Let's compare it with your data set, then. Science doesn't care what you consider.T
I consider it fraudulent to tack empirical data onto palentological studies and call it science. You can't do that. History did not begin in1979.
Let's compare it with your data set, then. Science doesn't care what you consider.T
I consider it fraudulent to tack empirical data onto palentological studies and call it science. You can't do that. History did not begin in1979.
This is the usual 'if we can't be 'sure' then we can't act' argument.Pretty hard to say what is really helping and hurting our planet till you study atom for atom....and how products/energy starts, till it goes back to nature for another million years or more
This is the usual 'if we can't be 'sure' then we can't act' argument.
It's actually pretty straightforward to set up parameters and then see where various actions fit in.
You missed the point entirely. It isn't my data set.Let's compare it with your data set, then. Science doesn't care what you consider.
I have tried to tell you why you can't mix apples and oranges and pass it off as real. If you choose not to see it with a critical eye.PierreR, I don't accept your comments about the graphic I posted as valid without
any supporting evidence but this is the actual article I excerpted it from:
https://www.rutgers.edu/news/important-climate-change-mystery-solved-scientists
On the contrary, I have asked twice for your data that supports your conjecture.I have tried to tell you why you can't mix apples and oranges and pass it off as real. If you choose not to see it with a critical eye.
I won't dive into the political realm here to point out the difference between science and political science The suggested reading for a critical eye on science would be. Conjectures and Refutations- The Growth of Scientific Knowledge by Karl R Popper 1992 reprint Routledge
Birth rates decline as annual income increases. This occurs even in the absence of governmental interventions such as what occurred previously in China. Now their death rates exceed their birth rates and incentives are offered to marry and have offspring.
You have actually got to be kidding me. Your are a smart guy, I have valued your opinion before.On the contrary, I have asked twice for your data that supports your conjecture.
That it is not forthcoming I take as evidence for the lack of such supporting data.
Far from being political, the article I posted is by actual scientists who collected
actual data and then published their hypothesis with the supporting evidence.
On the other hand is you who posts your opinion and then fails to provide any
such support. Lacking supporting evidence, what you have posted is a belief.
On the contrary, I have asked twice for your data that supports your conjecture.
That it is not forthcoming I take as evidence for the lack of such supporting data.
Far from being political, the article I posted is by actual scientists who collected
actual data and then published their hypothesis with the supporting evidence.
On the other hand is you who posts your opinion and then fails to provide any
such support. Lacking supporting evidence, what you have posted is a belief.
Quantifying seasonal bias in proxy reconstructions (for example, sea surface temperature (SST)) has been a long-standing challenge, hampering our understanding of past climate evolution (for example, the Holocene temperature conundrum)1,2. Recently, Bova et al.3 proposed. a seasonal to mean annual transformation (SAT) method that seems to effectively remove SST signal caused by seasonal insolation change. To extract mean annual SST (MASST) change for the Holocene epoch. (12–0 thousand years before present (kyr bp)), Bova et al.3 selected SST records that additionally cover the last interglacial (LIG; 128–115 kyr bp) period, for which SST is assumed to be solely attributed to variations in local solar insolation, hence allowing for reliable quantification of seasonal bias in SST records. However, this assumption is fundamentally incorrect because it overlooks the roles of internal Earth system feedback (for example, sea ice) on LIG temperature change, indicating that their findings are effectively biased by overcorrecting insolation-induced seasonal bias in SST proxies.
Seasonal biases in proxy records are an outstanding issue in deciphering past climate evolution, and may contribute to the current discrepancy between models and proxy reconstructions during the Holocene, which is most pronounced in the northern extratropics. Bova et al. reported a method of transforming seasonal into mean annual temperatures (the SAT method) at low and mid-latitudes, and concluded that the thermal maxima during the Holocene and last interglacial (LIG) were mainly an artefact of a seasonal proxy response. We provide evidence that, in addition to this geographic mismatch, key assumptions of the SAT method are violated, and more importantly, that the method by construction removes thermal maxima. Thus, the main findings of Bova et al.4 probably reflect peculiarities of the SAT method instead of shedding light on the so-called Holocene conundrum.
You are not wrong but its worse than what you say. First off the fossil record is actually very accurate. It's based on diatoms, single cell organisms that form limestone skeletons. The skeletons are very sensitive to water temperatures. The method is thoroughly tested and reproducible. Now that is oceans at depth.And he can correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I read what he's saying, Pierre asserts that regardless of methodology, using ice cores or fossils will never yield data as exact and accurate as what we've had for the past forty or fifty years, given the tools we now have at our disposal.
They are literally two different datasets - apples and oranges - and, therefore, shouldn't be compared to each other.
In other words, he's not asserting anything requiring him to provide data.
You are not wrong but its worse than what you say. First off the fossil record is actually very accurate. It's based on diatoms, single cell organisms that form limestone skeletons. The skeletons are very sensitive to water temperatures. The method is thoroughly tested and reproducible. Now that is oceans at depth.
The land data set is for land and we as boaters all know that land heats way faster than water. The land data set is not even long enough for one data point and pointless when comparing land to oceans.
Add to that the fact that thermometers are accurate but earth coverage is really only good in the western world. The rest of the planet is sparse and filled in by algorithms. Land based stations are also subject to urban sprawl. The slow growth of concrete near the stations is not accounted for well. In other words the land based temperatures may or may not be representative but are probably bias towards increasing in temperature.
They could have tacked on the more accurate satellite record but they did not as the satellite record does not have that much increase
I am saying what they did was so unrepresentative as to be political science fraud.
The two papers you quote are really trying to find fault with the diatom studies. It's hard to write them out of the history/text books.
Bottom line: I man does not cause warming there is no sense funding further studies.
Climatology is a subset of geology while global warming is the study of Anthropogenic warming. Climatology is poorly funded while Anthropogenic warming is funded by massive grants. The paleo record is very inconvenient to the Anthropogenic argument. Follow the money. It's trillions not billions and we are all paying the bills now.
All good points, gentlemen.
This is the sort of discussion that I was aiming for, though I am far less prone to
label published work as 'political' or 'fraud'. without much more detailed analysis.
I hope we can agree that there is adequate motivation for misrepresentation and
cherry-picking of results on both sides of the MMCC inquiry. To say that the science
that supports the pro-MMCC hypothesis is in a significant way influenced by money
is to ignore the immense vested interests in disproving that hypothesis. In that case
it should be estimated in the trillions, not mere billions of dollars, as well as the politics.
Oil companies are not the most negatively affected. They have their hand squarely in the trillions till. Global warming started out as a means to weaken western societies but that backfired at some point because Global Warming has been swallowed up by entrepreneurs after the money. The politics is now very complexSo for you MMCC is a paradigm shift. You apparently believe we are so insignificant in our actions as to be unable to to change the equilibrium. I would only ask have you taken the effort to read any of the source documents? Please go to the IPCC and go through the reports. You seem to agree climate is changing. If its not MMCC please offer a viable alternative.
I have read every IPCC report that has come out. Please remember that the IPCC was specifically se up to search for anthropogenic sources and money only funds those sources. There is no funding available for non-anthropogenic sources so the bias was built in from the conception. Climatology as a branch of Geology looking at natural causes ceased to exist and we are now 33 years into the rabbit hole.
Even those who are most negatively economically effected (oil companies) have accepted MMCC.
Returning to the original intent of this thread. Has MMCC effected your boating?
So for you MMCC is a paradigm shift. You apparently believe we are so insignificant in our actions as to be unable to to change the equilibrium. I would only ask have you taken the effort to read any of the source documents? Please go to the IPCC and go through the reports. You seem to agree climate is changing. If its not MMCC please offer a viable alternative.
The richest entity of the time (catholic church) funded a geocentric view. It was not true. Truly miserable people (Sinatra, Snow, Scarlatti, Wagner etc.) produced great art. You may not like them but that doesn’t effect the genius o their art.
For years the studies I’ve read have listed funding source. In fact non direct funding sources have to be listed to avoid even appearance of funding bias. I’ve had to declare my own as well. Still, the science stands on its own. You imply a bias is produced. You are right funding source raises your suspicion of bias. But you still need to demonstrate that bias before discounting that paper or study. The science stands on its own regardless of who funded it. Please demonstrate there’s funding bias in this case. Even those who are most negatively economically effected (oil companies) have accepted MMCC.
Returning to the original intent of this thread. Has MMCC effected your boating?
I remain unconvinced that volcanos in recent years are orders of magnitude greater at climate change than man. There is ample evidence in the fossil records to suggest that volcanic activity has been responsible for mass extinctions in the past but, I do not see enough volcanic activity to justify a large cause today. Some speculate that it's underwater volcanos going off now that were not in the past but I have seen little hard evidence of that. There is even debatable evidence that the large volcanic eruptions of the past 400 years have had more than a blip of a year or two on the world temperatures. I would love to hang my hat on volcanos but I would be fooling myself without the evidence.Given the fact that volcanoes, most recently a submarine volcano in Tonga, are able to eject as much water vapor and alleged "greenhouse gases" into the upper atmosphere as they do, and the effects, while visible, pass quickly and are basically meaningless in the grand scheme of things, then yes - I am led to believe that humans have little chance of affecting the climate of the entire planet by simply burning fossil fuels.
I remain unconvinced that volcanos in recent years are orders of magnitude greater at climate change than man.
Far more puzzling to me is the paleo evidence that suggests that CO2 may actually be a trigger for a new glaciation period. There has been zero research done on natural causes for better than a quarter of a century so you have to go back that far to look at what was being studied prior to being shut down. There is evidence for 19 glaciation periods beginning 2 million years ago. The more recent periods show CO2 increasing fairly rapidly an average of 800 years prior to the onset of a new glaciation period. No one has looked for the cause of that or into the strong correlation of CO2 and ice in the paleo record.
The only thing in my view that is powerful enough with CO2 to make the math possibly work is CO2's affect on plant growth and the natural aerosols that woody plants emit into the atmosphere. Plant growth has increased about 20% since 1950. All you have to do is look at the Smoky Mountains on a summer afternoon to see the effect that natural aerosols have on atmospheric opacity.
Water has a very high surface tension, high enough that long wave radiation (heat) cannot penetrate the surface more than a few microns. The Oceans are heated by short wave radiation that can penetrate up to about 100 ft down. Aerosols form clouds and we all know what effect clouds have on a solar panel by blocking short wave radiation. The atmosphere could reflect more short wave sunlight back to space cooling the oceans.
Again, just my common sense speculation. We are not likely to see this research done because a confirmation would be very bad news for the climate industrial complex.
A further thought. There are a number of critics of Global Warming that hang their hat on this surface tension phenomenon as proof that Global Warming cannot exist because the air cannot heat the oceans. In theory that is true but, we all know that we can go to the beach where warm air is blowing over cold water and feel the air is colder than further inland, even on a cloudy day. We know the surface area of air to water can be drastically increased as we have seen air mix with water in the form of waves. look at the bubble path in salt water when one of those big boys on plane goes by. In short, air heating water is not insignificant but not a big contributor either.
Greetings,
Mr. DBG. Your post #54. "...in order to restore equilibrium...". Therein lies the rub IMO. WHAT exactly is the equilibrium? Is it a global condition considered as of now? 100 years ago? 1000 years ago? 10 millennia past?
Climate has ALWAYS been in a state of flux and various areas of the world have changed. From this article: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161130141053.htm The Sahara desert was a lush grassland as little as 6000 years ago. As has been noted above, climate is a seriously complex system.
About the ONLY thing I have issues with this whole conundrum is how much influence does man have in altering weather patterns and thus climate? Nowhere have I ever read or heard of the extent of man's contribution to change. Is it 5%? 25%? 75%? or is the situation simply a natural progression of earth's evolution? Is this a solution looking for a problem?
Without a shadow of a doubt, profiteers are seizing the opportunity to fill their pockets but to lump the scientific community in with them is, I think, unfair to said community. I believe there is STILL some morality to science uninfluenced by $$.
Science has never been and "AHA" exercise but more of a "gee, that's interesting" pursuit IMO. Unfortunately the unscrupulous are quick to capitalize on what they tout as being definitive discoveries to line their pockets.