Climate and Weather

[Bernie Sanders]

Its interesting the graph tracks back to James Hansen's 2008 "Where should humanity aim for target CO2" article. The ~25X expansion of the X-axis to the right of the 0 point is eye catching. That's a fast oscillation.

I would not be surprised to get into the delorean, jet back 120,000 years, apply the same attention, and see a really radical swing at the top of that matterhorn.
We could also dial in 500,000 years back on the flux capacitor, and see a more homogenous period of climate fluctuation, sans human "forcings".

 

[Wez]

Presumptions are made. Some may eventually be proved correct.

I'm at work, haven't read it. Why would assumptions be needed for a time period of 1900 - 2000?

 

[EvilGoalie 21]

EG21 what do you think the U.S. should be doing that it isn't already doing? And I don't mean the U.S. government, which is funding both unreliable and reliable energy sources.

Good question. Related to which is the bigger myth, AGW or the Enlightenment ideal of human rationality? Yeah we gotta go there at some point but the science is more fun. I think when we almost blinked out ~75,000 years ago there was a strong selective pressure to respond to risk at a very deep, reflexive and visceral level. We have to accommodate that now within increasingly global societies and it is not necessarily serving us well. But with Wez continuing to catch heat for his trip to Hawaii the moral high ground is temporarily secure. So no worries.

 

[Lion Eyes]

The funny thing is you think typing poodle dick gets you over on someone. Should we just start cut and pasting insults? Rise above Lion, stop resorting to Ad Hominem, it's shows weakness.

Getting over on someone? Get over yourself....
You post a condescending reply , that is factually wrong, I point it out, & respond with a condescending remark and you cry like a whining little child.
Man up Wez if you're gonna dish it out expect it back in spades.
When you climb out of the gutter, I'll join you.
You want to stay in the gutter...let's sling crap...

You worry about me getting one over on you and ignore the fact that climate is cyclical.
It's been warmer before and it's been colder before. Reply to that.

 

[Lion Eyes]

Near the end of your suggested article --

This following image shows the last 800,000 years of temperature and forcing levels. Essentially, we have largely departed the climate forcing from the natural cycle.

Yeah..so?
Does that change the fact that climate is cyclical?
That it's been warmer before and colder before?

 

[espola]

Yeah..so?
Does that change the fact that climate is cyclical?
That it's been warmer before and colder before?

Apparently you disagree with the article for which you provided a link. Didn't you read it first?

 

[Bernie Sanders]

Skeptical science (the site) is not bad; the content and commentary contains some real scientific discussion. From the other "side" it is maybe best balanced by WUWT, which also has some valid discussion of real data. Both are infinitely better than "no tricks". But perusing the climate blogosphere is not homework. It is just ACC candy. Homework would be along the lines of-there's about a 10°C annual average temperature difference between Big Bear and J-Tree. That considerably greater than, for example, the estimated 5-6°C increase in global average temperature associated with the superplume events that temporally correlate (give or take several million years) with the Permian-Triassic mass extinction events. Given such extreme regional variability, how does one monitor and compute changes in mean global temperature? Along the way it may start making sense as to why the handle part of the hockey stick started to flatten out compared to the version you posted earlier.

Its a political site.
It takes what it wants and pretends to be skeptical, while toeing the company line.
Is there valid info?, yes. I have posted graphs from that site before.
What it fails to do is be skeptical of the political consensus. As a matter of fact, it devotes much of its energy to defending with dogmatic verve, the consensus argument against any real skepticism.

 

[Wez]

Getting over on someone? Get over yourself....
You post a condescending reply , that is factually wrong...

You worry me getting one over on you and ignore the fact that climate is cyclical.
It's been warmer before and it's been colder before. Reply to that.

I must have missed that part. Please help me out, where did you catch me posting something wrong? Please don't imply that I somehow argued the fact that Climate changes over time....why would anyone argue that and what would that have to do with a discussion of AGW?

A discussion of AGW, as has been stated countless times here before, is not about "does Climate change naturally over time". Everyone knows Climate changes over time, so that has never been in dispute.

So is the extent of your science argument that Climate changes naturally over time, so AGW must not be a thing?

 

[Lion Eyes]

So you're back to rejecting AGW as a possibility and digging your heels in on rejection of what actual scientist are saying?

You have a hard time with what has been posted previously.
I believe that the climate is changing. It always has.
I don't know that we, humans, can stop it from happening.
Do you think if we stop burning fossil fuels, kill all the live stock and 1/2 the human population that would stop the warming of the earth?

 

[Wez]

Its a political site.

Actually, it exists to dispel the political nonsense that we see from day to day, so you basically have it ass backwards.

 

[Lion Eyes]

I must have missed that part. Please help me out, where did you catch me posting something wrong? Please don't imply that I somehow argued the fact that Climate changes over time....why would anyone argue that and what would that have to do with a discussion of AGW?

A discussion of AGW, as has been stated countless times here before, is not about "does Climate change naturally over time". Everyone knows Climate changes over time, so that has never been in dispute.

So is the extent of your science argument that Climate changes naturally over time, so AGW must not be a thing?

Spoken like a true ideologue pretending to know science. Wez

 

[Wez]

Do you think if we stop burning fossil fuels, kill all the live stock and 1/2 the human population that would stop the warming of the earth?

Probably not, but I'm not the one rejecting what our Scientists are telling us...you are.

 

[Wez]

Spoken like a true ideologue pretending to know science. Wez

No Lion, defining the discussion and rejecting scientific data are two very different actions. One seeks to clarify what we are arguing about, the other attempts to place their knowledge of science above our experts.

 

[Bernie Sanders]

Actually, it exists to dispel the political nonsense that we see from day to day, so you basically have it ass backwards.

No. I have it right.
You assume that the political influence only taints one side of an argument, as does "skeptical" science.
EG21 compared it to a counter equivelent of WUWT. I wouldnt say that.
I would have it in the religious dogma court. WUWT actually accepts some counter arguments for consideration.

 

[EvilGoalie 21]

I would not be surprised to get into the delorean, jet back 120,000 years, apply the same attention, and see a really radical swing at the top of that matterhorn.
We could also dial in 500,000 years back on the flux capacitor, and see a more homogenous period of climate fluctuation, sans human "forcings".

You could save some gas, only go back ~75,000 years, and catch Toba. That gave the temp anomaly graph a pretty good short term twitch.

 

[espola]

You have a hard time with what has been posted previously.
I believe that the climate is changing. It always has.
I don't know that we, humans, can stop it from happening.
Do you think if we stop burning fossil fuels, kill all the live stock and 1/2 the human population that would stop the warming of the earth?

An early sign of desperation in a debate is when one party starts throwing up straw men.

 

[Bernie Sanders]

Apparently you disagree with the article for which you provided a link. Didn't you read it first?

Where does it contend that the earth has not been colder and warmer than present?

 

[Lion Eyes]

An early sign of desperation in a debate is when one party starts throwing up straw men.

Or they make an announcement like the one you just made above.....

 

[Bernie Sanders]

You could save some gas, only go back ~75,000 years, and catch Toba. That gave the temp anomaly graph a pretty good short term twitch.

What jumps out at me, and really gets me thinking, is how the earth turns its climate on a dime throughout history.
You see a pattern of warming, and precipitous climbing of greenhouse gasses, and then it just shuts it down, and falls like a tumbler pidgeon.
I just thank God we can bitch about how balmy it is because we have the fortune of living near a warming peak.
Those low points on the scale musta been a living hell.

 

[Lion Eyes]

You could save some gas, only go back ~75,000 years, and catch Toba. That gave the temp anomaly graph a pretty good short term twitch.

The Delorean doesn't run on gas....

 

[Bernie Sanders]

You could save some gas, only go back ~75,000 years, and catch Toba. That gave the temp anomaly graph a pretty good short term twitch.

The flux capacitor doest use gas. It runs exclusively on bullshit, which is a c02 and methane contributer.