• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Perspectives on Temperature

Jack Hays said:
That too changes nothing. Note that it's a conditional statement.
Click to expand...

It is a conditional that lays out the basis for their critique. It would be like me saying "If Jack Hays is actually a janitor at Raytheon..." and then trying to make some trenchant remark. It would be a foundational assumption that is flawed.
 
istodolez said:
It is a conditional that lays out the basis for their critique. It would be like me saying "If Jack Hays is actually a janitor at Raytheon..." and then trying to make some trenchant remark. It would be a foundational assumption that is flawed.
Click to expand...
Sorry, doesn't matter.
 
Jack Hays said:
Greenland Fall Temperatures Unchanged. Proxy Data Show No Warming At 8 Of 9 Antarctic Peninsula Sites Since 1830!
By P Gosselin on 29. December 2020
Click to expand...

I don't understand these graphs. Why would you report the individual stations raw temperature rather than the way the data is REALLY processed (grid averaged temperature anomaly)?

Years ago I randomly took one temperature station's data and plotted it over the course of a century just looking at the raw temperature data for that one station. I didn't see a meaningful warming trend but that was before I understood how the data is ACTUALLY PROCESSED and what it actually means.

Let us know when kyrie and Gosselin treat the data as it should be treated so that we can tell if they have found anything meaningful here.
 
istodolez said:
I don't understand these graphs. Why would you report the individual stations raw temperature rather than the way the data is REALLY processed (grid averaged temperature anomaly)?

Years ago I randomly took one temperature station's data and plotted it over the course of a century just looking at the raw temperature data for that one station. I didn't see a meaningful warming trend but that was before I understood how the data is ACTUALLY PROCESSED and what it actually means.

Let us know when kyrie and Gosselin treat the data as it should be treated so that we can tell if they have found anything meaningful here.
Click to expand...
The post speaks for itself.
 
Jack Hays said:
The post speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

Yes. Yes it does. It shows what happens when you take data you don't understand and treat it without knowledge of how the data is normally processed and then draw conclusions.

I saw undergrad kids in the rocks-for-jocks/intro chem level classes doing the same thing. Everyone does it until they learn how data is processed.

(Note how I told you about how I had done something similar myself! I bet you've never actually played with ANY of this data yourself. But then you have told us that technical expertise is "ancillary" to technical discussions so I shouldn't be surprised!)
 
istodolez said:
Yes. Yes it does. It shows what happens when you take data you don't understand and treat it without knowledge of how the data is normally processed and then draw conclusions.

I saw undergrad kids in the rocks-for-jocks/intro chem level classes doing the same thing. Everyone does it until they learn how data is processed.

(Note how I told you about how I had done something similar myself! I bet you've never actually played with ANY of this data yourself. But then you have told us that technical expertise is "ancillary" to technical discussions so I shouldn't be surprised!)
Click to expand...
The beauty of the NTZ presentations is that they're free of "how the data is normally processed."
 
Jack Hays said:
The beauty of the NTZ presentations is that they're free of "how the data is normally processed."
Click to expand...

See, this is where technical expertise comes in handy. Raw unprocessed data is usually not the norm. It would be like presenting an IR spectrum without the background subtracted out, or a pH curve without a proper calibration. But you wouldn't know anything about that. Anytime someone talks about data processing all you and the other scientific illiterates see is "processing" and you just know in your hearts that that is skullduggery.

But it shows how little you know about science in general. You should stick with "ideas" and not try to understand technical topics.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The agenda minded people just don't get that the increase in melting is caused largely from ice albedo changes. We create to many aerosols.
Click to expand...

Actually virtually NO ONE debates the role of soot in decreasing albedo and increasing melt. It is another amplifying effect. It doesn't mean that AGW is somehow off the hook. In fact AGW induced ice loss also leads to albedo loss and increased warming.

And guess where that soot comes from that darkens the ice? Burning fossil fuels. Which increases the CO2 in the atmosphere as well which ALSO leads to warming at the surface.

Greenland Ice Sheet Getting Darker

In the 2011 Arctic Report Card, scientists report that the bright white surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet has grown less reflective. The darker surface absorbs more sunlight, accelerating melting.
www.climate.gov www.climate.gov

(Also: pro-tip: in the English language "too" is the adverb you wanted, not "to". With two O's you indicate an excess.)
 
istodolez said:
Actually virtually NO ONE debates the role of soot in decreasing albedo and increasing melt. It is another amplifying effect. It doesn't mean that AGW is somehow off the hook. In fact AGW induced ice loss also leads to albedo loss and increased warming.

And guess where that soot comes from that darkens the ice? Burning fossil fuels. Which increases the CO2 in the atmosphere as well which ALSO leads to warming at the surface.

Greenland Ice Sheet Getting Darker

In the 2011 Arctic Report Card, scientists report that the bright white surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet has grown less reflective. The darker surface absorbs more sunlight, accelerating melting.
www.climate.gov www.climate.gov

(Also: pro-tip: in the English language "too" is the adverb you wanted, not "to". With two O's you indicate an excess.)
Click to expand...
Yes, it comes from burning fossil fuels. But not all processes cause soot.

Any ice loss leads to more albedo loss. Not just from the extra CO2 forcing.

Tell me. Do you really think the puny amount of increased CO2 forcing is more than the changes due to albedo loss?

A doubling of CO2 would be what? About a 1% increase in total surface insolation? Certainly no more than 2%. That article is speaking of as much as 20% loss in albedo.

Do the math.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, it comes from burning fossil fuels. But not all processes cause soot.
Click to expand...

And even a lot of the soot comes from things like forest fires (which could be exacerbated by climate change but let's leave that for now).

Any ice loss leads to more albedo loss. Not just from the extra CO2 forcing.
Click to expand...

Correct. No one debates that point.

Tell me. Do you really think the puny amount of increased CO2 forcing is more than the changes due to albedo loss?
Click to expand...

Like all of the scientists I see it as part of the larger picture. They are mutually reinforcing to act as feedbacks.
 
istodolez said:
And even a lot of the soot comes from things like forest fires (which could be exacerbated by climate change but let's leave that for now).



Correct. No one debates that point.



Like all of the scientists I see it as part of the larger picture. They are mutually reinforcing to act as feedbacks.
Click to expand...
There are also very few papers dealing with how aerosols affect the atmosphere optically. The few that do, along with the few stations that have long term records, show a clear trend as to how our pollution has affected the atmosphere over time. It's an important variable, cause by aerosols, and modulates the surface insolation. How often have you seen optical depth changes over time in climate papers? It's one of the variables left out of the equation. I don't know if it's by accident or design, but I lean towards it being inconvenient. So they ignore it in my opinion.
 
Lord of Planar said:
There are also very few papers dealing with how aerosols affect the atmosphere optically. The few that do, along with the few stations that have long term records, show a clear trend as to how our pollution has affected the atmosphere over time. It's an important variable, cause by aerosols, and modulates the surface insolation. How often have you seen optical depth changes over time in climate papers? It's one of the variables left out of the equation. I don't know if it's by accident or design, but I lean towards it being inconvenient. So they ignore it in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I don't see it ignored at all! Wild, M., Ohmura, A., & Makowski, K. (2007). Impact of global dimming and brightening on global warming. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(4) discusses the mid-century cooling from the 1940's to the 1970's caused to sulfate aerosols.

The IPCC AR4 discusses the role of sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere.

It's actually not ignored.
 
istodolez said:
Hmmm, I don't see it ignored at all! Wild, M., Ohmura, A., & Makowski, K. (2007). Impact of global dimming and brightening on global warming. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(4) discusses the mid-century cooling from the 1940's to the 1970's caused to sulfate aerosols.

The IPCC AR4 discusses the role of sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere.

It's actually not ignored.
Click to expand...
But did IPCC AR4 discuss the magnitude of the brightening phase.
dimming and brightening
A direct comparison of observed‐derived Rs (with 44 pairs of stations) reveals consistent trends during the periods of dimming (−1.11 W/m2 per decade versus −1.38 W/m2 per decade from 1961 to 1980) and brightening (1.51 W/m2 per decade versus 1.47 W/m2 per decade from 1980 to 2009) in Europe
 
istodolez said:
Hmmm, I don't see it ignored at all! Wild, M., Ohmura, A., & Makowski, K. (2007). Impact of global dimming and brightening on global warming. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(4) discusses the mid-century cooling from the 1940's to the 1970's caused to sulfate aerosols.

The IPCC AR4 discusses the role of sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere.

It's actually not ignored.
Click to expand...
OK, not completely ignored. It is briefly mentionjed. It is far from properly quantification over time. Consider that the references are sparse. They don't ignore the sun over time either, but when they account for forcing changes, they only count "direct" forcing changes. They completely ignore indirect solar forcing changes. Since the sun is well over 99% of the heat the earth receives, all internal forms that redirect that heat are affected as well in a near linear fashion. The total IR downforcing from the atmosphere to the surface is something like 330 W/m^2. This is close to double what the surface forcing is from the sun. If the solar forcing changes by 0.1%, then so does the downward IR. The surface change from shortwave energy using a 0.1% change would be around 0.18 W/m^2, the indirect change to the IR feedback is about 0.33 W/m^2. This is a total of 0.51 W/m^2 by this simple example.

Do you see this accounted for in climate papers?
 
Jack Hays said:
New Evidence That the Ancient Climate Was Warmer than Today’s
2 hours ago

Two recently published studies confirm that the climate thousands of years ago was as warm or warmer than today’s – a fact disputed by some believers in the narrative of…
Click to expand...

Why do you double post? Does it help get out the misinformation more thoroughly? Oh well. Here's my rebuttal to it.

On other fora I believe cross-posting is looked down on. But I understand if one can't (won't) defend one's own position and just wants to take the LAZY approach of copy-n-paste because one doesn't actually understand any of the topic this will ensure that maybe some of the cross-posting will go unnoticed and uncommented.

Too bad!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom