Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
3) I'm pretty sure that gravity is "settled" So is radioactive decay. So is that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. So is a LOT of other stuff. AGW is NOT settled, no matter how much the AGW crowd whines that it is. Hell, they cant even answer a simple question about what happens when an ice age ends.
There's considerably more scientific uncertainty around gravity than AGW. And your not understanding answers to simple questions isn't the same thing as not receiving one.
Is it just me, or does the GW crowd seem like a bunch of kids stomping their feed and throwing a tantrum every time scientific evidence that does not support their position is posted. It is actually quite amusing.
Someone would have to come up with scientific evidence that doesn't support AGW for us to test that theory. So far it's never been done. And no, posting repeatedly debunked theories like "Mars is warming too!" doesn't count as scientific evidence.
I'm pretty sure that his point is that atmosphere also has an effect on climate.
No, that wasn't it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Right, because it's ONLY a study of temperatures before AGW occurred.
There is no AGW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
So you're going to take these cycles and pretend that they can explain the current warming without actually studying the current warming?
You fail to understand the purpose and scope of the study.
Are you willfully ignoring the Medieval Warm Period (900–1300 CE) or the mini-Ice Age (1550–1850 CE), or are you merely ignorant of them?
The temperature changes during both of those Periods were far greater than the measly 0.85°C increase that is alleged now, based on bad data collection methods.
The mini-Ice Age (1550–1850 CE) was responsible for a drought on the Eastern Seaboard of what is now the US. In 1595, the drought was a direct cause of the collapse of the 1st Roanoke Colony, who were rescued by a passing ship who saw their shore fires. The second group of (all male) colonists was destroyed, under unknown circumstances. It is believed that several members of the group may have defected and pledged their service to one of the local bands of tribes in exchange for food, resulting in violent later between the remaining colonists and those who defected (based on the location of bodies and forensic evidence suggesting cause of death). The 3rd Colony failed as well, with substantial evidence those colonists sought refuge with a local band.
~100 years later into the mini-Ice Age, the New England Colonies are experiencing near-famine conditions.
The planting season is only 6 weeks from about the last 2 weeks of June to the end of July. The planting season farther south in the colonies is only 10 weeks.
That's because the soil was frozen solid --- you couldn't plow it until the top few inches thawed out, which didn't happen until the last two weeks of June.
In Central Europe, Millions died of famine, particularly in Scandinavia, the German Duchies & Principalities and in what is now Poland.
Can you even imagine a mini-Ice Age now?
The death toll would be 100s of Millions, instead of Millions; wrecked economies -- 40% UE Rate in the US; food-rationing; etc etc etc.
And why?
You can't even explain why that happened. There have been other mini-Ice Ages in recorded history where the River Nile froze over.
When you learn and understand the cause of previous warming and cooling trends, then perhaps you'll be able to accurately explain the present alleged warming trend without using bad data and cherry-picked dates.
It's like they're leaving their study intentionally incomplete.
That was covered here....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Which part of "Dome Concordia" do you not understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Not to mention, the study is 100% localized and does not even begin to apply to the entire planet.
Um, damn, sorry, I got to laugh my ass off for a few minutes.....
You just debunked AGW.
Hahahahaha....
Why don't you learn what "Dome C" is and get back to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
First of all, no matter how much denialists state otherwise, the planet is warmer than it has been throughout the entire duration of the Holocene. It's warmer than the medieval warm period, and warmer than the Roman warm period.
Those are lies used to create a tautological argument.
Isn't there a glacier on Greenland?
Oooops....
Do ships have free passage through the Atlantic Northwest?
Oooops....
Is it warmer than the last Inter-Glacial Period?
Nope.
Is it warmer than any of the eight previous Inter-Glacial Periods?
Nope.
AGW Tautology:
1. We want the average global temperature to be 53°F.
2. The average global temperature should be 53°F because we said so.
3. If the average global temperature is greater than 53°F then something is wrong.
4. If something is wrong, Humans are at fault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Second of all, CO2 levels have never been as high as they are now.
Yes, they have. They've been 10x higher than now. There has been serval time periods when no Water Ice existed on Earth -- there was no snow, no glaciers, no polar sea ice and now snow-covered mountains.
But that's irrelevant, since we're only interest in Earth as it appears now, which has been since 23 Million Years Ago, and more or less within the last 10 Million years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
CO2 isn't causing AGW because it's not supposed to be there at all, it's causing AGW because there is too much of it in the atmosphere with nothing drawing it out. It's not a big mystery as to why CO2 might not have been a climate driver in the past-- there wasn't enough of it to make a huge impact, unlike now.
That's not what the evidence shows.
When Earth's atmosphere was 95% CO2 -- such as in the period prior to the Great Oxygenation Event --- there were periods of heavy regional glaciation, including at least one known period of global glaciation.
Inexplicably, there is about 1.5 Billion years (post-GOE) with no evidence of glaciation at all, and CO2 levels would have had no impact on that one way or another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
You're seriously comparing an online blog that openly announces its contempt for climate science to a International panel?
Um, the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics is not an on-line blog, no matter how much your handlers are paying you to say it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
If you think that this study in any way applies to our current situation, you are being misled.
You know don't even know what they study says.
When you get smart enough to understand Dome Concordia, maybe someone will take you seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
You can't just assume that high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are having no effect.
Likewise, you cannot assume they are.
In before you start your racist chant of "denialist blog," the ESA is the European Space Agency.
I posted that image back in June on another AGW Fantasy Thread.
Here is Earth as of November ...just 5 months later...
Wow....look at the freaking differences.
The Blue areas on the images are areas of low magnetic flux. The Red areas of high flux.
Magnetic flux is measured in nanoTesla or nT.
Blue = 20,000 nT
Orange = 50,000 nT
The Blue areas are where you have the highest level of Ultra-Violet A/B and soft X-Rays.
The Orange and Red areas screen out an higher percentage of the UV-A/B and the soft X-Rays.
The Earth's Magnetic Field Flux is the #1 Climate Driver, followed by Sun, the Milankovitch Cycle, and the relationship of tectonic plates to one another (as continents).
You know I respect your opinions as you back up your points so take a step back and hear me out.
Dude, I'd never give you nothing less.
People are allowed to disagree, so long as it isn't based on bigotry, lies, propaganda and disinformation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
However, if the exclusion of available data from a study covering the greatest period of CO2 expansion and then they state that CO2 has little impact....that's not very good science now is it?
Just the exclusion of the latest 100+ years of data is enough to trip my BS meter because I've seen similar tactics used by other "studies" like the guy down in Florida saying that the insurance rates for hurricanes are too high based on his study starting the year after Andrew and before the bad cluster around 2006 or whatnot. Excluding data points without full disclosure of the merits as to why is an automatic red flag.
The basic question would be, what did the study results look like before the data was excluded?
Why was the apparantly arbitrary year of 1895 selected instead of 1952 or 1978 or 1492 etc?
Until I get those answers, the study is suitable only for cleaning my posterior.
Maybe, it's just me, but I'm not exactly impressed with the Abstract:
Quote:
The solar impact on the Earth's climate change is a long topic with intense debates. Based on the reconstructed data of solar sunspot number (SSN), the local temperature in Vostok (T), and the atmospheric CO2 concentration data of Dome Concordia, we investigate the periodicities of solar activity, the atmospheric CO2 and local temperature in the inland Antarctica as well as their correlations during the past 11,000 years before AD 1895. We find that the variations of SSN and T have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable. These results indicate that solar activity might have potential influences on the long-term change of Vostok's local climate during the past 11,000 years before modern industry.
The issue here is the data sets and understanding their relationships. 1] Data Set #1: Sunspot Numbers
SSN --- Sunspot Number (not Social Security Number) -- data is limited. Two problems, first you need a telescope to look at the Sun and nobody had one until after about 1600 CE; and second, it took them a century to standardize the scale used to measure sunspots.
For SSN data prior to 1600 CE, everyone --- including the IPCC --- relies on
"Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years." Solanki, SK, Usoskin, IG, Kromer, B, Schuessler, M, Beer, J , 2004.
Source: Nature 431 pp 1084–1087.
Accordingly, the AGW Inquisition will now declare Nature to be a heretical right-wing denialist blog.
The reconstructed SSN data is 9,455 BCE to 1895 CE (about 11,400 years).
2] Data Set #2: Temperature Data from the Vostok Ice Core
There is no accurate temperature data for Earth prior to 1880 CE.
After 1880, data exists only for urban areas in the North Hemisphere and a handful of areas -- mostly ports -- in the Southern Hemisphere. For example, the temperature records in Manila were accurately maintained by the Spanish Navy, and then by the US Navy after 1898. Also, the US, British and German colonies in China, and then Rio and a few other ports. Nothing from sub-Saharan Africa until the 1930s-1940s.
Since the SSN data ends in 1895, the Vostok data was truncated in 1895.
3] Data Set #3: CO2 Data from Dome Concordia
This Data Set also includes the Dronning Maud Land (Antarctica) CO2 data.
"Evidence for substantial accumulation rate variability in Antarctica during the Holocene, through synchronization of CO2 in the Taylor Dome, Dome C and DML ice cores." Monnin, E, Steig, EJ, Siegenthaler, U, Kawamura, K, Schwander, J, Stauffer, B, Stocker, TF, Morse, DL, Barnola, JM, Bellier, B, Raynaud, D, Fischer, H, 2004.
The CO2 concentrations start in 1777 CE covering the previous 20,000 years. Even so, only data up to 1775 CE is reported.
Again, this is the data set the IPCC uses.
This study used data from 9,455 BCE up to 1775 CE.
To summarize:
This study went to the IPCC, got three different data sets from the IPCC, one each of CO2, Temperature and SSN data, and then made a comparison using the data from those data sets which is limited to the year 1895.
So, whose fault is it if the data for Dome Concordia ends in 1775?
The Dome Concordia ice core was drilled in the 1970s.
Since that is true, it naturally could not have CO2 data covering the last 40 years.
If the Dome Concordia cores were drilled in the 1970s, why does the CO2 concentration start in the 1770s?
It's the nature of ice cores and how CO2 accumulates, plus the methods used to determine the volume of CO2.
So, even though the ice core was drilled in 1970, it is not possible to determine CO2 concentration for the year 1910 or 1940 or 1950 or 1965, or from the 19th Century -- 1880, 1840, 1812 etc.
As everyone can plainly see, some people are just friggin' ignurnt.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;37598548
It's like they're leaving their study intentionally incomplete.
That was covered here....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Which part of "Dome Concordia" do you not understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;37598548
Not to mention, the study is 100% localized and does not even begin to apply to the entire planet.
All of the data is um, "localized" (snicker).
: smack:
All of the data comes from either ice cores in the Antarctic or from Greenland.
Who is stupid enough to drill for ice cores in Laredo, Texas?
Anyway, I hope that answers your questions regarding the study and the data used.
People are allowed to disagree, so long as it isn't based on bigotry, lies, propaganda and disinformation.
Maybe, it's just me, but I'm not exactly impressed with the Abstract:
The issue here is the data sets and understanding their relationships. 1] Data Set #1: Sunspot Numbers
SSN --- Sunspot Number (not Social Security Number) -- data is limited. Two problems, first you need a telescope to look at the Sun and nobody had one until after about 1600 CE; and second, it took them a century to standardize the scale used to measure sunspots.
For SSN data prior to 1600 CE, everyone --- including the IPCC --- relies on
"Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years." Solanki, SK, Usoskin, IG, Kromer, B, Schuessler, M, Beer, J , 2004.
Source: Nature 431 pp 1084–1087.
Accordingly, the AGW Inquisition will now declare Nature to be a heretical right-wing denialist blog.
The reconstructed SSN data is 9,455 BCE to 1895 CE (about 11,400 years).
2] Data Set #2: Temperature Data from the Vostok Ice Core
There is no accurate temperature data for Earth prior to 1880 CE.
After 1880, data exists only for urban areas in the North Hemisphere and a handful of areas -- mostly ports -- in the Southern Hemisphere. For example, the temperature records in Manila were accurately maintained by the Spanish Navy, and then by the US Navy after 1898. Also, the US, British and German colonies in China, and then Rio and a few other ports. Nothing from sub-Saharan Africa until the 1930s-1940s.
Since the SSN data ends in 1895, the Vostok data was truncated in 1895.
3] Data Set #3: CO2 Data from Dome Concordia
This Data Set also includes the Dronning Maud Land (Antarctica) CO2 data.
"Evidence for substantial accumulation rate variability in Antarctica during the Holocene, through synchronization of CO2 in the Taylor Dome, Dome C and DML ice cores." Monnin, E, Steig, EJ, Siegenthaler, U, Kawamura, K, Schwander, J, Stauffer, B, Stocker, TF, Morse, DL, Barnola, JM, Bellier, B, Raynaud, D, Fischer, H, 2004.
The CO2 concentrations start in 1777 CE covering the previous 20,000 years. Even so, only data up to 1775 CE is reported.
Again, this is the data set the IPCC uses.
This study used data from 9,455 BCE up to 1775 CE.
To summarize:
This study went to the IPCC, got three different data sets from the IPCC, one each of CO2, Temperature and SSN data, and then made a comparison using the data from those data sets which is limited to the year 1895.
So, whose fault is it if the data for Dome Concordia ends in 1775?
The Dome Concordia ice core was drilled in the 1970s.
Since that is true, it naturally could not have CO2 data covering the last 40 years.
If the Dome Concordia cores were drilled in the 1970s, why does the CO2 concentration start in the 1770s?
It's the nature of ice cores and how CO2 accumulates, plus the methods used to determine the volume of CO2.
So, even though the ice core was drilled in 1970, it is not possible to determine CO2 concentration for the year 1910 or 1940 or 1950 or 1965, or from the 19th Century -- 1880, 1840, 1812 etc.
As everyone can plainly see, some people are just friggin' ignurnt.....
That was covered here....
All of the data is um, "localized" (snicker).
: smack:
All of the data comes from either ice cores in the Antarctic or from Greenland.
Who is stupid enough to drill for ice cores in Laredo, Texas?
Anyway, I hope that answers your questions regarding the study and the data used.
Respecting...
Mircea
Great post, you've given me a lot to reflect on...I'm not going to rush through it as there is an opportunity for me to learn somethig but in general you seem to address my key concerns....and *shock* support them with legitimate sources.
We have too many posters around here that post links to www.globalwarminghoax.blog or www.algoreisagod.com and then get all huffy and declare victory when I refuse to even entertain their "sources".
Stringent EPA standards are the number one risk to their current business as purveyors of fossil fuel?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
The issue here is the data sets and understanding their relationships. 1] Data Set #1: Sunspot Numbers
SSN --- Sunspot Number (not Social Security Number) -- data is limited. Two problems, first you need a telescope to look at the Sun and nobody had one until after about 1600 CE; and second, it took them a century to standardize the scale used to measure sunspots.
For SSN data prior to 1600 CE, everyone --- including the IPCC --- relies on
"Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years." Solanki, SK, Usoskin, IG, Kromer, B, Schuessler, M, Beer, J , 2004.
Source: Nature 431 pp 1084–1087.
Accordingly, the AGW Inquisition will now declare Nature to be a heretical right-wing denialist blog.
The problem is that correlation and causation still aren't the same thing. Correlation is merely suggestive, but ultimately meaningless unless you can explain a mechanism; if you can't, you're not really making an argument so much as speculating. Or in this case, cherry-picking. And the last thirty years of solar cooling demonstrate... you know what, you cited Usoskin, so:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Usoskin 2005
"during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
So no, Nature isn't a heretical right-wing denialist blog, no matter how much you selectively interpret otherwise.
Last edited by FrankMiller; 12-11-2014 at 01:46 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
