Tackling climate change ?

[Lord of Planar]

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.

I am basing this on a Hansen study. On my graph, the 81 to 120 year curves are his high and low range. I always thought this coupling was of a lower time frame, of 55 to 70 years. But that's my own research. Even lower values will not deviate much.

How can you even call this BS? I guess your denial runs deeper than I thought.

Do you disagree that the shortwave radiation from the sun penetrates more than 100 meters into the ocean before its fully absorbed?

Do you disagree that the ocean will directly absorb this heat?

Do you disagree that it will take time for much of this heat to make its way back to the immediate surface?

Do you think that the 100 +/- ~20% year time-frame Hansen gives is capable of distinguishing between the forcing cause by CO2, vs other forcing?

I'm sorry, but you seem to have some serious scientific misunderstanding here.

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.

What about the non mainstream papers that do point this out?

What is your definition of mainstream? It seems to me that your definition of "mainstream" is anything the agenda drive IPCC accepts.

 

[Lord of Planar]

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

OK, a stupid question then.

"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?"

What does that mean to you?

You are making insinuations that I am not claiming. The link cited, had a paper source you obviously didn't read. It said these samples were from several hundred years to thousands of years. There are very few high resolution proxies. Very few.

Maybe you should brush up on the topic first. If you don't have a clear understanding of it, what value will my answer be? You have a habit of ridiculing my answers out of ignorance.

Anyway, to start.

A 600 year average does not mean they are 600 years.

Can you form an intelligent question?

 

[watsup]

I am basing this on a Hansen study. On my graph, the 81 to 120 year curves are his high and low range. I always thought this coupling was of a lower time frame, of 55 to 70 years. But that's my own research. Even lower values will not deviate much.

How can you even call this BS? I guess your denial runs deeper than I thought.

Do you disagree that the shortwave radiation from the sun penetrates more than 100 meters into the ocean before its fully absorbed?

Do you disagree that the ocean will directly absorb this heat?

Do you disagree that it will take time for much of this heat to make its way back to the immediate surface?

Do you think that the 100 +/- ~20% year time-frame Hansen gives is capable of distinguishing between the forcing cause by CO2, vs other forcing?

I'm sorry, but you seem to have some serious scientific misunderstanding here.


What about the non mainstream papers that do point this out?

What is your definition of mainstream? It seems to me that your definition of "mainstream" is anything the agenda drive IPCC accepts.

What climate scientist fave you shown your graph to?

 

[Buzz]

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?

Oh, give me a break, Lord... I'm talking about the mainstream science you love to claim you buy subscriptions to so you can read all the latest papers and claim to be an expert on. And not all the garbage on the internet like from WUWT, Climaterealism, or Rocketscientistsjournal.

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.

I am not denying anything. You're the one who makes the claim but can't back it up with any real evidence.

Can you prove my point of view wrong?

And here we go again. I point out you have no evidence or ask for evidence and you completely fail to provide anything at all and then demand I prove you wrong. You have literally done this HUNDREDS of times. Don't you realize how pathetic of a debate tactic this is?

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.

And here we go again with the insults and lies. You need to chill out a bit.

 

[Buzz]

I am basing this on a Hansen study. On my graph, the 81 to 120 year curves are his high and low range. I always thought this coupling was of a lower time frame, of 55 to 70 years. But that's my own research. Even lower values will not deviate much.

Yeah. Glad you admit it. You are basing this on a Hansen study of CO2 equalization times that had little to do with solar.

How can you even call this BS? I guess your denial runs deeper than I thought.

Because it is BS!! You are taking a study of CO2 forcing and saying it directly applies to the Sun's energy when they are two totally different things.

Do you disagree that the shortwave radiation from the sun penetrates more than 100 meters into the ocean before its fully absorbed?

Most of the Sun's energy is absorbed in the first 10 meters especially the higher energy infrared. And even if there were significant amounts of energy getting that far down it is still in the upper layer of the ocean where currents are mixing things up. It certainly wouldn't take that long for the energy absorbed to warm up the atmosphere.

Do you disagree that the ocean will directly absorb this heat?

Nope. Whatever isn't reflected back out to space will be absorbed.

Do you disagree that it will take time for much of this heat to make its way back to the immediate surface?

Yeah... a year or two at most.

Do you think that the 100 +/- ~20% year time-frame Hansen gives is capable of distinguishing between the forcing cause by CO2, vs other forcing?

Are you really unable to understand the difference between a forcing and a source of energy? If you can't then you shouldn't be debating here.

What about the non mainstream papers that do point this out?

What papers? Show us all a paper about solar lag taking as long as you say. You have been asked to back this up many times. And you can never come up with anything legitimate.

 

[Buzz]

OK, a stupid question then.

"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?"

What does that mean to you?

You are making insinuations that I am not claiming. The link cited, had a paper source you obviously didn't read. It said these samples were from several hundred years to thousands of years. There are very few high resolution proxies. Very few.

Maybe you should brush up on the topic first. If you don't have a clear understanding of it, what value will my answer be? You have a habit of ridiculing my answers out of ignorance.

Anyway, to start.

A 600 year average does not mean they are 600 years.

Can you form an intelligent question?

Hmmm... I just read somewhere that a least one ice core has a resolution of 20 years. I don't think you know what you are talking about.

 

[Hafnium1979]

Hmmm... I just read somewhere that a least one ice core has a resolution of 20 years. I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Resolution is a technical issue but hardly one that is a killer for this kind of thing. Indeed paleoclimate proxies are used in oil exploration and something tells me Lord doesn't have a problem with THAT application (likely because he is unaware of it).

That's the thing I find so amazing about debates against AGW. When it gets to the nitty gritty of the technical stuff the primary complaint often is "This isn't a good enough technique!" but that fails when it is shown that these various techniques and proxies and models are used all the time in science. It's just when someone with limited exposure to the larger science runs up against something that disconfirms their bias it has to be called out.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Its a phrase politicians love using but what does it actually mean ?

What proof is there that the climate needs 'tackled' ? And if it were remotely possible to do so what temperature target would be the right one and why would it be better than what we have today ?

Why would cooler be better ? It certainly never was in the past so why would it be now given shorter growing seasons and lower crop yields as a consequence ? Surely in a planet with an ever growing population the opposite would be true .... unless you hate humans of course ?

Admitting how much you don't know is the first step to becoming wiser. Good for you. Even if you should have done it sooner.

The answers to your questions are readily available.

 

[watsup]

Resolution is a technical issue but hardly one that is a killer for this kind of thing. Indeed paleoclimate proxies are used in oil exploration and something tells me Lord doesn't have a problem with THAT application (likely because he is unaware of it).

That's the thing I find so amazing about debates against AGW. When it gets to the nitty gritty of the technical stuff the primary complaint often is "This isn't a good enough technique!" but that fails when it is shown that these various techniques and proxies and models are used all the time in science. It's just when someone with limited exposure to the larger science runs up against something that disconfirms their bias it has to be called out.

They also do all their theorizing in a chat forum. I wonder whose mind they think they are changing?

 

[Lord of Planar]

What climate scientist fave you shown your graph to?

Why do you always need someone to tell you what is real and not? Don't you understand science and math enough to see what I posted is legitimate in the context its presented?

 

[watsup]

Why do you always need someone to tell you what is real and not? Don't you understand science and math enough to see what I posted is legitimate in the context its presented?

The context in which it is presented is a CHAT FORUM. Without being analyzed by an expert who has done research, per se, in climate science, it means what that and all your other theories of you and your fellow deniers in this forum mean: nothing.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The context in which it is presented is a CHAT FORUM. Without being analyzed by an expert who has done research, per se, in climate science, it means what that and all your other theories of you and your fellow deniers in this forum mean: nothing.

Please tell me. Other than you not understanding the graph, what is wrong with it?

You should stop complaining about things you know nothing about.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hmmm... I just read somewhere that a least one ice core has a resolution of 20 years. I don't think you know what you are talking about.

One...

Whoop-te-do...

 

[Lord of Planar]

Resolution is a technical issue but hardly one that is a killer for this kind of thing. Indeed paleoclimate proxies are used in oil exploration and something tells me Lord doesn't have a problem with THAT application (likely because he is unaware of it).

That's the thing I find so amazing about debates against AGW. When it gets to the nitty gritty of the technical stuff the primary complaint often is "This isn't a good enough technique!" but that fails when it is shown that these various techniques and proxies and models are used all the time in science. It's just when someone with limited exposure to the larger science runs up against something that disconfirms their bias it has to be called out.

But it isn't good enough. We are currently is a sharp upward trend that we are monitoring minute by minute, and averaging to an annual number, or other relatively short period. When the proxies used before the thermometer period give resolutions of a few hundred years at best, we would possibly never be recorded in those same proxy types 500 years from now.

You guys are denying the possibility that the past had similar short spikes.

To claim that it was impossible we have similar events in the past, is a denial of science.

 

[Hafnium1979]

One...

Whoop-te-do...

Here's one that provides annual resolution up through 110,000 years. https://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331

I'm sure that's a relative rarity but, indeed, one cannot simply just assume the resolution of all proxies is low. Many proxies in geology can have annual resolution, but at the very least not horrific resolution.

 

[Hafnium1979]

But it isn't good enough.

It is good enough. It can always be better. But simply waving it away without any rationale is insufficient.

We are currently is a sharp upward trend that we are monitoring minute by minute, and averaging to an annual number, or other relatively short period.

Indeed, we are living it. Yes, there is something to be said when our resolution is much higher but, really, when the levels outstrip anything we've seen in the past few thousand years it's GOT to account for something, right? ESPECIALLY when we have a known set of forcings which are known to cause warming.

When the proxies used before the thermometer period give resolutions of a few hundred years at best

That's not really wholly reasonable. As noted earlier proxies OFTEN have annual resolution (tree rings, for instance, or the ice core I noted in the PNAS article, etc.) You cannot simply wave off resolution without understanding the technical details just because you dislike the results.

You guys are denying the possibility that the past had similar short spikes.

Not really! I see your point, but, again, there are proxies with annual resolution built into them.

To claim that it was impossible we have similar events in the past, is a denial of science.

No one, literally no one is claiming it is "impossible" (why do you go to the extremes to make your point?) We are working with the best data we have available and if you don't believe it or don't understand it or don't like it, it matters not.

Do you honestly think the field of paleoclimatology was just invented to make the AGW hypothesis sound real? You'd be grossly mistaken. Paleoclimatology has been a staple of the earth sciences for a very, very long time. Did you have problems with it when it helped find the petroleum you use in your car? Did you have a problem with it when countless articles about paleoclimate were published utilizing isotopic and palynological data? Or is it just when you heard it being used in regards to AGW that you had a problem with it?

 

[longview]

Here's one that provides annual resolution up through 110,000 years. https://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331

I'm sure that's a relative rarity but, indeed, one cannot simply just assume the resolution of all proxies is low. Many proxies in geology can have annual resolution, but at the very least not horrific resolution.

I am not sure if you realize that your citation is presenting data showing that recent change are not that unusual.

As the world slid into and out of the last ice age, the general cooling and warming trends were punctuated by abrupt changes.
Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric
or broader regions in mere years to decades. Such abrupt changes have been absent during the few key millennia when agriculture
and industry have arisen.
The speed, size, and extent of these abrupt changes required a reappraisal of climate stability.

 

[Hafnium1979]

I am not sure if you realize that your citation is presenting data showing that recent change are not that unusual.

The point being that annual resolution is not far-fetched in climate proxies.

And, who cares if one location doesn't show monotonic warming? That's what real data looks like.

 

[longview]

The point being that annual resolution is not far-fetched in climate proxies.

And, who cares if one location doesn't show monotonic warming? That's what real data looks like.

What the high resolution proxies show, is that fast swings in temperature have happened in the past,
so that the recent warming/time, is nothing special.
Most of the proxies are of low temporal resolution.
Here is an example from Marcott, et al 2013
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

The 73 globally distributed temperature re-
cords used in our analysis are based on a variety
of paleotemperature proxies and have sampling
resolutions ranging from 20 to 500 years, with a
median resolution of 120 years (5).

So Marcott in 2013 had an average resolution of 120 years!
While it may be possible that the .7C increase in the last 40 years, would show up in a sample with a average resolution of 120 years,
it is also possible that nothing would show up.

 

[Hafnium1979]

What the high resolution proxies show, is that fast swings in temperature have happened in the past,
so that the recent warming/time, is nothing special.

Again, it is always interesting to see how your opinion of the data differs so dramatically from the earth's climate experts who have been, collectively, studying this for almost 100 years.

Interesting.

Most of the proxies are of low temporal resolution.

So you have been working hard to disestablish the value of paleoclimatology in the earth sciences now for many years, correct? Do you likewise complain about its utility in oil exploration? Or general earth science? Because it is an established field used across the discipline.

Did you have problems with it before you saw it used in AGW discussions?

So Marcott in 2013 had an average resolution of 120 years!
While it may be possible that the .7C increase in the last 40 years, would show up in a sample with a average resolution of 120 years,
it is also possible that nothing would show up.

What I see from you is creating doubt for the sake of doubt. Just look at something and suggest that it might have a problem, but for some eternally mysterious reason it isn't a problem for the earth's experts on this topic.

Have you ever wondered why that is?

 

[watsup]

Please tell me. Other than you not understanding the graph, what is wrong with it?

You should stop complaining about things you know nothing about.

It doesn’t matter what I think is wrong with it. It only matters what a climate science expert thinks is wrong with it. Until such time as you can do so, it means essentially nothing.
See post #86 for details.

 

[longview]

Again, it is always interesting to see how your opinion of the data differs so dramatically from the earth's climate experts who have been, collectively, studying this for almost 100 years.

Interesting.



So you have been working hard to disestablish the value of paleoclimatology in the earth sciences now for many years, correct? Do you likewise complain about its utility in oil exploration? Or general earth science? Because it is an established field used across the discipline.

Did you have problems with it before you saw it used in AGW discussions?



What I see from you is creating doubt for the sake of doubt. Just look at something and suggest that it might have a problem, but for some eternally mysterious reason it isn't a problem for the earth's experts on this topic.

Have you ever wondered why that is?

You were the one who cited the paper saying that the higher resolution proxies, showed rapid swings in temperature,
Are you disagreeing with what your own citation showed? Let's revisit it.
https://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331

As the world slid into and out of the last ice age, the general cooling and warming trends were punctuated by abrupt changes.
Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric
or broader regions in mere years to decades. Such abrupt changes have been absent during the few key millennia when agriculture
and industry have arisen.
The speed, size, and extent of these abrupt changes required a reappraisal of climate stability.

They are saying that the new data requires a reappraisal of how stable our climate is.
This concept of AGW is supported by several legs of a logical stool, One of those legs is that recent warming is unusual,
now your cited paper, says that leg is not as strong as they thought!
This is far worse that the simple inclusive from poor resolution proxies!
P.S. I worked on the team that designed and deployed a marine seismic system, the resolution of the paleo proxies, was never part of any discussion.
You might be thinking of downhole work, which is more about the field size, as opposed to discovery.

 

[Hafnium1979]

You were the one who cited the paper saying that the higher resolution proxies, showed rapid swings in temperature,
Are you disagreeing with what your own citation showed? Let's revisit it.

NO! NO! NO! I was merely pointing out (and I feel sad I have to REPEAT it for you) that there are proxies which have high resolution.

Even ice core proxies.

Yes I get that this author suggested a re-evaluation. But that's not the larger point. Because TREE RING DATA is used in proxies for climate et voila it shows annual resolution AND can be used to support AGW.

The point being: you have to take out a LOT of science in order to have your preference hold here. Not just one single paper.

P.S. I worked on the team that designed and deployed a marine seismic system, the resolution of the paleo proxies, was never part of any discussion.

Good for you! But who cares? Paleoclimate is not discussed in EVERY point where geology is discussed.

You might be thinking of downhole work, which is more about the field size, as opposed to discovery.

Why do you say that? "Downhole work"...is it there to make it sound more technical?

No, I'm talking about the field of paleoclimatology. There are literally zillions of examples of its use in earth science.

 

[longview]

NO! NO! NO! I was merely pointing out (and I feel sad I have to REPEAT it for you) that there are proxies which have high resolution.

Even ice core proxies.

Yes I get that this author suggested a re-evaluation. But that's not the larger point. Because TREE RING DATA is used in proxies for climate et voila it shows annual resolution AND can be used to support AGW.

The point being: you have to take out a LOT of science in order to have your preference hold here. Not just one single paper.




Good for you! But who cares? Paleoclimate is not discussed in EVERY point where geology is discussed.




Why do you say that? "Downhole work"...is it there to make it sound more technical?

No, I'm talking about the field of paleoclimatology. There are literally zillions of examples of its use in earth science.

Actually tree rings are not that good a proxy for temperature, and several variables besides temperature can affect the ring size.
Water supply, canopy cover, competition, ect.
You were the one who said,

Indeed paleoclimate proxies are used in oil exploration

And it may well be, but in my experience in oil exploration, I have never heard it mentioned.

 

[Hafnium1979]

And it may well be, but in my experience in oil exploration, I have never heard it mentioned.

Well, when you are involved in seismic surveys there is probably little in the way of paleoclimate you would be interested in. Besides I thought you indicated you were unfamiliar with geology in our earlier discussion of empirical evidence in the sciences. Now you are claiming you are involved in oil exploration? That's an interesting disjunct. Especially if you were involved in drilling. I earlier asked if you thought we had put a core down into the mantle.

But in case you are confused here's some references for you

(PDF) Paleoclimate Models in Exploration

PDF | Exploration Insights Magazine - https://joom.ag/KISC/p24 Paleoclimate models are numerical simulators that provide a physics-based approach to... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1983/0822/report.pdf

The Triassic of theWestern Canada Sedimentary Basin: tectonic and stratigraphic framework, paleogeography, paleoclimate and biota | Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology | GeoScienceWorld

pubs.geoscienceworld.org

Eocene climates, depositional environments, and geography, greater Green River basin, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado (Journal Article) | OSTI.GOV

The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical Information

www.osti.gov

Paleogeography, Paleoclimate, and Source Rocks

These papers derive from a research conference held in Paris in 1992 to evaluate current understanding of source rocks as a guide for petroleum exploration. One of its purposes was to bring together researchers in the fields of climate modelling, paleographic reconstruction, and source rock...

www.google.com

(The list can go on and on and on.... and that's just focused on petroleum...indeed paleoclimatic reconstruction is used in a wide variety of geological applications.)