• 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!

Earth's tilt influences climate change

humbolt said:
I might take a look, but considering your viewpoint and the very mention of CO2, I have pretty much placed you in the category of a zealot. As such, I doubt seriously your commitment to science and I seriously doubt your understanding of it as well. You have a primarily political agenda, and that causes you to respond critically to any mention of a non-CO2 driver. You may continue to pretend that the prediction track record is on the money, but the facts demonstrate that the track record is abysmal. And yes, I can post links as a testament to AGW prediction failures.
Click to expand...
FACTS HAVE DEMONSTRATED! LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU. No I wont look at your links, they might contain facts that disagree with me.
 
humbolt said:
What? Do you AGW guys eat a box of condescension every morning? You have absolutely no idea what I know or don't know. None. The AGW community as a whole needs to go back about thirty years and clean up the data mess they created, and worse, seem content to maintain.

I understand weather forecasting quite well. Now, climate change scenarios is interesting. What scenarios would be contemplated?

The OP is interesting. It probably isn't a significant factor all by itself, but it does highlight that there are probably far more events occurring that influence climate than we know. Nobody with any credibility at all believes we shouldn't seek to reduce carbon emissions. I would note, however, that it's hardly possible to tax orbital changes.
Click to expand...

Wait a second, you attacked my use of the word "consensus" in relation to model runs. Various models use differing techniques and make various assumptions, make use of different grid sizes and so on. No single model can be relied upon as the single best for all conditions. The approach taken is to blend the various model outputs to arrive at a most likely solution. Occasionally a particular model may show particular skill and forecasters my prefer it's output alone depending on the scenario.

Every time a temperature dataset is tweaked, the intent is to clean up the mess as you put it. The raw data gathered from thousands of land based observations, bouys and ships is the mess you refer to. Every time an agency does what you ask for, the denier community claims foul. We can't win.
 
Russell797 said:
How many degrees Celsius below the predicted consensus mean is the global surface temperature at this point in time?
Click to expand...
To answer the question would require us to know what the predicted global surface temperature at this point in time?
There are several problems with that, the first being that the models did not model the surface temperatures,
but we do have some reference points.
An article in Nature in discussing the global warming hiatus, talks about what they expected.
Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment
Stark contrast

On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it. Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.
Click to expand...
Since the article was written in 2014, and the reference data has changed, I will refer to the current data.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/...time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
In 2014 they said the 2 decades preceding 1998 had warming of 0.21 °C per decade, that they expected to continue.
1998 .536
2015 .746
delta .21, .21/1.7 decades = .12 C per decade
Under the criteria used in the article, the current temperatures are .09 X 1.7=.153 C below the predictions.

2015 is questionable data however as 25% of the year is contaminated with strong El Nino temperatures.
(I know that they used another El Nino year (1998) in the original warming calculation, but it is constrained
within their model already.)
If we evaluated only to 2014 (pre El Nino) the numbers change quite a bit.
1998 .536
2014 .567
delta .031, .031/1.6 decades = .019 C per decade.
In this case the error from the predictions is much greater, .21-.019= .191 X 1.6= .305 C below prediction.
What all this really shows, is that the noise of the normal temperature cycles is is so great that
sliding one year can double the per decade rate.
Our climate system is very noisy for the surface temperatures, which is why the models,
model the surface troposphere system.
 
I think a lot of people need to understand that "predicted global surface temperature at this point" isn't a single number.
 
longview said:
To answer the question would require us to know what the predicted global surface temperature at this point in time?
There are several problems with that, the first being that the models did not model the surface temperatures,
but we do have some reference points.
An article in Nature in discussing the global warming hiatus, talks about what they expected.
Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment

Since the article was written in 2014, and the reference data has changed, I will refer to the current data.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/...time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
In 2014 they said the 2 decades preceding 1998 had warming of 0.21 °C per decade, that they expected to continue.
1998 .536
2015 .746
delta .21, .21/1.7 decades = .12 C per decade
Under the criteria used in the article, the current temperatures are .09 X 1.7=.153 C below the predictions.

2015 is questionable data however as 25% of the year is contaminated with strong El Nino temperatures.
(I know that they used another El Nino year (1998) in the original warming calculation, but it is constrained
within their model already.)
If we evaluated only to 2014 (pre El Nino) the numbers change quite a bit.
1998 .536
2014 .567
delta .031, .031/1.6 decades = .019 C per decade.
In this case the error from the predictions is much greater, .21-.019= .191 X 1.6= .305 C below prediction.
What all this really shows, is that the noise of the normal temperature cycles is is so great that
sliding one year can double the per decade rate.
Our climate system is very noisy for the surface temperatures, which is why the models,
model the surface troposphere system.
Click to expand...

LOL! SO what you do in this 'noisy system' is make sure you pick the hottest year (1998) to start with to identify this long term trend.

What a classic denier move.
 
Threegoofs said:
You're right.

Mostly because you havent demonstrated you really know anything, yet fire off broad, unsubstantiated, vague and ludicrous statements like the one that followed that sentence.

I'm sure if you demonstrated some sort of basic understanding rather than knee jerk denialism, you wouldnt meet with condescension.

But from what I have seen
Click to expand...
, you fully deserve ridicule.
Click to expand...

I doubt you've been around the planet long enough to have seen much of anything, and if you have, you have missed an amazing amount. Coming from a poster that doesn't read, you don't seem to know what you claim. This has already been adequately demonstrated. I need add nothing.
 
Deuce said:
No it doesn't.
Click to expand...

I leave that to other readers to decide for themselves. It appears that way to me because every time other elements possibly affecting our climate are mentioned, the usual crowd swoops in to highjack the conversation to one focusing on CO2, including the usual derision, condescension, and arrogance many of us have come to love about you guys. If the science was as robust as you claim, none of that crap would be needed.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL! SO what you do in this 'noisy system' is make sure you pick the hottest year (1998) to start with to identify this long term trend.

What a classic denier move.
Click to expand...
It was the nature article that picked 1998 not me.
They also counted that hottest year as part of the warming,
to show how quickly it had warmed.
Don't you think it is just as disingenuous to count a known El Nino period,
when showing how fast it is warming?
 
longview said:
That is not entirely correct, there are almost always assumed to be some unknown variables,
the goal is to identify as many as possible, such that the population of unknowns is minimal.
The modeling work with greenhouse gasses has helped us understand the atmospheric opacity
of the outgoing infrared, but that is only half of the energy equation.
We do not have a good idea on how the incoming atmospheric opacity has changed for the shorter
wavelengths (uv-vis).
Click to expand...

Ok, I agree with that. The impact of increased ultraviolet radiation emanating from solar faculae during increased solar magnetic activity is a matter of continuing research. The effects are mostly to the stratosphere where the bulk of that radiation is absorbed. This can alter the vertical temperature profile and the stratospheric winds which in turn can impact on the flow patterns within the troposphere.
 
Russell797 said:
Wait a second, you attacked my use of the word "consensus" in relation to model runs. Various models use differing techniques and make various assumptions, make use of different grid sizes and so on. No single model can be relied upon as the single best for all conditions. The approach taken is to blend the various model outputs to arrive at a most likely solution. Occasionally a particular model may show particular skill and forecasters my prefer it's output alone depending on the scenario.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is a reasonable statement about weather forecasting. It doesn't necessarily apply to climate, which was the point.

Every time a temperature dataset is tweaked, the intent is to clean up the mess as you put it. The raw data gathered from thousands of land based observations, bouys and ships is the mess you refer to. Every time an agency does what you ask for, the denier community claims foul. We can't win.
Click to expand...

There isn't any winning or losing here. I'm not asking nor expecting the temperature adjustments taken from current devices to be necessarily altered. I'm telling you that the original demonstrations of AGW were based on seriously flawed and compromised data. Now, I really can't tell anyone exactly how that could be done at this point because the toothpaste is out of the tube, so to speak. However, the notoriously false predictions made in the recent past reside partly in the faulty data. If you want to get wide spread public support, you should go back to the beginning and clean that up first.
 
humbolt said:
I leave that to other readers to decide for themselves. It appears that way to me because every time other elements possibly affecting our climate are mentioned, the usual crowd swoops in to highjack the conversation to one focusing on CO2, including the usual derision, condescension, and arrogance many of us have come to love about you guys. If the science was as robust as you claim, none of that crap would be needed.
Click to expand...

Riight. No derision and condescension from the "skeptics." Of course. You guys never do that. Keep trying to pretend you're taking the high road when every ****in day in this forum I get accused of being some kind of cult member.
 
Russell797 said:
I like Myles Allen's statement. The IPCC reports are not the Bible.

The earlier models were effectively linear extrapolations lacking the effects of natural variability for the simple reason that natural variability has been largely unpredictable in any short term detail. They could not for instance, predict a prolonged solar minimum during the first decade of the 21 century, the rate of volcanism, man made aerosols, the preponderance of La Nina conditions etc.

The various temperature scenarios are not etched in stone. To get a little bit technical, the computer simulations solve a boundary problem. What happens to X at equilibrium when you alter Y in the model? This is quite unlike weather forecasting models which are iterative problem solvers, where the beginning conditions can vary across the whole range of variables and where errors accumulate with each model run.
Click to expand...

Earlier models? The piece was written in 2013 and Allen's point politely made was there's too much dependence on the IPCC reports which do nothing but assimilate someone else's research that they chose to review while rejecting others. In other words GIGO.

unpredictable short term detail? Even long term detail is unpredictable given Nature is going to do what it wants to do and will screw up forecasts that don't account for it because they can't account for it. Thus the mistakes thinking, or letting you think, that such projections can be as accurate as mixing chemicals in a test tube.

Right ... not etched in stone ... meaning they couldn't predict nature ... and Nature didn't rear it's head only in the 20th century making it difficult for those poor wretched souls that feed the IPCC their gruel.

That wasn't technical. That was obvious. And it's been the point all along. And it recalls the point that researchers have found that Mann's computer models produced a warming when random numbers were fed in.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Riight. No derision and condescension from the "skeptics." Of course. You guys never do that. Keep trying to pretend you're taking the high road when every ****in day in this forum I get accused of being some kind of cult member.
Click to expand...

What term connoting the opposite of "denier" would you prefer?
 
longview said:
To answer the question would require us to know what the predicted global surface temperature at this point in time?
There are several problems with that, the first being that the models did not model the surface temperatures,
but we do have some reference points.
An article in Nature in discussing the global warming hiatus, talks about what they expected.
Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment


Since the article was written in 2014, and the reference data has changed, I will refer to the current data.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/...time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
In 2014 they said the 2 decades preceding 1998 had warming of 0.21 °C per decade, that they expected to continue.
1998 .536
2015 .746
delta .21, .21/1.7 decades = .12 C per decade
Under the criteria used in the article, the current temperatures are .09 X 1.7=.153 C below the predictions.

2015 is questionable data however as 25% of the year is contaminated with strong El Nino temperatures.
(I know that they used another El Nino year (1998) in the original warming calculation, but it is constrained
within their model already.)
If we evaluated only to 2014 (pre El Nino) the numbers change quite a bit.
1998 .536
2014 .567
delta .031, .031/1.6 decades = .019 C per decade.
In this case the error from the predictions is much greater, .21-.019= .191 X 1.6= .305 C below prediction.
What all this really shows, is that the noise of the normal temperature cycles is is so great that
sliding one year can double the per decade rate.
Our climate system is very noisy for the surface temperatures, which is why the models,
model the surface troposphere system.
Click to expand...

Try it from Super El Nino 97-98 to Super El Nino 15-16 to compare relatively similar apples in GISS. Bear in mind that 16 is not yet complete.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
 
Russell797 said:
Ok, I agree with that. The impact of increased ultraviolet radiation emanating from solar faculae during increased solar magnetic activity is a matter of continuing research. The effects are mostly to the stratosphere where the bulk of that radiation is absorbed. This can alter the vertical temperature profile and the stratospheric winds which in turn can impact on the flow patterns within the troposphere.
Click to expand...
In addition, is the question is how the energy reaching the ground has changed in the last 30 years.
While it may seem small, the discovery in the last few years that thunderstorms emit gamma rays,
could also enter into the energy balance.
In quantum physics, we tend to think of how energy decays to ground state only,
but there other paths, (although rare) where second harmonics, can cause higher energy emissions.
I know it can be proven mathematically, but I was in doubt until I saw green light coming from a IR Yag laser.
 
longview said:
It was the nature article that picked 1998 not me.
They also counted that hottest year as part of the warming,
to show how quickly it had warmed.
Don't you think it is just as disingenuous to count a known El Nino period,
when showing how fast it is warming?
Click to expand...

And that Nature article was brought into the discussion....by you.

I think using a moving average is probably a better way to look at warming rates, the longer the better.
 
jmotivator said:
Stand to reason that all of the the contributors that we don't know about yet have yet to be considered.
Click to expand...

T h is one alone should be figured into every prediction.It affects the whole planet at once.
 
Here's a pretty good description of this topic.



As he points out near the end, the one thing the data doesn't suggest a precedent for is the PPM of atmospheric CO2. So unless our ice core measurements have some sort of inherent major flaw or inaccuracy, there hasn't been this level of atmospheric CO2 at any point in the last 420,000 years or so.
 
Threegoofs said:
And that Nature article was brought into the discussion....by you.

I think using a moving average is probably a better way to look at warming rates, the longer the better.
Click to expand...
I cited the nature article, but that does not effect the end date they selected, or their methodology used.
 
Threegoofs said:
Precisely why you selected it!
Click to expand...
Thank you for reading my mind!:mrgreen:
I cited the article, because it references the amount of warming the models were expecting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom