extreme heat of Death Valley is attributable to a confluence of geographic and topographic factors. Scientists have identified a number of key contributors [13] to Death Valley's famously hot conditions:
Solar heating: The valley's surface (consisting of soil, rocks, sand, etc.) undergoes intense solar heating due to clear, dry air and dark, sparsely vegetated land. This is especially noticeable in summer when the sun is directly overhead.
Air sinking and warming: Any air mass that sinks into lower elevations (e.g. 282 feet below sea level at Badwater Basin) gets compressed and warmed — due to the higher atmospheric pressure found at lower elevations. This is an example of adiabatic warming.
Trapping of warm air: Warm air naturally rises and cools,[14] but in Death Valley this air is subject to continual reheating as it's trapped by high, steep valley walls and recycled back to the valley floor[15]. Another factor that traps warm air is the valley's north-south orientation, which runs perpendicular to prevailing west-to-east winds.
Migration of warm air from other areas (advection): Warm desert regions surrounding Death Valley, especially to the south and east, often heat air before it arrives in Death Valley.
Warm mountain winds: As winds are forced up and over mountains (e.g. the numerous ranges west of Death Valley), the winds can become progressively warmer due to several factors. The resulting dry, warm winds are known as foehn winds. Their warmth can in part be caused by the release of latent heat, which occurs when water vapor condenses into clouds.
The lowest temperature recorded at Greenland Ranch was 15 °F (−9 °C) in January 1913.[25]
The hottest air temperature ever recorded in Death Valley was 134 °F (56.7 °C) on July 10, 1913, at Greenland Ranch (now Furnace Creek),[6] which is the highest atmospheric temperature ever recorded on earth.[5] A report of a temperature of 58 °C (136.4 °F) recorded in Libya in 1922 was later determined to be inaccurate.[6] During the heat wave that peaked with that record, five consecutive days reached 129 °F (54 °C) or above. Some meteorologists dispute the accuracy of the 1913 temperature measurement.[18]
Unlike AGW advocates, who dodge the data and retreat to authority arguments.
No wonder the folks living over there are so pissed off all the time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?