- Joined
- Aug 2, 2020
- Messages
- 2,951
- Reaction score
- 551
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
I read it. It changes nothing.
Oh you didn't read the quote from your source that I provided? Got it! Sorry.
I read it. It changes nothing.
That too changes nothing. Note that it's a conditional statement.Oh you didn't read the quote from your source that I provided? Got it! Sorry.
That too changes nothing. Note that it's a conditional statement.
Sorry, doesn't matter.It is a conditional that lays out the basis for their critique. It would be like me saying "If Jack Hays is actually a janitor at Raytheon..." and then trying to make some trenchant remark. It would be a foundational assumption that is flawed.
Sorry, doesn't matter.
The post speaks for itself.I don't understand these graphs. Why would you report the individual stations raw temperature rather than the way the data is REALLY processed (grid averaged temperature anomaly)?
Years ago I randomly took one temperature station's data and plotted it over the course of a century just looking at the raw temperature data for that one station. I didn't see a meaningful warming trend but that was before I understood how the data is ACTUALLY PROCESSED and what it actually means.
Let us know when kyrie and Gosselin treat the data as it should be treated so that we can tell if they have found anything meaningful here.
The post speaks for itself.
The beauty of the NTZ presentations is that they're free of "how the data is normally processed."Yes. Yes it does. It shows what happens when you take data you don't understand and treat it without knowledge of how the data is normally processed and then draw conclusions.
I saw undergrad kids in the rocks-for-jocks/intro chem level classes doing the same thing. Everyone does it until they learn how data is processed.
(Note how I told you about how I had done something similar myself! I bet you've never actually played with ANY of this data yourself. But then you have told us that technical expertise is "ancillary" to technical discussions so I shouldn't be surprised!)
The beauty of the NTZ presentations is that they're free of "how the data is normally processed."
The agenda minded people just don't get that the increase in melting is caused largely from ice albedo changes. We create to many aerosols.
The agenda minded people just don't get that the increase in melting is caused largely from ice albedo changes. We create to many aerosols.
Yes, it comes from burning fossil fuels. But not all processes cause soot.Actually virtually NO ONE debates the role of soot in decreasing albedo and increasing melt. It is another amplifying effect. It doesn't mean that AGW is somehow off the hook. In fact AGW induced ice loss also leads to albedo loss and increased warming.
And guess where that soot comes from that darkens the ice? Burning fossil fuels. Which increases the CO2 in the atmosphere as well which ALSO leads to warming at the surface.
Greenland Ice Sheet Getting Darker
In the 2011 Arctic Report Card, scientists report that the bright white surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet has grown less reflective. The darker surface absorbs more sunlight, accelerating melting.www.climate.gov
(Also: pro-tip: in the English language "too" is the adverb you wanted, not "to". With two O's you indicate an excess.)
Yes, it comes from burning fossil fuels. But not all processes cause soot.
Any ice loss leads to more albedo loss. Not just from the extra CO2 forcing.
Tell me. Do you really think the puny amount of increased CO2 forcing is more than the changes due to albedo loss?
There are also very few papers dealing with how aerosols affect the atmosphere optically. The few that do, along with the few stations that have long term records, show a clear trend as to how our pollution has affected the atmosphere over time. It's an important variable, cause by aerosols, and modulates the surface insolation. How often have you seen optical depth changes over time in climate papers? It's one of the variables left out of the equation. I don't know if it's by accident or design, but I lean towards it being inconvenient. So they ignore it in my opinion.And even a lot of the soot comes from things like forest fires (which could be exacerbated by climate change but let's leave that for now).
Correct. No one debates that point.
Like all of the scientists I see it as part of the larger picture. They are mutually reinforcing to act as feedbacks.
There are also very few papers dealing with how aerosols affect the atmosphere optically. The few that do, along with the few stations that have long term records, show a clear trend as to how our pollution has affected the atmosphere over time. It's an important variable, cause by aerosols, and modulates the surface insolation. How often have you seen optical depth changes over time in climate papers? It's one of the variables left out of the equation. I don't know if it's by accident or design, but I lean towards it being inconvenient. So they ignore it in my opinion.
But did IPCC AR4 discuss the magnitude of the brightening phase.Hmmm, I don't see it ignored at all! Wild, M., Ohmura, A., & Makowski, K. (2007). Impact of global dimming and brightening on global warming. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(4) discusses the mid-century cooling from the 1940's to the 1970's caused to sulfate aerosols.
The IPCC AR4 discusses the role of sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere.
It's actually not ignored.
OK, not completely ignored. It is briefly mentionjed. It is far from properly quantification over time. Consider that the references are sparse. They don't ignore the sun over time either, but when they account for forcing changes, they only count "direct" forcing changes. They completely ignore indirect solar forcing changes. Since the sun is well over 99% of the heat the earth receives, all internal forms that redirect that heat are affected as well in a near linear fashion. The total IR downforcing from the atmosphere to the surface is something like 330 W/m^2. This is close to double what the surface forcing is from the sun. If the solar forcing changes by 0.1%, then so does the downward IR. The surface change from shortwave energy using a 0.1% change would be around 0.18 W/m^2, the indirect change to the IR feedback is about 0.33 W/m^2. This is a total of 0.51 W/m^2 by this simple example.Hmmm, I don't see it ignored at all! Wild, M., Ohmura, A., & Makowski, K. (2007). Impact of global dimming and brightening on global warming. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(4) discusses the mid-century cooling from the 1940's to the 1970's caused to sulfate aerosols.
The IPCC AR4 discusses the role of sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere.
It's actually not ignored.
New Evidence That the Ancient Climate Was Warmer than Today’s
2 hours ago
Two recently published studies confirm that the climate thousands of years ago was as warm or warmer than today’s – a fact disputed by some believers in the narrative of…