The Global Warming Can of Worms...

#26
#26
KB5252 said:
My point is there is evidence to support at least part of these changes are natural, cyclical by nature.
Click to expand...

FYP..the question is how much? The climatologists claim they have answered that...and that there is a distinct human signature...and that signature will continue to grow as we continue to emit GHGs. The geologists beg to differ...of course the geologists also make a lot of money finding oil (just like the climatologists make research money to run their models).
 
#27
#27
kptvol said:
An important point. Some of the data brought forth in the global warming debate has a particular starting point that affects what sort of trend you see. West Point, for instance, if you look at 1930-2000 you see a cooling trend. From 1900-2000 you see a warming trend. From 1820-2000 you see no change. And of course each side of the argument will select the time frame that best supports their theory.
Click to expand...

This is a huge problem and why I usually only like to look at plots where you can select the data range you want to look at. I posted some plots elsewhere, but of course those have fixed axes. Still....they're better than just the words "Since 1998...." or "Since 2000..."
 
#28
#28
TennTradition said:
FYP..the question is how much? The climatologists claim they have answered that...and that there is a distinct human signature...and that signature will continue to grow as we continue to emit GHGs. The geologists beg to differ...of course the geologists also make a lot of money finding oil (just like the climatologists make research money to run their models).
Click to expand...

How do climatologists gather data from 100 or even 200 years ago? It seems to me they would have to rely on info gathered by crude equipment. Maybe when they correlate that data it removes much of the margin of error, I'm just not sure. Geologists also have much more data available to them in the form of the levels of formations they study. Would that not mean they have more data to study and make an assessment?
 
#29
#29
TennTradition said:
That's a fair addition; however number 2 and 3 are highly coupled because a popular way to extract man's impact is to do retro-modeling using the same climate models that forecast temperature predictions. The difference is that number 2 allows for greater input of known model parameters (fewer assumptions and less uncertainty in initial conditions) than number 3, which as you note means less certainty in number 3 than number 2.
Click to expand...
.....and in walks....the Finisher.
 
#30
#30
hndog609 said:
I remain, at least for the moment, very skeptical of the science of the science that "proves" AGW and wholly reject, with malice, the way AGW is presented by the major media outlets.
Click to expand...

How do you feel about realclimate.org? They obviously have their minds made up, but it is a much better presentation of the information than what is found in the major media outlets (often, they bemoan them).
 
#31
#31
TennTradition said:
FYP..the question is how much? The climatologists claim they have answered that...and that there is a distinct human signature...and that signature will continue to grow as we continue to emit GHGs. The geologists beg to differ...of course the geologists also make a lot of money finding oil (just like the climatologists make research money to run their models).
Click to expand...

These changes have been happening long before man ever harnessed enough energy to have an impact on the climate. These changes are cyclical by nature and have been happening all throughout earths history. This just brings us back to the question how do we know we are having an impact when these changes have always happened naturally?
 
#32
#32
KB5252 said:
How do climatologists gather data from 100 or even 200 years ago? It seems to me they would have to rely on info gathered by crude equipment. Maybe when they correlate that data it removes much of the margin of error, I'm just not sure. Geologists also have much more data available to them in the form of the levels of formations they study. Would that not mean they have more data to study and make an assessment?
Click to expand...

Climatologists rely on a decent collection of land-based temperature measurements for the past 100+ years. However, to really look at the cycles, they rely more heavily on ice core isotope analysis. The ratio of various isotopes of elements forming gases trapped in bubbles in polar ice give a pretty good measure of what the temperature was when the bubble was formed. This is how they generate the really long-term data that shows the cycles so well.

However, for more specific cycles such as the +/- 0.1 or 0.2 degree swing every 11 years - I think they rely on direct temperature measurements over the last 100 years or more for that.
 
#34
#34
joevol320 said:
if you noticed in the last few weeks, they've dropped the global warming label to climate change.
Click to expand...

I assure you that the switch from global warming to climate change has nothing to do with some sort of hedging of the bets in case they need to switch to global cooling mode. And, that switch has not happened over the last few weeks.
 
#35
#35
vader said:
He has a beeper that goes off when the terms "Global Warming" or "Climate change" are posted.
Click to expand...
nobody would notice if he didn't have his crap together. Since he does, the place tends to defer to him and rightfully so.
 
#36
#36
TennTradition said:
Climatologists rely on a decent collection of land-based temperature measurements for the past 100+ years. However, to really look at the cycles, they rely more heavily on ice core isotope analysis. The ratio of various isotopes of elements forming gases trapped in bubbles in polar ice give a pretty good measure of what the temperature was when the bubble was formed. This is how they generate the really long-term data that shows the cycles so well.

However, for more specific cycles such as the +/- 0.1 or 0.2 degree swing every 11 years - I think they rely on direct temperature measurements over the last 100 years or more for that.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about ice core isotope analysis but this does make some sense. Thanks for the info.
 
#38
#38
hndog609 said:
Not sure if this is the same article but it does cite the things you mention:

It's time to pray for global warming, says Flint Journal columnist John Tomlinson - Flint, Michigan Columns, Letters & Opinion - The Flint Journal – MLive.com
Click to expand...

I think that joevol posted this earlier...I didn't comment because I've commented on practically every point he brings up before....this was a serious regurgitation with a few new points that are only new because of the date they reference, not because of their content.
 
#39
#39
BigPapaVol said:
nobody would notice if he didn't have his crap together. Since he does, the place tends to defer to him and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

I think he just makes up stuff like ice core analysis to shut us up sometimes.

Just kidding TT.
 
#40
#40
kptvol said:
I agree, but not completely. I don't think temperatures from huge cities should even be considered. The urban island heat effect isn't pertinent to global trends. I understand what you mean about more data but you don't want to include a bunch of irrelevant, misleading data either.
Click to expand...

This is a serious issue. If you're going to use the data, you're going to have to correct it. There is an accepted way of correcting the data I believe, if you're interested - it should be in the IPCC's fourth assessment report. Of course, as with anything in the scientific literature, this method is open for debate....
 
#41
#41
hndog609 said:
I've started to put more stock in sat info than ground based for that very reason. (that and I just don't trust GISS with Hansen at the helm)
Click to expand...

Hansen needs to back off of data analysis - he's Gore's waterboy now....or maybe Gore is his waterboy...regardless, he's a mouth now...can't have it both ways.
 
#42
#42
KB5252 said:
I think he just makes up stuff like ice core analysis to shut us up sometimes.
Click to expand...
without a doubt, but what he doesn't know is that most of us long before quit reading the gsvol style tomes, so we miss most of the intentional misinformation.
 
#43
#43
TennTradition said:
How do you feel about realclimate.org? They obviously have their minds made up, but it is a much better presentation of the information than what is found in the major media outlets (often, they bemoan them).
Click to expand...

I think you're spot on with your analysis. Their minds are most certainly made up but how they go about presenting it is vastly better than what you'll get from ABC/NBC/CBS/PBS/CNN/MSNBC et al.

Seeing who best makes an argument about any given aspect of AGW out of realclimate and wattsupwiththat will often give you an idea of which side has the most to offer.
 
#44
#44
KB5252 said:
These changes have been happening long before man ever harnessed enough energy to have an impact on the climate. These changes are cyclical by nature and have been happening all throughout earths history. This just brings us back to the question how do we know we are having an impact when these changes have always happened naturally?
Click to expand...

That is where we get back to the retro-modeling I mentioned earlier (which is the reason this whole issue is opened up to debate - it isn't a direct measurement by experiment and thus opened up to uncertainty in modeling assumptions. Keep in mind that the glacial-time scale changes happen over a time scale of about 100,000 years, so if you take a 20 or 30 year time data set and model it, then the glacial-time scale changes are insignificant on this time table. Also, you have about 3 of the 11 year cycles in your data set, so these effects will be apparent for comparison to your modeling. Basically, if you can model pre-industrial temperature changes well and then introduce man's effect and model modern warming better than without man's effect ... this gives credence to the idea that man has a warming impact. It's not cut and dry.....the uncertainty should be questioned and hashed out...
 
#45
#45
vader said:
He has a beeper that goes off when the terms "Global Warming" or "Climate change" are posted.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that by the way, but do you and Freak think that you could upgrade me to a smaller model - it's getting in the way of my groove if you know what I mean?
 
#47
#47
TennTradition said:
That is where we get back to the retro-modeling I mentioned earlier (which is the reason this whole issue is opened up to debate - it isn't a direct measurement by experiment and thus opened up to uncertainty in modeling assumptions. Keep in mind that the glacial-time scale changes happen over a time scale of about 100,000 years, so if you take a 20 or 30 year time data set and model it, then the glacial-time scale changes are insignificant on this time table. Also, you have about 3 of the 11 year cycles in your data set, so these effects will be apparent for comparison to your modeling. Basically, if you can model pre-industrial temperature changes well and then introduce man's effect and model modern warming better than without man's effect ... this gives credence to the idea that man has a warming impact. It's not cut and dry.....the uncertainty should be questioned and hashed out...
Click to expand...

Do we really have data from ice cores that go back that far? I am in no way challenging you on any of this. Just trying to understand a little better. I've tried to read some of the links you have posted but in the end many of them make little sense to me. You do a much better job explaining.

I'm sure you probably have had a headache or two brought on by my questions about things I understand very little about as far as the technical stuff goes. I apologize in advance.
 
#48
#48
KB5252 said:
I don't know much about ice core isotope analysis but this does make some sense. Thanks for the info.
Click to expand...

The data is pretty cool - but has its own problems with uncertainty, of course. Basically, this is how those uber-long tens of thousands ago in the past temperature plots get created that show multiple warming and cooling cycles (and the famous plots that show that CO2 levels lag temperature and do not precede temperature changes historically due to the ocean's response to temperature change).
 
#50
#50
TennTradition said:
The data is pretty cool - but has its own problems with uncertainty, of course. Basically, this is how those uber-long tens of thousands ago in the past temperature plots get created that show multiple warming and cooling cycles (and the famous plots that show that CO2 levels lag temperature and do not precede temperature changes historically due to the ocean's response to temperature change).
Click to expand...

From what I understand the oceans are the biggest driving factor in the earths climate, is this correct?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top