Winter has been world's warmest on record - Page 7 - New England Patriots Forums

patsfan13 · #61 03-17-2007, 06:47 PM

One of the difficulties of land based measurements in the US is the growth of cities with their expanse of concrete serve as heat sinks. A measurement station that was in a rural area a hundred years ago may now be in an urban area now, Some of the measured temp increases could be from the effect of the measurement being taken in an urban area rather than a rural area.

Deus Irae · #62 03-18-2007, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

How in the world do you know that? Sure it's theoretical, but if a model is developed that can explain animal migration (based on bones), number of CO2 particles captured in ancient ice from different years, sizes of tree rings, and so on, you can solve the problem. There are all sorts of traces of time that can be used to test different theories: particles trapped in ice, size of tree rings, written information from sailors, etc. In a book I'm reading about Africa, the author writes (and this book has nothing to do with the global warming issue):

"In 1948 it was observed that the ratio of the oxygon 18 isotope to the oxygen 16 isotope in a sample of calcium carbonate varies according to the temperature at which the chemical had crystallized. Chalk is calcium carbonate formed from the shells of plankton, the marine organisms which have inhabited the surface waters of the oceans since the beginnings of life itself. Billions upon billions of these tiny shells sank to the bottom of ancient seas, creating ocean floor deposits that are, in effect, a thermometer from which can be read the temperature of the oceans when the plankton was alive.

More than two decades passed before the difficulties of retrieving and reading the thermometer were overcome, but in 1976 results from the analysis of cores recovered from depths of over 3000 meters in the southern Indian Ocean were published showing conclusively (things about the water temperature)." A Biography of Africa, by John Reader.

Conservatives have generally been wrong for underestimating the capabilities of science, whether we're talking about Galileo, Darwin, or the scientists involved in global warming. Scientists today can do amazing things, things that you can't even fathom. For thousands of scientists to believe in global warming and you to come out and imply temperature estimates of the past are mere guesstimates that are impossible to make makes you the ridiculous one. For a history of climates, I would much sooner trust a scientist who has studied the matter than you. Sorry.

You're claiming, essentially, that the temperature readings going back hundreds of years are accurate. There's a problem with this: they've used two methods of getting temperatures even in modern time in an effort to get an accurate reading of even today's temperatures. They've tried both land based readings and satellite readings. Many claim that the satellite readings are more accurate. So, tell me about all those weather satellites that were up in the sky during the reign of Claudius, if you would....

***Patters*** · #63 03-18-2007, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

You're claiming, essentially, that the temperature readings going back hundreds of years are accurate. There's a problem with this: they've used two methods of getting temperatures even in modern time in an effort to get an accurate reading of even today's temperatures. They've tried both land based readings and satellite readings. Many claim that the satellite readings are more accurate. So, tell me about all those weather satellites that were up in the sky during the reign of Claudius, if you would....

My guess is the data they can collect is accurate enough to identify trends over time. (In other words, if there is a mistake, it would affect all their measurements proportionally, thus negating anything but a major mistake.) From what I've read, scientists try to take into account every variable, regardless of whether it's satellites which measures temperatures well above the first 5000 feet or land-based measurements, which must compensate for heat generated by cities.

I'm not qualified to argue the science of historical weather calculations, but the fact is we can identify global warming on Mars, can calculate orbits for 100 of years forward or backward, can figure out precise dates of many ancient materials, we can also calculate temperatures. There are many historical clues to temperatures.

This does not mean the science is perfect or the science cannot be wrong, but to my knowledge even the skeptics who question for instance the hockey stick chart do not argue that you can't calculate past temperatures; they argue that the calculations used are wrong. With advanced science, I don't see what choice we (meaning laymen) have other than trust the majority of scientists. I'm pretty consistent on that, and that's why I support nuclear energy despite the impassioned arguments of a minority of scientists and many progressives.

patsfan13 · #64 03-18-2007, 04:15 PM

You are rigth Patters they can collect data over time. the data shows that this isn't an especially warm interglacial period, it also shows that CO2 lags temps by ~ 800 years.

OTOH the computer models haven't been able to predict temoature based on past data and is constantly being revised in terms of it predictions going forward. Reducing the amount of warming in each case. IOW they are inaccurate and unreliable.

***Patters*** · #65 03-18-2007, 04:25 PM

patsfan, how can we really argue the science behind the temperature estimates? You can question the accuracy of the estimates, but I'm hardly qualified to respond to specific complaints about the methodologies and their limitations.

I've certainly read on sites like RealClimate specific responses to some of the issues you've raised; I've researched at least 5 of the leading skeptics, and I've read a good amount by global warming believers. My impression is that there's enough evidence out there to warrant a cautious approach, meaning that we should take global warming seriously. The preponderance of evidence and the majority of scientists, who I tend to think are generally fair-minded, say (1) global warming is for real, (2) the human contribution to global warming is for real, and (3) global warming could be very dangerous.

Let's not risk the heavens by opposing the an aggressive push to clean our skies. Let's take advantage of this moment to become more environmentally responsive. There's more to life than money.

patsfan13 · #66 03-18-2007, 04:33 PM

The ice core data can be used to estimate both the temp and the % Co2 in the atmosphere. This data shos that CO2 concentrations are a lagging indicator of temp and that over the past few ice ages the lag has been ~ 800 years.

Science is about theory and measurement. Not just blind faith in computer models. I say this as someone who has worked with CAD and CAE tools over the past 30 years. There are problems that they can solve and problems with too many degrees of freedom to solve. The Climate falls in the latter category.

Any theory should be able to make predictions and observation should match the predictions for the theory (and computer models in this case). IF the computer models can't use past data to predict the current observations then the model is wrong, the theory is just that a theory and not a scientific tool.

It is hard to havfe a conversation when this basic factor is not understood by many.

***Patters*** · #67 03-18-2007, 04:52 PM

patsfan, as I said in another thread, I'm currently reading a book on Africa, and the author explains in detail how studying the ratio of oxygen isotope 16 to isotope 18 on a certain seashell that's found 3000 meters deep, scientists have been able to better understand the climate of Africa from 25,000-100,000 years ago. This has allowed them to estimate human migration patterns and has aided them in discovering bones and artifacts. Sometimes, the area they explore are deserts today, but they know based on their analysis that it was once much different. While I agree the science isn't perfect, I also think there are several leading approaches for predicting past weather and temperature patterns. While trapped CO2 particles allow us to analyze into the distant past, such things as migration patterns, tree rings, ratios of one compound to another, and so on allow predictions to be made. I believe trends can be predicted accurately and overall temperature for a year can be predicted with some degree of accuracy. For instance, I've read that the distance between tree rings reflects the average temperature between seasons.

patsfan13 · #68 03-18-2007, 04:58 PM

I have never disagreed with htis sort of thing. I do however feel based on my experience that the COmputer models that are the basis of the Human driven Global Warming Hypothesis are basically junk, and not science. The sorts of measurement you talk about are good indicators (to a point). The problem for the Global waeming crisis crowd is that the geological record does not support their case. This is why they try to limit the conversation to the last 100 yearsa and the next 100 years trather than look at events like the Heliocene maximum ~ 8k years ago.

This from Time magazine website funny and sad:

Quote:

Which puts him one step ahead of most other eco-preeners who actually pretend that it does--the Goracle himself, for example. His Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the electricity used by the average American home. Last August alone it consumed twice as much power as the average home consumes in a year. Gore buys absolution, however. He spends pocket change on carbon credits, which then allow him to pollute conscience-free.

What is wrong with this scam? First, purchasing carbon credits is an incentive to burn even more fossil fuels, since now it is done under the illusion that it's really cost-free to the atmosphere.

Second, it is a way for the rich to export the real costs and sacrifices of pollution control to the poorer segments of humanity in the Third World. (Apparently, Hollywood's plan is to make up for that by adopting every last one of their children.) For example, GreenSeat, a Dutch carbon-trading outfit, buys offsets from a foundation that plants trees in Uganda's Mount Elgon National Park to soak up the carbon emissions of its rich Western patrons. Small problem: expanding the park encroaches on land traditionally used by local farmers. As a result, reports the New York Times, "villagers living along the boundary of the park have been beaten and shot at, and their livestock has been confiscated by armed park rangers." All this so that swimming pools can be heated and Maseratis driven with a clear conscience in the fattest parts of the world.

The other form of carbon trading is to get Third World companies to cut their emissions to offset Western pollution. The reason this doesn't work--and why the carbon racket is a farce--is that you need a cap for cap-and-trade to work. Sulfur dioxide emissions in the U.S. were capped, and the trading system succeeded in reducing acid rain by half. But even the Kyoto treaty doesn't put any cap on greenhouse gases in China and India, where billions of these carbon credits are traded. Sure, you can pretend you're offsetting Western greenhouse pollution by supposedly cleaning up a dirty coal plant in China. But China is adding a new coal plant every week. You could build a particularly dirty "uncapped" power plant, then sell hundreds of millions in carbon credits to reduce it to a normal rate of pollution. The result? The polluter gets very rich. The planet continues to cook. And the Gores of the world can feel virtuous as they burn up the local power grid.

The poor will suffer if the alarmist methods are adapted I for one am unwilling to condemn African children to a continued impoverished existanence.

QuiGon · #69 03-18-2007, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

patsfan, as I said in another thread, I'm currently reading a book on Africa, and the author explains in detail how studying the ratio of oxygen isotope 16 to isotope 18 on a certain seashell that's found 3000 meters deep, scientists have been able to better understand the climate of Africa from 25,000-100,000 years ago. This has allowed them to estimate human migration patterns and has aided them in discovering bones and artifacts. Sometimes, the area they explore are deserts today, but they know based on their analysis that it was once much different. While I agree the science isn't perfect, I also think there are several leading approaches for predicting past weather and temperature patterns. While trapped CO2 particles allow us to analyze into the distant past, such things as migration patterns, tree rings, ratios of one compound to another, and so on allow predictions to be made. I believe trends can be predicted accurately and overall temperature for a year can be predicted with some degree of accuracy. For instance, I've read that the distance between tree rings reflects the average temperature between seasons.

Considering you believe everything you read on Wikipedia (Not to mention the Institute for Historical Review) then you'll have to forgive me if I need a wee bit more evidence than you saying "I've read..."

***Patters*** · #70 03-18-2007, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

I have never disagreed with this sort of thing. I do however feel based on my experience that the Computer models that are the basis of the Human driven Global Warming Hypothesis are basically junk, and not science. The sorts of measurement you talk about are good indicators (to a point). The problem for the Global warming crisis crowd is that the geological record does not support their case. This is why they try to limit the conversation to the last 100 years and the next 100 years rather than look at events like the Heliocene maximum ~ 8k years ago.

There are probably intervals that can be found that support a skeptics view, but the intervals I've seen, including detailed analysis since the start of the second Industrial Revolution and more general analysis showing an unusual number of CO2 particles today relative to even ancient times are reasonable ones.

But, again, I do have to also give consideration to the people who work in the field. Frankly, the vast majority of them are not proponents of junk science and to suggest that is awfully arrogant. I suppose then, you must feel that those scientists who dispute the models used by the global warming crowd with their own models, are also guilty of junk science. I don't see how your CAD and CAE background qualify you to judge these scientists, and frankly I doubt that you have actual read any of their original analysis.

At any rate, I have great faith in science to get things generally right. I think you're underestimating what science can do because your own imagination cannot see how to solve the problem. Neither can mine, but the bits and pieces I've read (such as that tree ring and isotope thing I've mentioned a few times) convince me that science is fairly advanced in identifying markers of temperature. There are many such markers because most places have changes of seasons that create telling layers.

As far as carbon trading goes, the system can be abused, but one expects that the signatories to Kyoto are intent on cleaning the air, not beating the system. Japan has already taken a number of steps in this regard.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode