Climate Change

[hcap]

Originally Posted by zico20

Should the temperature have been warming instead of cooling from the 1940s through the 1970s. Everything you say that is causing global warming today was happening during that 30 year span.

Climatologists look at periods greater than 30 years before they "spot" a trend. This shows a long term trend during the 20th century.



This shows a longer "trend" from 1600.



This is the last 1000 tears.



The take away from the last two is the coo relation between the industrial revolution and the accelerating increases in global temperatures

[hcap]

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

And here is CO2 in the earths atmosphere.

[incoming]

Dear hcap,

Your internet education is well documented.....again.....again......and again.


carry on....carry on

[hcap]

Originally Posted by incoming

Dear hcap,

Your internet education is well documented.....again.....again......and again.

carry on....carry on

Your inability to discuss science is very well documented by your woeful lack of knowledge.

No one on this board is a climatologist.! But discerning truth from fiction is possible by educating oneself. All I get from most PA off topic political hacks, are ad hominem insults

[incoming]

I will close with this, it was never about science it was always about politics. If global warming had gone thru proper channels it would never have made it out of the House. Democrats did what they always do best when they can't win at the ballot box. They circumvent the Constitution or any laws that stand in their way. My most recent battle cry.....remember Britt Kavanaugh. I promise we will touch base at the next New Democrat Party debacle.

[davew]

Originally Posted by hcap

Your inability to discuss science is very well documented by your woeful lack of knowledge.

No one on this board is a climatologist.! But discerning truth from fiction is possible by educating oneself. All I get from most PA off topic political hacks, are ad hominem insults

this chart proves all of your posts about agw, I was wrong

[hcap]

Originally Posted by incoming

I will close with this, it was never about science it was always about politics.

Only for anti-science paranoid rethugs and the alt right which wallows in cosmic conspiracy theories and secret cabals.

If global warming had gone thru proper channels it would never have made it out of the House. Democrats did what they always do best when they can't win at the ballot box. They circumvent the Constitution or any laws that stand in their way. My most recent battle cry.....remember Britt Kavanaugh. I promise we will touch base at the next New Democrat Party debacle.

The concept of AGW did not originate in the house of representatives.

It dates back to the early 19th century when ice ages and other natural changes in paleoclimate were first suspected and the natural greenhouse effect first identified. In the late 19th century, scientists first argued that human emissions of greenhouse gases could change the climate

However the reactionary loonies on the United States House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, like J. Inhofe are best-known for their denial of global warming.

The proper channels are not political, but rather scientific

[hcap]

Originally Posted by davew

this chart proves all of your posts about agw, I was wrong

Good, so let's discuss the science of AGW

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by hcap

Your inability to discuss science is very well documented by your woeful lack of knowledge.

No one on this board is a climatologist.! But discerning truth from fiction is possible by educating oneself. All I get from most PA off topic political hacks, are ad hominem insults

Just in the interest of full disclosure, I taught an introductory college course on weather and climate. I wouldn't claim to be a climatologist, but I think I can claim to have a greater knowledge about how weather and climate work than your average guy on the street.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by zico20

Should the temperature have been warming instead of cooling from the 1940s through the 1970s. Everything you say that is causing global warming today was happening during that 30 year span.

I did not make up 30 years as the minimum to identify a climate trend.

Climatologists define a climatic normal as the arithmetic average of a climate element such as temperature over a prescribed 30-year interval. The 30 year interval was selected by international agreement, based on the recommendations of the International Meteorological Conference in Warsaw in 1933. The 30 year interval is sufficiently long to filter out many of the short-term interannual fluctuations and anomalies, but sufficiently short so as to be used to reflect longer term climatic trends.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Just in the interest of full disclosure, I taught an introductory college course on weather and climate. I wouldn't claim to be a climatologist, but I think I can claim to have a greater knowledge about how weather and climate work than your average guy on the street.

Do you agree it is possible to discern truths about AGW, without becoming a credentialed climatologist?

What is your take on politicizing the entire issue?

[davew]

Vostock ice core samples suggest carbon dioxide lags temperature and 320,000 years ago the temperatures and carbon dioxide are higher than now. I can't explain this problem with the accepted by 97% scientific proof of manmade global warming. Maybe there was an advanced human civilization that nearly became extinct? or maybe the data needs normalized to fit the current theories and models?

https://www.newscientist.com/article...lobal-warming/


https://www.collective-evolution.com...-not-man-made/

If 40 years of weather define a manmade problem, does that mean the 'Milankovitch cycle' theory involving earth axis and rotation is wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

[hcap]

Originally Posted by davew

Vostock ice core samples suggest carbon dioxide lags temperature and 320,000 years ago the temperatures and carbon dioxide are higher than now. I can't explain this problem with the accepted by 97% scientific proof of manmade global warming. Maybe there was an advanced human civilization that nearly became extinct? or maybe the data needs normalized to fit the current theories and models?

https://www.newscientist.com/article...lobal-warming/


https://www.collective-evolution.com...-not-man-made/
Figure 2: Average global temperature (blue), Antarctic temperature (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots). Source.

If 40 years of weather define a manmade problem, does that mean the 'Milankovitch cycle' theory involving earth axis and rotation is wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Get with the current news.

YOUR ARTICLE IS OVER 10 YEARS OLD.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that:

The Earth's orbital cycles triggered warming in the Arctic approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water.

This influx of fresh water then disrupted ocean current circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres.

The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls. This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, releasing it into the atmosphere.

While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 2)below



Figure 2: Average global temperature (blue), Antarctic temperature (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots). Source.

[hcap]

Details on the 2012 study by Shakun et al.


Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
https://skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html

Also discusses Milankovitch cycles

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by hcap

Do you agree it is possible to discern truths about AGW, without becoming a credentialed climatologist?

What is your take on politicizing the entire issue?

Well, I'd say if a major league pitcher can throw a devastating curve ball, it isn't important for him to know any of the physics about why the ball curves.

In other terms, about anybody with a bit of science background can read scientific papers and determine if the conclusions are worth buying.

Decision-makers are not going to do anything to deal with the problem unless they first acknowledge the problem. Many of the anti-climate change people worry that fixing the CO2 problem will hurt industries and jobs. Certainly the word taxes is anathema to the right, so the idea of a carbon tax doesn't sound great.

The problem, if it is going to be solved, is going to be solved by younger generations who don't want to live in the miserable place their parents and grandparents left them.