Climate and Weather

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
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...

Does the Pffft come with spittle included, or is it value added if we wind you up?e7f5633d04ac31ea90eb8436d5756ddd-2.jpg
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're wasting your time. Izzy doesn't read. He just posts.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Skepticalscience.com is on our side;)
The name "skepticalscience" almost makes one believe they are. Its brilliant.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The "little ice age", wasnt really an ice age at all, but it was a cool period that ended in the 1880s.
If that starting point is cooler than normal, and today is warmer than normal, how much fluctuation are we talking about?
If we need to save the planet, we need to understand how hot weve boiled it so far, professor.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Humans have responded to climate science by living longer, stronger, and more peacefully then ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top