Climate and Weather

espola said:
Dialogue - that's funny. It seems to be a feature of anonymous, or quasi-anonymous, communication networks that any attempt at a serious discussion gets overloaded or sidetracked by trolls or would-be comedians. Izzy is not unique - he fits into a class of would-be experts who post long treatises someone else wrote and no one reads, and won't (or can't) carry on an intelligent (or even courteous) discussion about those posts.

I read on the web (so it must be true) that this month is the 25th anniversary of the World Wide Web, which took the internet out of the hands of academics and professionals and opened it up to the public (or at least to anyone with a cable-tv account). There was computer communication before that, but bulletin boards accessible by dial-up acoustic modems were easy to police. There were also email servers, soon accessorized with newsgroup servers - and that's about where and when the troublemakers, idiots and trolls broke in.

Newsgroups are a way of presenting a hybrid of bulletin boards and email in a topic-based hierarchy with techie-sounding names like comp.arch.386 (concerned with c0mputer architecture of the 80386 microprocessor), for example, or non-tech topics like rec.photo.misc (miscellaneous topics in recreational photography). An infamous newsgroup that I participate in is rec.skiing.alpine, which was composed of a couple of hundred regular posters until one of them started acting badly, which devolved into lost jobs, death threats, and eventually involved police and the courts. Even though most online accounts no longer offer direct newsgroup access, the fossilized skeleton of that group is visible through a google www application (naturally) here --

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/rec.skiing.alpine
Click to expand...
You're babbling
 
BIZ have never once, that I've seen, poked anyone in the eye with their own post and that's the problem....
 
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/08/25/july_2016_was_the_hottest_month_on_record.html

Follow-Up: Just How Hot Was July 2016?

But there’s more to this. July is generally the hottest month globally in the year, because it’s summer in the Northern Hemisphere, which has more land mass than the Southern one. Land heats up faster than ocean, so northern summer adds more to the overall warmth. This means July was not only the hottest July on record, but the hottest month on record as well.*
 
Wez said:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/08/25/july_2016_was_the_hottest_month_on_record.html

Follow-Up: Just How Hot Was July 2016?

But there’s more to this. July is generally the hottest month globally in the year, because it’s summer in the Northern Hemisphere, which has more land mass than the Southern one. Land heats up faster than ocean, so northern summer adds more to the overall warmth. This means July was not only the hottest July on record, but the hottest month on record as well.*
Click to expand...
How much hotter was it? Was it speedy?
 
"Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century"
 
espoola said:
What does the zero represent on the left side of the thingimajigger?
Does it represent the utopian ideal average, or just what?
How much fluctuation are we talking about from 1880, (the end of the "little ice age") to now?
Click to expand...
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......
 
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...

It was the 70s, and neither Time nor Newsweek were scientific journals then, just like they are not now.
 
Wez said:
"Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century"
Click to expand...
And yet life expectancy is up, child mortality is down, crop yields are up, baby boomers are getting ready to die off, and we are having less children. Calm down alarmist.
 
espoola said:
What does the zero represent on the left side of the thingimajigger?
Does it represent the utopian ideal average, or just what?
How much fluctuation are we talking about from 1880, (the end of the "little ice age") to now?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
At least you attempted to define speeding. See my definition of your chart below

Click to expand...

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.
 

Attachments

  • 653.full.pdf
    321.9 KB · Views: 6
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top