Global warming

cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Doer said:
But, without the mitigation or aggravation of Cloud Effect modeled we can dismiss all "conclusions."

Simply put, there is Data from Satellites, there are computer models of Cloud Effect. How much cloud does the warm up cause? Is the CO2 and co- or competing mitigation or aggravation? Will more CO2 mean more Sea Ice or less?

More Albedo or less? Is it actually negative feedback? Or is it a trend? Or is it simply a cycle.

As yet, there are no models of Cloud Effect that can run the Satellite data sets and get negative feedback. The so called, Greenhouse Hypothesis has never been proved. There is no Greenhouse Theory, that has withstood the Method of Science.

That's why are discussing the politics. Some say if we don't act now, it will be too late. Prove that? Some can say to act now with human effort can put make things worse. To much is un-known about the Clouds. Our understanding does not match the data.

So, there is a political fence to line up on, but there is not a Current Understanding in the Scientific sense regarding our Climate Model.
Without that it is research and politics.
Click to expand...
I consider it likely that "cloud effect" is a dependent variable and not independent. In that case, it's already in there. cn
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I consider it likely that "cloud effect" is a dependent variable and not independent. In that case, it's already in there. cn
Click to expand...
Yes, how could it be independent? We are discussing a feedback loop. What you are leaving out is the cycles. Long tern cycles suggest this is a closed loop, epoch period cycling, stable system.

The politics is human guilt layed on a short term observation of what is clearly a long term cycling. The idea of the sheer coincidence of our measuring ability as it intersects the current cycle has not been ruled out. There is however, the guilt to say we fucked it up.

There is carbon that can be detected, 14, 13, 12, that says something about our contribution to the CO2. But, nothing is said about the mechanism that CO2 can cause a open loop. Nothing is known about the total quantity of CO2 that can cause an open loop and it can't be model against the data. Certainly, then, nothing is known about the CO2 minority that human activity brings.

And nothing could be done. We could completely de-rail the world economy. I just don't see how, even if we ruined it accidentally which I doubt, that we could be trusted to wildly spend the world's treasure to "fix" it.

And there is the hubris to say, we can fix it.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I tend to concur that talk of "fixing it" (if it is the runaway that many fear it might be) is misplaced optimism. The best we can do (if) is adapt, endure, and not make that mistake again. cn
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
I'm pretty sure that graph completely disproves what you say.

They both seem to correlate quite nicely tbh, not saying which one causes which, but they do match really well.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure I have put the caveat that correlation does not show that CO2 causes temperature increase. It doesn't usually correlate with the temperature at all, however, when it does show some correlation it isn't causing the temperature but comes up after the change.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
If we'd had good temperature measurements back then, I'm sure more graphs of medieval-to-present would be available. Currently we can only get indirect measurements (by isotope ratios, e.g.) for timed preceding common use of thermometers.

The charge of purposely presenting half-truth can be pinned on many participants on both sides of this politicized issue. The better path would be to try to find the objective core that is beyond easy refutation by the more ethical practitioners. But that verges on utopian thought by yours truly. cn
Click to expand...
I think you will notice that when I discuss global warming my usual answer is that we don't know if man is causing any significant change over what normally occurs. It is possible, but we don't know. How can a scientist pretend to be impartial and factual but then make huge leaps of faith that something is causing something. It is dishonest at best as there is no real facts to back it up.

I absolutely agree that both sides are rotten liars. That doesn't dismiss the fact that the entire basis of AGW is a half truth.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
If we'd had good temperature measurements back then, I'm sure more graphs of medieval-to-present would be available. Currently we can only get indirect measurements (by isotope ratios, e.g.) for timed preceding common use of thermometers.

The charge of purposely presenting half-truth can be pinned on many participants on both sides of this politicized issue. The better path would be to try to find the objective core that is beyond easy refutation by the more ethical practitioners. But that verges on utopian thought by yours truly. cn
Click to expand...
We have a pretty much unbroken temperature in London from 1600s. The reconstructed temperatures of history are based on more solid silence than the entire AGW but don't show what they want it to. That isn't why they aren't used. They start at 1850 because that makes it easier to promote their ideas and little more.

Do you think the temperatures of past centuries are incorrect in the graphs that I presented?
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Carthoris said:
We have a pretty much unbroken temperature in London from 1600s. The reconstructed temperatures of history are based on more solid silence than the entire AGW but don't show what they want it to. That isn't why they aren't used. They start at 1850 because that makes it easier to promote their ideas and little more.

Do you think the temperatures of past centuries are incorrect in the graphs that I presented?
Click to expand...
If we look at the graphs in post 63, I think #2 and #4 are too smooth to be accurate. The absence of noise suggests oversimplification to me, and makes me suspect the presenters' agendas.

Let's concentrate on #4, which can be determined to a high degree of precision from extant physical records, e.g. ice cores.

Here's your graph from bbc.co.uk ... it looks like a low-order polynomial fit; it's so smooth.


Now here are other graphs covering the same time period. Note the features missing in the too-smooth curve, like the bobbles in the early 1800s, ~1925 and ~1950.


Then there's this one ... different ordinate range, but now there's an outright inflection in the early 19th.

These are datafrom the same narrow set, and presented differently, they evince completely different gut responses from the person looking.

So yes, I do think that graphs can lie even while not deviating (with apparent significance) from fact. cn
 
RyanTheRhino

RyanTheRhino

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
If we look at the graphs in post 63, I think #2 and #4 are too smooth to be accurate. The absence of noise suggests oversimplification to me, and makes me suspect the presenters' agendas.

Let's concentrate on #4, which can be determined to a high degree of precision from extant physical records, e.g. ice cores.

Here's your graph from bbc.co.uk ... it looks like a low-order polynomial fit; it's so smooth.

Click to expand...
Looks more like exponential :bigjoint:

And your last graph is nice, it follows certain standards. That is a 3rd-4th order polynomial generally provides the best fit before oscillation error
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
RyanTheRhino said:
Looks more like exponential :bigjoint:

And your last graph is nice, it follows certain standards. That is a 3rd order polynomial generally provides the best fit before oscillation error
Click to expand...
I may be holding onto a wrong thing here, but iirc any curve can be approximated polynomially. But yeh, a hyperbola would be a pretty good fit but for the startling flatness of the first ~75 years ...

The messier graphs I posted show that one reading around 1745 and nothing prior. It's nice to get more information even if it means putting up with noise. Jmo. cn
 
Saltrock

Saltrock

Active Member
You guys have good points on both sides. I believe we do have more co2 in our atmosphere. I don't see any up side to the end of that. Us humans will rape and pillage this land till all the resources are used up. Then we will look out on a baron waste land and say what the hell did we do. This obviously won't happen in our lifetimes. But we see how the story will end. Our pollution on this earth is a disgrace. I love talking with you guys and being able to communicate on a computer and have all these nice products that make life convenient. But I would trade all that in if it mean't the human race could continue. Sounds all heroic, and all. I would rather have a metier be the demise of the earth then man be the demise of the earth.

Peace
Salt
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Harrekin said:
So you're anti-seal-metic then?

And you do the Penguin step?
Click to expand...
I like the babies. maybe I'm a pinnipedophile.

The joke involves a penguin driving his '63 Dart through red rock country. He experiences engine trouble and manages to pull into one of those tiny strange gas station/department store hybrids found in the back beyond and favored as locations for low-budget nuclear survivor movies. He's greeted by a biped of uncertain species affiliation wearing overalls that might have once been blue. This fellow takes the car into the back, while our flightless protagonist helps himself to the free reading material in the gloriously air-conditioned parlor. He experiences a hunger pang and is delighted to find an ice cream cooler. He selects a vanilla cone and eats it with the sort of inefficient table manners expected of a creature without lips or fingers.
Just then, the zombie-movie extra mechanic pops in and says "Well, Sir ... it looks like you blew a seal."

The penguin makes a warding gesture and blurts "no ... it's just ice cream!" cn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top