It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Climate literacy

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




My mistake, I interpreted your post to indicate that there were factors which are having a greater influence on the current warming trend than increasing CO2 levels (and their resultant feedback effects).


You don't really specify what you mean by current warming trend, but as stated that's not true.

The same natural processes that have operated for millennia still have the greatest influence on temperature changes on time scales that matter the most to humans. Climate science isn't really describing it as you stated, the signal or human signature is defined as emergent. That's one reason models are still unable to simulate key parts of the system.




I too think that focusing on individual station data can be deceptive. That's why global temperature models don't do it that way.



That's a weird statement. I never asked anyone to look at the data in isolation. The US is a good place to start with.




posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: WilliamR


You don't really specify what you mean by current warming trend, but as stated that's not true.
You deny that the planet is warming? I guess the conversation ends here.



That's one reason models are still unable to simulate key parts of the system.
And yet:
www.realclimate.org...


That's a weird statement. I never asked anyone to look at the data in isolation.
The OP is.

edit on 3/21/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/21/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: WilliamR


What would you say, represents the whole picture in way that is the closest to reality.

This wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like to answer.

There really is nothing we can accurately compare the climate to. The climate is a massively complex, non-linear, MIMO control system, much larger than anything we have ever successfully analyzed. It is often described as "chaotic," but in reality chaotic simply means "subject to random fluctuations," and random simply means "things we can't quantify accurately."

Just look at some of the feedbacks for the carbon dioxide concentration:
  • CO2 can absorb and re-emit a narrow band of EM radiation in the infrared range, which will reflect some heat energy back towards the planet. Positive feedback. Heat reflected is not a linear function of CO2 density. Non-linear positive feedback.
  • CO2 levels are one of the major controls on photosynthesis, which absorbs CO2 from the surrounding medium. Non-linear externally-regulated negative feedback.
  • Increased flora will, unless offset externally, lead to increased fauna feeding off the flora. Fauna will produce methane during the digestion process (which is more potent than CO2 as to spectrum absorption), but will also fertilize the soil via excretion. That's two nonlinear externally-influenced feedbacks, one positive and one negative.
  • Methane in the presence of sunlight and ozone will break down into water and carbon dioxide. That's a minor non-linear negative feedback.
And that's just for carbon-dioxide-related feedbacks. Now we can talk about urbanization (positive), albedo (compound non-linear positive), shift in black-body frequencies relative to CO2 absorption bands (non-linear undetermined), solar energy received (assumed constant with minimal feedback), actual heat produced through energy conversions (non-linear positive), Milankovitch cycles (non-linear undetermined), etc., etc., etc.

And that likely doesn't scratch the surface of the actual number of feedback mechanisms.

When confronted with analysis of any control circuit that is beyond direct analysis, the only realistic approach to verify stability is to observe actions outside normal parameters. The number of experiments that must be run to allow for non-linearity is an exponential function of the number of feedbacks. In addition, we obviously cannot suddenly increase the amount of CO2 to test what will happen and then put it back where it was if the system becomes unstable. So all we can do is observe, consider, and hypothesize... which is what climatology does. It takes questionable data and makes every attempt to validate it, then compares the actions of the climate under differing conditions to get an idea of what feedback systems matter to what degree both when they fluctuate alone and with other feedbacks.

That's a fancy way of saying we cannot look at climatology using the "all other things stable" approach. Non-linearity does not work like that. That's why non-linear analysis is so difficult.

I have done a partial analysis of my local climate using NOAA data from 1950. The result appears to me to be sinusoidal. If there is a hidden linear rise in temperature, I do not see it; it is so minimal as to be invisible against the backdrop of normal fluctuations. That tells me that, as long as the waveform appears primarily sinusoidal and not underdamped, we are not in any danger. I reject the populist concerns over Global Warming simply because they are political, not scientific.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


I guess the conversation ends here.

Yep, that's how science works, right? Disagreement requires ignorance of other possibilities.

Not.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

To quote a line from "Cool hand Luke"

"Some people you just cant reach"



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

This is not my first time at this particular ATS rodeo.
edit on 3/21/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Wish i could give you multiple stars for that post.

Very well done.

I rarely see things that well written, even in peer reviewed science journals.



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheRedneck

This is not my first time at this particular ATS rodeo.


You obviously are very skilled at bull riding.



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Mach2

Thank you.

Control Theory is my major in my post-grad work. I find it quite fascinating... and quite difficult to master. I think that's why I like it.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




On average, across the entire planet. And that is what is important.



The Average changes because of the changes in each individual part, not the other way around. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

Global averages serve a specific purpose, they can't show which part has changed.

There is nothing controversial about examining changes and what could have caused them, on a regional basis.



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: WilliamR
a reply to: Phage




On average, across the entire planet. And that is what is important.



The Average changes because of the changes in each individual part, not the other way around. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

Global averages serve a specific purpose, they can't show which part has changed.

There is nothing controversial about examining changes and what could have caused them, on a regional basis.



Where are your scientific sources for that claim? I would love to read them.



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: WilliamR


Global averages serve a specific purpose, they can't show which part has changed.


2018:



2017:

edit on 3/21/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




You deny that the planet is warming? I guess the conversation ends here.


That's a straw man. I said specifically that natural processes still dominate changes on time scales that matter. On the surface, in the regions where most humans live. That's the part this thread is about.

The global average has a warming trend, what does that mean for us.

There is nothing hidden here, i was open about each aspect in the OP. I think you know that.



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight


Where are your scientific sources for that claim? I would love to read them.

No "scientific sources" are needed to claim the average is dependent on the parts. That's the definition.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage






The Average changes because of the changes in each individual part, not the other way around. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

Global averages serve a specific purpose, they can't show which part has changed.


The context matters.

You can only see which part has changed and when, if you look the data in more detail.



There is no other way to start answering the questions that matter us. What can we learn from anomaly charts for 2 years?



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: WilliamR

One thing I noticed during my examination of my local temperature trends is that anomalies, as in extremes, are certainly not indicative of the average. As an example, there was one bitterly (and I mean bitterly!) cold winter a few year back that showed up clearly in the data. January and February were well below averages for those months and there were many records set. That same year, the summer temperatures never hit triple digits either, which is somewhat unusual. Yet, that year averaged to be as warm as the ones before and after it. The remainder of the year was slightly warmer than normal and offset the extreme but relatively brief colder temperatures.

When I see the word "anomalies," I start expecting incorrect assumptions since then. Anomalies are not averages, nor are indicative in any way of averages. They are abnormalities.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: WilliamR

I said specifically that natural processes still dominate changes on time scales that matter.
100 years matters to us. 200 years matters to us. 10,000 years, not so much.




The global average has a warming trend, what does that mean for us.

It means changing climates, changing agricultural patterns, a lot less rainfall in places, a lot more in others. It means rising sea levels with major impacts on coastal populations.

edit on 3/21/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/21/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: WilliamR


What can we learn from anomaly charts for 2 years?
Why only 2 years?




posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Anomalies are not averages, nor are indicative in any way of averages. They are abnormalities.

In this case they are the average deviation from a longer term average. As you say, it goes up and down. But the trend is not down, or level.
edit on 3/21/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So the trend is up. How much? Over what period of time? What form does the graph take? Is there a correlation? To what? To what degree? Is the correlation historically verified?

Just saying "the trend is upward" actually tells very little about what the trend will be.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join