Climate and Weather

Lion Eyes said:
Wasn't the last ice age or threat there of on the 1980s?
Didn't we read about in Time & Newsweek?
Muahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.........sorry.
It's not funny...care to buy some carbon credits?


Pfffft......
Click to expand...

Does the Pffft come with spittle included, or is it value added if we wind you up?
e7f5633d04ac31ea90eb8436d5756ddd-2.jpg
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
A garden snail can move somewhere between 1-1.5 cm/sec. I'm sure your big fellow could manage better. If my back of the envelope is right, at this constant rate, with no acceleration in the system, a snail could accomplish a distance equivalent to Magellan's circumnavigation in about two human lifetimes. Blink of an eye really.

By the way, you'll be proud to know you've recently been featured in Science. The social science about how humans respond to climate change science. That's where its at right now.
Click to expand...

You're wasting your time. Izzy doesn't read. He just posts.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
The zero is a baseline average. I'm not sure what would be utopian or ideal about it-it's a statistical device. My guess is the running average on the posted graph is derived from a period spanning the present to when what are considered reliable temperature readings by today's standards became available in the 1870s. Its considered a better way to look at long term and global changes for essentially the same reason that averages are a better metric for a distribution or population than any single data point. With respect to the LIA, I take it your meaning is that current global warming patterns can be understood as a continuation of the natural processes that culminated the LIA climate epoch (and don't forget the Medieval Warming Period!) My understanding is: 1) the rates are not constant over this period, showing a pronounced modern inflection (ie hockey stick graphs); 2) the same forcing variables (changes in solar radiation, changes in volcanic activity, etc) do not appear to be in operation; 3) the models cannot reproduce current warming without an anthropomorphic component. I'm sure if you wade through AR5 you could come up with a better analysis. There's also this (see the comments section) ongoing 7 year chat about the LIA with enough graphs on both sides to find whatever you are looking for. Gone quiet in the last year though.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=2&t=72&&a=63 though.
Click to expand...
Skepticalscience.com is on our side;)
The name "skepticalscience" almost makes one believe they are. Its brilliant.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
The zero is a baseline average. I'm not sure what would be utopian or ideal about it-it's a statistical device. My guess is the running average on the posted graph is derived from a period spanning the present to when what are considered reliable temperature readings by today's standards became available in the 1870s. Its considered a better way to look at long term and global changes for essentially the same reason that averages are a better metric for a distribution or population than any single data point. With respect to the LIA, I take it your meaning is that current global warming patterns can be understood as a continuation of the natural processes that culminated the LIA climate epoch (and don't forget the Medieval Warming Period!) My understanding is: 1) the rates are not constant over this period, showing a pronounced modern inflection (ie hockey stick graphs); 2) the same forcing variables (changes in solar radiation, changes in volcanic activity, etc) do not appear to be in operation; 3) the models cannot reproduce current warming without an anthropomorphic component. I'm sure if you wade through AR5 you could come up with a better analysis. There's also this (see the comments section) ongoing 7 year chat about the LIA with enough graphs on both sides to find whatever you are looking for. Gone quiet in the last year though.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=2&t=72&&a=63 though.
Click to expand...
The "little ice age", wasnt really an ice age at all, but it was a cool period that ended in the 1880s.
If that starting point is cooler than normal, and today is warmer than normal, how much fluctuation are we talking about?
If we need to save the planet, we need to understand how hot weve boiled it so far, professor.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
A garden snail can move somewhere between 1-1.5 cm/sec. I'm sure your big fellow could manage better. If my back of the envelope is right, at this constant rate, with no acceleration in the system, a snail could accomplish a distance equivalent to Magellan's circumnavigation in about two human lifetimes. Blink of an eye really.

By the way, you'll be proud to know you've recently been featured in Science. The social science about how humans respond to climate change science. That's where its at right now.
Click to expand...
Humans have responded to climate science by living longer, stronger, and more peacefully then ever.
 
espoola said:
The "little ice age", wasnt really an ice age at all, but it was a cool period that ended in the 1880s.
If that starting point is cooler than normal, and today is warmer than normal, how much fluctuation are we talking about?
If we need to save the planet, we need to understand how hot weve boiled it so far, professor.
Click to expand...

Why's you switch out Gilligan? Since the baseline is a running average, what's above it and below it will change. So what's minus and what's plus in your subsequent post only tells you which way the baseline is trending. But you're right that the absolute amplitude between the high and low points over a time period is indeed a fixed fluctuation value that you can look at. The magnitude of metemperature change has certainly been larger over earth history. But the rate of change right now is what draws attention. Fastest rate of change over the entire Holocene according to the models and proxies. JMO we'll ride out whatever may or may not be in store and muddle along. It's what we do. But if we keep talking like this Iz is going to come charging in here with alarm this and alarm that like there's a herd of badgers digging up his kalo patch and trying to scratch their way into his chicken coop. So we need to find a way to cast a long cold eye. If you're the type to mull over a good paper, consider the last stand of the ichthyosaurs about a 100 million years ago. You can read all about it here, and its a freebie (PMC link upper right).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26953824

Increasingly genetically bottlenecked, climate changing faster than they could adapt, what's a lizard-like fish to do? Old Charlie stole the handle and the train it won't stop going no way to slow down.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
Why's you switch out Gilligan? Since the baseline is a running average, what's above it and below it will change. So what's minus and what's plus in your subsequent post only tells you which way the baseline is trending. But you're right that the absolute amplitude between the high and low points over a time period is indeed a fixed fluctuation value that you can look at. The magnitude of metemperature change has certainly been larger over earth history. But the rate of change right now is what draws attention. Fastest rate of change over the entire Holocene according to the models and proxies. JMO we'll ride out whatever may or may not be in store and muddle along. It's what we do. But if we keep talking like this Iz is going to come charging in here with alarm this and alarm that like there's a herd of badgers digging up his kalo patch and trying to scratch their way into his chicken coop. So we need to find a way to cast a long cold eye. If you're the type to mull over a good paper, consider the last stand of the ichthyosaurs about a 100 million years ago. You can read all about it here, and its a freebie (PMC link upper right).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26953824

Increasingly genetically bottlenecked, climate changing faster than they could adapt, what's a lizard-like fish to do? Old Charlie stole the handle and the train it won't stop going no way to slow down.
Click to expand...
The Ichthyosaur was not a lizard fish, but who cares. It went the way of the pleasiosaur, and other extinct denizens of the sea. Our planet chews em up and spits em out.
True reptiles like the crocodile survived.
The horseshoe crab is probably the world champ outside the insect kingdom. (one could argue, crabs are just big bugs)
Point is, co2 is a bit player in the overall picture, and anthropogenic co2 is a prop somewhere on the set, but not on the main scientific stage.
Anthropogenic co2 does, however, take top billing in the political science category.
 
What makes the "arguments" against ACC even dumber, is it doesn't even matter if mankind is responsible for the warming trend we're seeing. Many of policy proposals make sense even if it's just natural change in the Climate. The deniers are fighting against the best interests of mankind regardless.
 
espoola said:
Point is, co2 is a bit player in the overall picture, and anthropogenic co2 is a prop somewhere on the set, but not on the main scientific stage.
Anthropogenic co2 does, however, take top billing in the political science category.
Click to expand...

What University did you get your PhD from?
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
But if we keep talking like this Iz is going to come charging in here with alarm this and alarm that like there's a herd of badgers digging up his kalo patch and trying to scratch their way into his chicken coop.
Click to expand...

I had no idea this soccer forum attracted so many Earth Science experts who think their interpretation of scientific data is king...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top