• 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!

How Did Climate Predictions of 10-40 Years Ago Pan Out? Spectacularly Wrong.

Stuartbirdman said:
Quote Originally Posted by Stuartbirdman View Post
The mean average is 570 years. So it could be 1 year or 1140 years?

Longview: True, but with out them stating it, we cannot know
Click to expand...

Something can be theoretically true, without being probable.
The 1 year to 1140 averaging to 570 years is such a case.
 
longview said:
That is have a mean resolution of ~500 years, sure that is what they say,
but that is only the temporal resolution, not how accurate the reading is compared
to the actual CO2 level over the time sample.
Click to expand...

That is what they say. So they are being transparent
 
Stuartbirdman said:
That is what they say. So they are being transparent
Click to expand...
Sure, But I take a mean resolution of 500 years to be roughly 500 years, not a really low number like 1 year or a high one
like 1140 years.
 
longview said:
Sorry, how accurately can they resolve an event in time!
Click to expand...

The resolution of the samples extracted by a needle crackerand analysed by laser absorption spectroscopy (LAS)
at theUniversity of Bern averages 0.55 m resulting in a mean time resolu-tion of 570 yrIs
 
Stuartbirdman said:
YrIs means years?
Click to expand...

The resolution of the samples extracted by a needle crackerand analysed by laser absorption spectroscopy (LAS)
at theUniversity of Bern averages 0.55 m resulting in a mean time resolu-tion of 570 yr.

I made a typo
 
Stuartbirdman said:
Greenhouse gases trap heat and make the planet warmer. Human activities are responsible for almost all of the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the last 150 years.1 The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in the United States is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation

Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions | US EPA
Click to expand...

That is a somewhat misleading deduction. The so-called global warming hiatus demonstrates precisely why. There was 0 change in average global surface temperature between 1998-2013. This despite the fact that something like a full third of the total CO2 pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution was released during that 15 year period. It’s true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that humans release a lot of it, but it’s also true that it only has an impact on climate if and when it is in conjunction with other naturally occurring variables.
 
longview said:
What they said was not that the resolution could be anywhere between 1 and 1140 years,
What they said was this,

and this
Click to expand...

He obviously has no experience deciphering well written material without code-words.
 
Napoleon said:
That is a somewhat misleading deduction. The so-called global warming hiatus demonstrates precisely why. There was 0 change in average global surface temperature between 1998-2013. This despite the fact that something like a full third of the total CO2 pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution was released during that 15 year period. It’s true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that humans release a lot of it, but it’s also true that it only has an impact on climate if and when it is in conjunction with other naturally occurring variables.
Click to expand...

Entitled “Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008”, the new research uses computer modelling to assess the reasons for the slow-down, and concludes that rapid growth in sulfur emissions from Chinese coal-fired power stations may be offsetting some of the warming effect of rising greenhouse gases.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You mean a hypothesis... scientifically speaking...
Click to expand...

Space.com › 17661-theory-general-...
Web results
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity: A Simplified Explanation | Space - Space.com
Nov 7, 2017 · Einstein's theory of general relativity predicted that the space-time around Earth would be not only warped but also twisted by the planet's rotation. Gravity Probe B showed this to be correct.
 
Stuartbirdman said:
Entitled “Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008”, the new research uses computer modelling to assess the reasons for the slow-down, and concludes that rapid growth in sulfur emissions from Chinese coal-fired power stations may be offsetting some of the warming effect of rising greenhouse gases.
Click to expand...

Models that are programmed with the poor understanding of variables.
 
Stuartbirdman said:
So the authors are accurate
Click to expand...

When they say the temporal averages 570 years, this is a small range of numbers to get that average. The deeper cores will generally be a wider range of years than the newer ones. A 570 year average probably means a range or core readings from around +/- 15% of that for most, but the depth of each core slice taken depends on the precipitation for the range of years as well.

They normally count the banding of the core to determining the years of a sample and how old the average is, and sample is a given thickness. The cores with a long term average of low precipitation might be 800 years worth of data because there are more years per thickness, and a core sample of long term high precipitation might be around 300 years because the annual rings are thicker, but most will be close to that 570 years average they claim.
 
Lord of Planar said:
True, but it is a hypothesis until it meets the standards of a theory.

You really are way out or your league here...
Click to expand...

You and Longview are very smart but you are not good at communication. Professor Hawking and Einstein were good at both
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom