Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Robot Sub Finds Surprisingly Thick Antarctic Sea Ice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Oooooops... don't you mean "climate change"? Get with the program!
    Yeah, yeah, I like the old traditions. But do you like the idea that religion is treasonous? It might catch on like this strange sentence I heard on DogmaDebate just now - “The “War on Christmas” is a manufacturversy created by the republifundagelicals.”
    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
    “not all there” - you know who you are

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
      Yeah, yeah, I like the old traditions. But do you like the idea that religion is treasonous? It might catch on like this strange sentence I heard on DogmaDebate just now - “The “War on Christmas” is a manufacturversy created by the republifundagelicals.”
      FF, you need to take this kind of stuff to Apologetics. It has nothing to do with the topic.
      "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

      "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
        Yeah, yeah, I like the old traditions. But do you like the idea that religion is treasonous? It might catch on like this strange sentence I heard on DogmaDebate just now - “The “War on Christmas” is a manufacturversy created by the republifundagelicals.”
        Start a thread on that if you wish.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by sylas View Post
          No problem; I do appreciate your approach.

          I think we’ve resolved what was my initial point of surprise with mutual recognition that Earth’s climate is (absent human influences) in a plateau between glacial periods – the Holocene.

          The Holocene is a nice comfortable plateau in between large temperature increases and decreases associated with the glacials (or ice ages). The graph certainly supports this.

          Any trends within the Holocene are more subtle and should (and do) use more information than can be obtained from a single ice core. Even so, the Vostok core gives weak support to the conventional picture of a Holocene “Optimum” within the plateau, about 5000 years ago, and very slight trend of decline since then. There are, of course, substantial natural variations above and below the norm, like the MWP and LIA. Here’s a plot of the last 10000 years from the Vostok core data (cited previously) with a simple quadratic trend line fitted. This is not intended to be a strong argument of itself; for that I defer to more serious and detailed studies. Note this plot omits the preceding huge temperature shift in moving from the Ice Age glacial into the Holocene. [Added in edit... Horizontal scale is years before present, with "present" defined by convention to be 1950. The ice core cannot give data right up to the present; Vostok core data goes up to the year 1800 (or 150 years B.P.). In particular, the Vostok core cannot show any of the twentieth century warming. Vertical scale is in degrees. Petit et al uses a larger temperature shift per deuterium count than many researchers, so vertical scale may be as much as 50% too big in scale. This doesn't effect the shape of the curve, though.]
          [ATTACH=CONFIG]2978[/ATTACH]


          I didn’t actually give an argument in this thread; that’s not really my area to argue in any detail. I rather referred to the conventional picture of the Holocene, without argument. Even the ice core plot above I’d hesitate to call an “argument”. The significance of the simple quadratic fit is really low; for the actual scientific case for the Holocene Optimum one can easily do a literature search. But it’s a fairly minor point, I think. My real point is that the trend of warming out of the last ice age is not something that is ongoing into the present.

          The argument for or against a Holocene Optimum is no more direct or indirect than any inferences about temperature in the past. It’s all based on proxies. The difference is not that the evidence is indirect, but that the feature being identified does not stand out as dramatically as the ice ages.

          All of this is pretty minor, and I consider my initial query to be resolved.

          Thanks -- sylas
          God response!!!
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Oooooops... don't you mean "climate change"? Get with the program!
            The broader issue is both natural and human influence on climate change, and global warming from human influence. The issue is complicated yes, but picking on terminology does not face up to the problems.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              The broader issue is both natural and human influence on climate change, and global warming from human influence. The issue is complicated yes, but picking on terminology does not face up to the problems.
              But, quite obviously, the drivers of this issue thought it important enough to change the nomenclature!
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                But, quite obviously, the drivers of this issue thought it important enough to change the nomenclature!
                Actually, they've both been used pretty extensively from the start.

                (We'll see if this successfully embeds...)

                Why do they diverge in the late 1980s? My guess is that was shortly after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (or IPCC) was launched, which gets a lot of "climate change" mentions into the news.
                Attached Files
                Last edited by TheLurch; 12-07-2014, 01:23 PM.
                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  Actually, they've both been used pretty extensively from the start.
                  Meh.... I heard a lot more about "Global Warming" before I ever heard of "Climate Change". I guess the reason that stuck with me was because, when I was grown up, it was "the coming Ice Age".
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #69

                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    ...when I was grown up...

                    Like THAT ever happened!
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      The broader issue is both natural and human influence on climate change, and global warming from human influence. The issue is complicated yes, but picking on terminology does not face up to the problems.
                      I think another example here is that of the ozone hole, the cause of which was most likely, human induced. While that can never be proved with certainty, in the end people did wake up to the evidence, overcome fears of economic chaos if fixes were attempted, decide on a joint course action, and now there is hope that the hole might be closing.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        Meh.... I heard a lot more about "Global Warming" before I ever heard of "Climate Change". I guess the reason that stuck with me was because, when I was grown up, it was "the coming Ice Age".
                        Yeah, i'm old enough to remember that too. And an ice age most likely would have occurred in a few thousand years - they're the product of orbital changes that we can predict pretty thoroughly. But my memory makes it seem like the press hyped it as if it were something we needed to worry about now. Can't tell if that's my (limited) memory or what.
                        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                          Yeah, i'm old enough to remember that too. And an ice age most likely would have occurred in a few thousand years - they're the product of orbital changes that we can predict pretty thoroughly. But my memory makes it seem like the press hyped it as if it were something we needed to worry about now. Can't tell if that's my (limited) memory or what.
                          Yeah, from what I understand, it wasn't so much the scientific community making the claim, but it was "the hype", along with overpopulation. As if we didn't have enough to worry about with the Russians putting missiles in Cuba.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            CFC's were taken out in the 80's for fear of Global cooling,the now rebuilt hole in the ozone then in the late 90's early 2000's it was global warming now its climate change......
                            A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
                            George Bernard Shaw

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                              CFC's were taken out in the 80's for fear of Global cooling,
                              No; they were taken out because of fears that they were damaging the ozone layer. Nothing to do with temperature at all.

                              It's aerosols, not CFCs which have a cooling effect. CFCs actually contribute to warming, though that was NOT the reason for regulation. As for fears of global cooling: there were a few papers in the 1970s (not the 80s) which warned of possible gobal cooling from aerosols, although even then, the majority of research anticipated warming from CO2 and other greenhouse gases. There has never been a consensus on global cooling as there is with warming. Regulation generally needs a much more solid scientific case -- such as the thoroughly solid case that CFCs impact ozone. Cooling predictions, even in the 1970s when it got a bit of coverage in popular press, has only ever been a speculative notion supported by a minority of the research.... and it most definitely had nothing whatever to do with the regulation of CFCs.

                              With respect to CFCs, the issue with ozone was not cooling OR warming, but the vital role of the ozne layer for blocking of dangerous UV light. The regulation effort was successful, and subsequent research on the matter of CFCs seems to indicate that the ban helped us avoid a global disaster, of a global loss of most of the ozone layer by the middle of the 21st century. The world we avoided is one in which five minutes out in the Sun would result in severe sunburn.

                              There's a good feature article on this at NASA. See The World We Avoided by Protecting the Ozone Layer at NASA Earth Observatory.

                              Cheers -- sylas

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                Meh.... I heard a lot more about "Global Warming" before I ever heard of "Climate Change". I guess the reason that stuck with me was because, when I was grown up, it was "the coming Ice Age".
                                Actually the coming 'Ice Age' is likely inevitable, but were talking maybe ~20,000 to 40.000 or more in the future.
                                Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-08-2014, 06:26 AM.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X