Originally posted by Cow Poke
View Post
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
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
-
“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
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostYeah, 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.”"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
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostYeah, 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.”The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by sylas View PostNo 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 -- sylasGlendower: 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
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostOooooops... don't you mean "climate change"? Get with the program!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
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe 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.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostBut, quite obviously, the drivers of this issue thought it important enough to change the nomenclature!
(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 FilesLast edited by TheLurch; 12-07-2014, 01:23 PM."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostActually, they've both been used pretty extensively from the start.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostMeh.... 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"."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostYeah, 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.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Catholicity View PostCFC's were taken out in the 80's for fear of Global cooling,
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
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostMeh.... 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".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
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
||
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
|
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:12 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
|
6 responses
48 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:25 PM
|
Comment