Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change (location, pipe, value)
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.
You may notice that the plot from the conservative blog looks way different that what the Hadcrut data looks like posted three different ways (6
\quote]
Better sharpen up those reading skills. The "conservative site" (actually "scientific site")- shows a graph of the derivative of the HadCRUT plot-- ie- rate of change of temp.
Summary of the guy's paper: the earth seems to be warming since 1850. Three things could account for that [or a combination of same] (1) increased energy input (solar input) [2] decreased energy escape (increasing co2) or [3] changing internal energy equilibrium effects (ocean cycles).
Nos. 1 & 3 show high correlation with temp record while #2 shows poor correlation.
I don't think political affiliation should affect that reasoning, unless, of course, you chose to be unreasonable.
Its a virtual impossibility for the deforestation, increased particulate pollution, carbon release and various other anthropgenic factors within the last few centuries not to have caused climate changes. Absent some magical space elevator siphoning off all these issues, the system was clearly changed. The extent to which the changes have interacted with the cycles of climate that already occur is not clear. But to pretend all of this could not have had a climate effect is of course delusion. For there not to have been any effect, considering the nature of the system, it would require divine intervention. Or just bald face lying to one's self.
As to the naming of the effect, of course the naming has evolved. Ever since day 1 when Bob from Queens wrote into the daily post saying its 10 below here so I call global warming a fraud - and his confusion between weather and climate - the terminology has become more accurate. In other news, also not a conspiracy, people nowadays really don't use the term world wide web. And someone who works at a computer all day isn't called a geek. They are just called office workers now. None of them conspiracies.
[quote=Chint;52953533]Its a virtual impossibility for the deforestation, increased particulate pollution, carbon release and various other anthropgenic factors within the last few centuries not to have caused climate changes. Absent some magical space elevator siphoning off all these issues, the system was clearly changed. The extent to which the changes have interacted with the cycles of climate that already occur is not clear. [quote]
I highlighted the only statement you made that is clearly true. You should have stopped there. After that, your argument gets even weaker.
As I pointed out much earlier in this thread, it appears that the effects of GHGs can be ignored in determining climate after that first 200 ppm or so is achieved. (and even that is mostly due to co2's indirect effects vis-Ã -vis h2o).
Compare it to calculating the speed & course of dropping a bowling ball from the Leaning Tower- aerodynamic effects do contribute some minute influence, but that can be ignored when you're using a stop watch & yard stick for your measurements.
Summary of the guy's paper: the earth seems to be warming since 1850. Three things could account for that [or a combination of same] (1) increased energy input (solar input) [2] decreased energy escape (increasing co2) or [3] changing internal energy equilibrium effects (ocean cycles).
FYI, this is a web site that denies or at least diminishes the human influence on the change in climate.
The intention is to debunk [2] (CO2 causes the warming).. But I have two sources below that complety dissagree with this. Leaves me with the same feeling I usually get with this type of site.
I took the time to go through that page..
First, as I noted before, they used a plot that only shows 0.15 degree C temperarture change between 1880 and present. All of the other Hadcrut plots show six times the temperature variation in the same period. The plot they used was hand picked. Maybe we can assume that they accurately plotted the raw data and that is what it looks like. I dont know.. but that data set likely has errors that are explained here My Thoughts on Steven Goddard and His Fabricated Temperature Data Claim | Climate Skeptic
So.. if you use any other plot of temp vs time (either land based or Satellite), that all falls apart. Hand picked..
The main natural oscillation is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) This is a periodic (mostly) exchange of energy between the ocean and the atmosphere so it represents no real net change in energy, just an exchange of where energy is stored. In periods where the atmosphere warms up, this of course looks something like a green house gas increasing the temperature. The difference being that with something like CO2 green house gas, the temperature of the atmosphere would continue to increase as more energy is added to the global system. The PDO oscillation would be different in that it would go between periods of cool or warm.
And here is another web site just as credible as the one linked that discusses the same issue of it the PDO causing our current global warming. Notice the completely different temperature vs time plot used. https://www.skepticalscience.com/Pac...scillation.htm
The Hadcrut temperature vs time plot and PDO can be seen in the figure below. You can see the influence of the PDO on the global temperature but you can also see very clearly that the PDO does NOT explain the continued temperature rise. The only thing that does describe the continued temperature increase is impulse of man made green house gas.
And.. yet another web site that contradicts the skeptic web site in the first link.
One can also derive a formula for temperature increase versus CO2 concentration which works out to be DT=1.6Ln(C/C0). If you accept that all the observed warming from 1850 to date is due just to CO2 increases alone then a better fit is found using a modified formula of DT = 2.5 Ln(C/C0). After you do this fit another phenomenon becomes clearly apparent over and above any greenhouse effect of CO2. The Earth seems to have regular natural climate oscillations with a 60 year cycle. We are now in the downward temperature cycle of this natural effect which may explain why we have seen no warming for the last 11 years. In fact it seems likely in this picture that no further warming will occur before 2020 when renewed rapid warming should reoccur.
And the plot below showing the 60 year cycle imposed on the observed actual global temp. Once again, the 60 year cycle PDO can NOT explain the temperature increase. But.. once again the impulse of human created green house gas does explain the temperature rise. Human induced green house gas is the ONLY thing that explains the temperature increase.
As I pointed out much earlier in this thread, it appears that the effects of GHGs can be ignored in determining climate after that first 200 ppm or so is achieved. (and even that is mostly due to co2's indirect effects vis-Ã -vis h2o).
You will have to let me know where this is. I must have missed it.
FYI, I looked at satellite data and compared it to the Pacific Decadal oscillation and once again, that web site https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/...ing-the-earth/ would just seem to have hand picked some data to make a point. My opinion... this is or borders on deception. This web site is on my BS list..
We may argue about the validity of land based measurements but the RSS TTT satellite data also shows that the 60 year cycle Pacific Decadal Oscillation does NOT explain the temperature rise we are seeing. The amount of solar radiation over the same time period has actually decreased a little so also does not explain the temperature rise. But there is a clear and simple model that does.. Man caused green house gas and primarily CO2.
Satellite data only goes back to about 1980 so I clipped the PDO data from here Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) to only include the data since 1980, then put one plot on top of the other.
Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change l
That's the OP title. Are you saying that a change in administration without more changed the outlook? Just the scrapping of layers of administrative agencies, domestic and international?
[quote=guidoLaMoto;52953831][quote=Chint;52953533]Its a virtual impossibility for the deforestation, increased particulate pollution, carbon release and various other anthropgenic factors within the last few centuries not to have caused climate changes. Absent some magical space elevator siphoning off all these issues, the system was clearly changed. The extent to which the changes have interacted with the cycles of climate that already occur is not clear.
Quote:
I highlighted the only statement you made that is clearly true. You should have stopped there. After that, your argument gets even weaker.
As I pointed out much earlier in this thread, it appears that the effects of GHGs can be ignored in determining climate after that first 200 ppm or so is achieved. (and even that is mostly due to co2's indirect effects vis-Ã -vis h2o).
Compare it to calculating the speed & course of dropping a bowling ball from the Leaning Tower- aerodynamic effects do contribute some minute influence, but that can be ignored when you're using a stop watch & yard stick for your measurements.
I guess you must be in the divine intervention camp. Even then, why are you limiting to GHGs when I clearly referenced additional interventions and consequences? Reflectivity already affects solar energy input into the system before you even get to the GHG heat absorption. More importantly, hanging your hat on a single "200ppm" idea? Can you explain how the impact of CO2 on outgoing long wave radiation is NOT occurring above 200PPM - despite the line models showing it does, despite observable measurements from space showing that it does? Or alternatively explain how the first law of thermodynamics can be violated and avoid the increase in surface temperature?
Your position, that altering the biome which ab initio in part influenced and shaped the climate, does not influence the climate is a dogma without defense. Comical you feel you can be an arbiter of a weak argument!
Its an untenable position that human activity, cumulatively since at least Roman times, has not resulted in climate effects. The inevitable existence of anthropogenic influence on climate per se is not (absent magic) an actual debate, it is the extent to which and how it interacts with the "innate" climate changes.
BTW Whats your theory as to how there somehow could not have been any effect? The magical space elevator theory? Or are you of the opinion that feedback and competing effects miraculously exactly balanced the "warming" such that there was and continues to be no net effect on climate?
Armchair climate science, data selectivity bias and cognitive dissonance and are a happy mix.
Its really quite hard today, cf a decade back, to find someone who portends to be a rational understand-er of the science to still maintain that the last 2,000 years of human activity have had no effect on climate. While most have moved on to whether it is something reversible, or even a problem, or a drop in the bucket on not-yet-understood innate underlying climate changes - you are here & live still holding up the standard! Good for you! Comical but entertaining.
The title of the original post cracks me up..................you ain't changin' nothin'. Enough.........
One volcanic eruption is equal to a gazillion cars.. !!!! Even Godzillas breath pollutes.
If you have job, do you walk to work? Shall we go on?
We may argue about the validity of land based measurements but the RSS TTT satellite data also shows that the 60 year cycle Pacific Decadal Oscillation does NOT explain the temperature rise we are seeing. The amount of solar radiation over the same time period has actually decreased a little so also does not explain the temperature rise. But there is a clear and simple model that does.. Man caused green house gas and primarily CO2.
You keep saying that about co2-- but you miss the argument clearly stated in the article-- [a]recent warming started 100yrs before the co2 levels started going up [b] the co2 level increases have been accelerating since 1850 but rate f warming has remained the same. You keep focusing on the positive correlation of co2/temps over the last 150 yrs, but ignore the negative correlation over longer time scales. That pretty much eliminates a cause & effect relationship here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chint
Your position, that altering the biome which ab initio in part influenced and shaped the climate, does not influence the climate is a dogma without defense. Comical you feel you can be an arbiter of a weak argument!
I challenge you to demonstrate a biome that has changed in the last 2000 yrs. Borders between tundra/arboreal forest, between arboreal forest/temperate forest, between temperate forest/grassland , etc etc change cyclically, but no region on Earth has changed from one biome to another in 10,000+ yrs.
The closest Man comes to having changed the climate is only on the very local level- Urban Heat Islands- while the surrounding countryside remains unchanged. And even that only has to do with his land use alterations, not really climate changes.
You keep saying that about co2-- but you miss the argument clearly stated in the article-- [a]recent warming started 100yrs before the co2 levels started going up [b] the co2 level increases have been accelerating since 1850 but rate f warming has remained the same. You keep focusing on the positive correlation of co2/temps over the last 150 yrs, but ignore the negative correlation over longer time scales. That pretty much eliminates a cause & effect relationship here.
Well... yes.. we are focusing on the positive correlation with global warming and CO2 because there is something happening now that has never happened before in the history of the planet. We are exponentially increasing our burning of fossil fuel (which releases CO2). CO2 acts as both a driver and as feedback, please read this site nicely describing the role of CO2 http://clivebest.com/blog/ go to "the relationship of CO2 to temperature".
And.. we have measured a change (decrease) in energy escaping the planet in that time frame - which is explained by an increase in green house gas. And.. we have measured an increase in temperature of the troposphere and an decrease in temp of the stratosphere, also explained by an increase in green house gas. I notice this never gets addressed by anyone trying to prove that CO2 is not responsible.
Since I am locked out of looking at this web site https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/...ing-the-earth/ (does someone reading this forum have a financial link to this web site???) I will have to go by memory so could be wrong.
Maybe the page has changed now but it did the typical deny pattern of saying our current blip increase in temperature can not be due to CO2 so it must be due to something else. That page the examimed cycles such as the 60 year cycle and the amount of solar reaching the plant. I think we can rule out they cycles - see posts 314 and 315 in this thread.
That page rules somehow ruled out CO2 because of some sort of slope fitting done to a plot of temperature vs recent time.
What I remember (please correct me if I am wrong so I cant go back and check) is that the blame for the planets temperature rise was placed on changing solar input (like the 11 year cycle of sunspots). Well.. I found many web sites that dont agree with that and I post that soon.
Before we go any further discussing this, I am wondering why the temperature vs time graph in the denial web site looks so different than any other Hadcrut plots I have seen or satellite data. Here are the plots again..
First image from the web site saying CO2 is not the cause of our warming - referenced above
This is more typical of just about every other web site.
Here is a satellite temp data RSS
And another satellite temp data (UAH)
Lets compare the temperature rise just between 1980 and present as this allows us to look at both land based (Hadcrut) and satellite date
Denial web site "whats up with this is" shows ONLY about a .05 C increase between 1980 and present.
Every other plot shows between about .6 to 7 C increase in the same time frame.
Ie, some how the denial web site reduced the temperature change during 1980 to 2020 by a factor of at least TWELVE over every other plot.
How did they do that... I would not even try and speculate on any conclusion from those plots. I could be wrong but that also just seems deceptive...Please correct me..
FYI, of course the planets temperature variation is a combination of natural drivers and our impulse of exponentially increasing CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere. We can look at plots (other than the funky one in the denial post), and you can see natural variations occurring before about 1970 or 1980. Its a system of multiple drivers and multiple feedback mechanism. However, after about 1980, a dominant trend emerges with a somewhat linear trend of increasing temperature which of course can be explained by an exponentially increasing CO2. But there are also likely feedback mechanisms involved that also tend to skew the curve. Regardless, trying to explain away the role of human produced CO2 causing the temperature change using the distorted graph in the denial web site and trying to curve fit LN of CO2 that especially over the entire time frame (where is is obvious that natural drivers also influence the curve) is my opinion is either poor science or intentionally deceptive. My opinion only.. could be wrong.
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.
