Why worry about global warming? (2)

RickG · Nov 24, 2011

dad said:
I think we all had some inkling the numbers were data but let me ask the relevant question here....how far back in time do they supposedly represent, and based exactly on what facts? In other words, we don't want someone playing stick a number on every foot of a mile long ice core, pretending that it has some meaning, or some such! I don't dazzle easy, so smoke and mirrors and a meaningless splattering of number confetti really cannot help your attempted case here.

Again you have a misunderstanding about the information I posted about the Milankovitch Cycles, as well as the specific data set to which you are inquiring. Perhaps this because you may be looking for information to support preconceived ideas rather than letting the science show you what it is. This is often a problem among people who have little or no understanding of the actual science.

Recall the three variations included in the Milankovitch Cycles, eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession. Those three specific phenomena are observed and measured. There is no guess work or assumptions about it, they are direct measurements. So we know what is happening and at what rate each is progressing. From that all one needs to do is work back mathematically in time. Because each of these three factors affect the amount of solar irradiation striking the earth, the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) varies. So when working with and incorporating all three variables the TSI shown to vary as well. As I mentioned previously, it so happens that approximately every 100,000 years those the variable combine to make favorable conditions for either warming or cooling of global average temperatures (GAT). The graphs I previously posted demonstrate the process extremely well.

The data set to which you are inquiring about how far in time it goes back is not from ice cores as you appear to be suggesting. It is a computation of TSI based on the Milankovitch Cycles which goes back 5 million years. Here are the specifics on the dataset.

Berger, A., 1992, Orbital Variations and Insolation Database. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 92-007. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

This data set contains data on changes in the earth's orbital parameters, and the resulting variations in insolation. The directory contains both the 1978 calculations and the latest (1991) solution by A. Berger. The 1978 solution is preferred for time 0 (1950 A.D.). The two solutions are equivalent through 800 KYBP, and the 1991 solution is preferred for times greater than 800 KYBP.

eclipsenow · Nov 25, 2011

RickG said:
Again you have a misunderstanding about the information I posted about the Milankovitch Cycles, as well as the specific data set to which you are inquiring. Perhaps this because you may be looking for information to support preconceived ideas rather than letting the science show you what it is. This is often a problem among people who have little or no understanding of the actual science.

Recall the three variations included in the Milankovitch Cycles, eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession. Those three specific phenomena are observed and measured. There is no guess work or assumptions about it, they are direct measurements. So we know what is happening and at what rate each is progressing. From that all one needs to do is work back mathematically in time. Because each of these three factors affect the amount of solar irradiation striking the earth, the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) varies. So when working with and incorporating all three variables the TSI shown to vary as well. As I mentioned previously, it so happens that approximately every 100,000 years those the variable combine to make favorable conditions for either warming or cooling of global average temperatures (GAT). The graphs I previously posted demonstrate the process extremely well.

The data set to which you are inquiring about how far in time it goes back is not from ice cores as you appear to be suggesting. It is a computation of TSI based on the Milankovitch Cycles which goes back 5 million years. Here are the specifics on the dataset.

Berger, A., 1992, Orbital Variations and Insolation Database. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 92-007. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

This data set contains data on changes in the earth's orbital parameters, and the resulting variations in insolation. The directory contains both the 1978 calculations and the latest (1991) solution by A. Berger. The 1978 solution is preferred for time 0 (1950 A.D.). The two solutions are equivalent through 800 KYBP, and the 1991 solution is preferred for times greater than 800 KYBP.

Do you know why the Earth has these wobbles and how they are measured? Are they left over from the 'Big Whack?' I'm only a lay-person reader, not a scientist into formulas. I love the Executive Summaries. So if you could ... be gentle ... Take it easy on the terminology. If you break it into English, we'll both understand it better.

Chalnoth · Nov 25, 2011

eclipsenow said:
Do you know why the Earth has these wobbles and how they are measured? Are they left over from the 'Big Whack?' I'm only a lay-person reader, not a scientist into formulas. I love the Executive Summaries. So if you could ... be gentle ... Take it easy on the terminology. If you break it into English, we'll both understand it better.

It's much, much simpler than that. Basically, a rotating body like the Earth doesn't generally stay rotating in the same direction. The direction of rotation will naturally shift due to various processes. For example, the fact that we have a moon that is orbiting us on a different axis than our rotation axis adds a torque which, in turn, causes the direction the North Pole points to change slowly over time.

There are other shifts as well, and they can all be calculated based upon relatively simple physics. The calculations can get a bit nasty, of course, because these aren't terribly simple systems, but it's mostly just good ol' Newtonian physics at work here.

RickG · Nov 25, 2011

eclipsenow said:
Do you know why the Earth has these wobbles and how they are measured? Are they left over from the 'Big Whack?' I'm only a lay-person reader, not a scientist into formulas. I love the Executive Summaries. So if you could ... be gentle ... Take it easy on the terminology. If you break it into English, we'll both understand it better.

That area of science was not my academic field, so the exact formulas used and measuring techniques are not something that I would be familiar with. What is important is that I understand the basics of the the Milankovitch Cycles and how to utilize the data. Therefore, the overall variations of total solar irradiation coming to the earth which affect the earths energy balance. The interesting thing about climatology, like many scientific disciplines, is that it draws information from numerous other fields of science; some of which are geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, geochronology, oceanography and geomorphology to name a few. The NOAA site I provided for "dad", or more specifically the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) serves as a depository of climate and related data which, though targeted for the scientific community, is also freely available to anyone on the planet.

But if you are still interested in how those cycles are calculated I did locate a link that appears to be friendly to most laypeople.

Calculation of Earth's precession

That site explains what precession is, what causes it, and walks you through the calculations. Pretty neat stuff.

cupid dave · Nov 25, 2011

serenity2517 said:
"Why worry about global warming?"

Yes, the point ought to be to face reality by develp[ment of a verifible model of the True picture of the matter and then accepting the Trurth and acting accordingly.

We need tonderstand the good concequences and bad botn should we onclude that conditions will change.

Formstamce, flood oimsurance ought reflect the reality that certain area can not be so protected, and that farm land will disappear in some areas, while new lands will appear that are currently not good farm locations.

Populations need be encouraged to move, and fresh water from the melting glaciers capitalizwd on with pipe lines to cities rthge way we ship oil.

We need gat more comprehensive and more positive in our views and less fear baiting for political reasons like raising taxes.

If the science is so accurate that the future brings change, business needs to exploit the changes in ways that are ommericially viable and profitable for humanity.

In other words, the reality is that we need to change our economics, not our political party.

dad · Nov 25, 2011

RickG said:
Again you have a misunderstanding about the information I posted about the Milankovitch Cycles, as well as the specific data set to which you are inquiring. Perhaps this because you may be looking for information to support preconceived ideas rather than letting the science show you what it is. This is often a problem among people who have little or no understanding of the actual science.

Recall the three variations included in the Milankovitch Cycles, eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession. Those three specific phenomena are observed and measured. There is no guess work or assumptions about it, they are direct measurements.

That is, of course totally false if you insinuate that any of these things were measured beyond the era of the flood. If the only measure you want to discuss is the last few thousand years, fine. Then it is irrelevant, basically. Now if we look at the tilt, as George Dodwell did, and compare it to actual monuments and events of history, apparently your graphs and lines don't match up with the clear trend of the actual curves. So we must simply look at what data is based ON! What would yous be based on concerning many thousands of years ago? When one delves into that, we see that it is fiction, in essence.

So we know what is happening and at what rate each is progressing. From that all one needs to do is work back mathematically in time. Because each of these three factors affect the amount of solar irradiation striking the earth, the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) varies.

No. If nature wasn't the same making such present state leaps of faith have no merit or basis in any fact. No can do.

So when working with and incorporating all three variables the TSI shown to vary as well. As I mentioned previously, it so happens that approximately every 100,000 years those the variable combine to make favorable conditions for either warming or cooling of global average temperatures (GAT). The graphs I previously posted demonstrate the process extremely well.

Correction, you mean IF our present rules and nature existed always, it woulda taken so many imaginary years in this nature to do all that we think needs to have been done. Meaningless.

The data set to which you are inquiring about how far in time it goes back is not from ice cores as you appear to be suggesting. It is a computation of TSI based on the Milankovitch Cycles which goes back 5 million years. Here are the specifics on the dataset.

In other words fantasy. Thanks for admitting that! Saves us time. This religious nonsense gets wearisome and is comically circular.

This data set contains data on changes in the earth's orbital parameters, and the resulting variations in insolation. The directory contains both the 1978 calculations and the latest (1991) solution by A. Berger. The 1978 solution is preferred for time 0 (1950 A.D.). The two solutions are equivalent through 800 KYBP, and the 1991 solution is preferred for times greater than 800 KYBP.

Find someone capable of putting this in simple english, and the mystery will dissipate! Show clearly, in an articulate way, how the dots are connected? How do you draw the line from 1978 to the furthest misty ends of unknown time?

Ice age? I assume that was post flood. That can't help you at all.

eclipsenow · Nov 25, 2011

dad said:
So we must simply look at what data is based ON! What would yous be based on concerning many thousands of years ago? When one delves into that, we see that it is fiction, in essence.

Your bad hermeneutics of Genesis are like rose-coloured glasses distorting nearly everything else you read. Discussing climate change with you is completely pointless until you remove those Creationist glasses. I'm utterly bored of you stomping your foot and shouting "NO NO NO!" with your fingers in your ears, simply because you 'believe in' a young earth the bible simply does not comment on, let alone require.

dad · Nov 27, 2011

eclipsenow said:
Your bad hermeneutics of Genesis are like rose-coloured glasses distorting nearly everything else you read. Discussing climate change with you is completely pointless until you remove those Creationist glasses. I'm utterly bored of you stomping your foot and shouting "NO NO NO!" with your fingers in your ears, simply because you 'believe in' a young earth the bible simply does not comment on, let alone require.

So when pressed as to the actual meaning of the data, and specific bridge to the far past you come up with this. OK. As lurkers will note the intellectually bankrupt retreat is what it is.

Anyone else that cares to address the issue, feel free. Your posts don't rank boring. They actually barely rank insignificant.

eclipsenow · Nov 27, 2011

Rick G, it's been interesting. I'll catch you round some other time. But quite frankly, 'Dad' has bored me off this thread.

(there's nothing to see here.... unsubscribes)

RickG · Nov 27, 2011

One of the really neat tools in paleoclimatology is paleothermometry, which is a way of determining temperatures in past climates. As it turns out, phase differences in stable isotopes is dependent upon temperature and tend to fractionate. This not only occurs in ice cores, but minerals and ocean sediments as well.

dad · Nov 28, 2011

RickG said:
One of the really neat tools in paleoclimatology is paleothermometry, which is a way of determining temperatures in past climates. As it turns out, phase differences in stable isotopes is dependent upon temperature and tend to fractionate. This not only occurs in ice cores, but minerals and ocean sediments as well.

Meaningless. phase differences as determined in this state apply only...where, class? Right. In this state! This stuff is easy.

RickG · Nov 29, 2011

dad said:
Meaningless. phase differences as determined in this state apply only...where, class? Right. In this state! This stuff is easy.

Please review my post on page 22, post 220. Thank you.

dad · Dec 1, 2011

RickG said:
Please review my post on page 22, post 220. Thank you.

Address this post. This issue. Here. Now. What's next, a request to address post 2200?

RickG · Dec 1, 2011

dad said:
Address this post. This issue. Here. Now. What's next, a request to address post 2200?

Three questions to you dad.

I. Do you believe global warming is happening.
2. If global warming is occurring, is man partly responsible?
3. Is global warming a threat to future generations?

Upisoft · Dec 1, 2011

RickG said:
Three questions to you dad.

I. Do you believe global warming is happening.
2. If global warming is occurring, is man partly responsible?
3. Is global warming a threat to future generations?

Is dad that special? May I plug in?

1. What is global warming? I can't say something is happening if I don't know what is it.
2. No.
3. Unknown. Something is guaranteed to kill us sooner or later, so why worry?

Chalnoth · Dec 1, 2011

Upisoft said:
Is dad that special? May I plug in?

1. What is global warming? I can't say something is happening if I don't know what is it.
2. No.
3. Unknown. Something is guaranteed to kill us sooner or later, so why worry?

1. Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth.
2. Wow. You must be something special. You can categorically state that nearly every scientist on Earth is wrong?
3. With that kind of attitude, why should we ever do anything? Why should we research new vaccines or antibiotics? Why should we research cures for cancers?

Upisoft · Dec 1, 2011

Chalnoth said:
1. Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth.
2. Wow. You must be something special. You can categorically state that nearly every scientist on Earth is wrong?
3. With that kind of attitude, why should we ever do anything? Why should we research new vaccines or antibiotics? Why should we research cures for cancers?

1. Yeah that happens. For example the global temperatures during the middle ages were higher than they are now, so it makes sense they can vary.
2. Nope, not every scientist.
3. Because we want to?

Chalnoth · Dec 1, 2011

Upisoft said:
1. Yeah that happens. For example the global temperatures during the middle ages were higher than they are now, so it makes sense they can vary.

It's not clear that was anything more than a regional effect, and even in that case its magnitude was much smaller (and much slower!) than the current warming. And no, certainly not warmer. See here:
Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Upisoft said:
2. Nope, not every scientist.

The word "nearly" was in there for a very good reason. Some 90% of all scientists who are actively publishing agree with the statement that humans are causing most of the increase in temperature. When you limit this to only people who are climate scientists, that jumps to around 97%.

The fact of the matter is that if you want to believe something really really badly, you can pretty much always find somebody who at least has some nominal credentials to back you up. Especially when that point of view is bolstered by large amounts of money from the fossil fuel industry.

Upisoft said:
3. Because we want to?

And you don't think avoiding flooding is a good thing to do?

Upisoft · Dec 1, 2011

Chalnoth said:
It's not clear that was anything more than a regional effect, and even in that case its magnitude was much smaller (and much slower!)

If it was only regional effect then "global" warming makes no sense, because the temperatures are only measured regionally.

If not, then current "global" warming could be regional too. (if global = regional)

Chalnoth said:
The word "nearly" was in there for a very good reason. Some 90% of all scientists who are actively publishing agree with the statement that humans are causing most of the increase in temperature. When you limit this to only people who are climate scientists, that jumps to around 97%.

Talk about agumentum ad populum.

Chalnoth said:
The fact of the matter is that if you want to believe something really really badly, you can pretty much always find somebody who at least has some nominal credentials to back you up. Especially when that point of view is bolstered by large amounts of money from the fossil fuel industry.

And you don't think avoiding flooding is a good thing to do?

There is nothing wrong with fossil industry. The supply is limited, so is fossil industry. Also you can't avoid flooding, it will happen sooner or later for one or another reason. It does not matter. See what happened in Japan after the big earthquake.

Chalnoth · Dec 1, 2011

Upisoft said:
If it was only regional effect then "global" warming makes no sense, because the temperatures are only measured regionally.

If not, then current "global" warming could be regional too. (if global = regional)

You're confusing things. The part that was regional was the midieval warm period. And if you spent two seconds to look at the link, you'd see it directly disproves your claim that the Earth was warmer then: it absolutely wasn't.

Upisoft said:
Talk about agumentum ad populum.

Let's go back a moment. These aren't the general populace. These are experts who have dedicated their lives to understanding reality. They overwhelmingly agree that the Earth is warming and humans are causing it. And you have the audacity to just disregard that without a shred of evidence to back up your ridiculous assertion? Preposterous.

Upisoft said:
There is nothing wrong with fossil industry. The supply is limited, so is fossil industry. Also you can't avoid flooding, it will happen sooner or later for one or another reason. It does not matter. See what happened in Japan after the big earthquake.

What's wrong is that they're putting out lots of money to prevent any political action to stop global warming.

And while you can't avoid some floods, having ocean levels rise by a full meter in the next century is going to cause a tremendous number of them.

Why worry about global warming? (2)

Senior Veteran

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

cupid dave

Guest

Undefeated!

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Undefeated!

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Senior Veteran

Undefeated!

Senior Veteran

Undefeated!

Senior Veteran

CEO of a waterfal

Senior Contributor

CEO of a waterfal

Senior Contributor

CEO of a waterfal

Senior Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency