Climate literacy

originally posted by: WilliamR
a reply to: Mach2

Therefore, it, by definition, doesn't matter the most. I have an open mind about AGW, but when you make an illogical statement like that, it seems like you are cherry picking data to support a theory.

If you want to find out how the place where you live has changed, where do you look?

What would logic tell us?


I think it is difficult to discuss all things at once, that's why i made the comment about keeping the discussion focused. There wouldn't be any reason for me to still follow the science if my mind was made up.

If where you live is your specific concern, then yes, by all means, look at that limited information.

Specific areas, however, are not particularly relevant to global climate change, in general.

Some areas get warmer, some get colder.
It is not, necessarily indicative of the planet, as a whole.

a reply to: InTheLight

Of course it does, perhaps you need to take a closer look. Also why dismiss carbon and methane in the atmosphere as a contributing factor for regional climate change?

I'm not dismissing anything. But causation requires correlation.

Again, the idea is to go and actively look if and where we can find clear signatures of any potential causes. It is difficult to discuss climate changes in the abstract, but we have the data to provide a full context.

originally posted by: WilliamR
a reply to: InTheLight

Of course it does, perhaps you need to take a closer look. Also why dismiss carbon and methane in the atmosphere as a contributing factor for regional climate change?

I'm not dismissing anything. But causation requires correlation.

Again, the idea is to go and actively look if and where we can find clear signatures of any potential causes. It is difficult to discuss climate changes in the abstract, but we have the data to provide a full context.

Nothing Mach2 nor I have posted is in the abstract.

a reply to: InTheLight

You're not curious to see how the region you live in has changed, and what that could mean in a larger context?

Maybe there is a misunderstanding, i tried to be as clear as possible, i apologize if it wasn't clear enough.

This was never meant to say we should stop at surface temperatures, but it it a place where we can start.

originally posted by: WilliamR
a reply to: InTheLight

You're not curious to see how the region you live in has changed, and what that could mean in a larger context?

Maybe there is a misunderstanding, i tried to be as clear as possible, i apologize if it wasn't clear enough.

This was never meant to say we should stop at surface temperatures, but it it a place where we can start.

I am the type of person that likes to look at the whole picture because they say you can't see the forest for the trees.

a reply to: InTheLight

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

originally posted by: WilliamR
a reply to: InTheLight

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

Right now I include Sun activity, human activity/pollution, surface warming trends (oceans/winds), ending with regional climate changes. It is a daunting task.

originally posted by: WilliamR
a reply to: InTheLight

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

Milankovitch cycles, cycles of solar output, ice core data, are all historic patterns that need to be taken into account.

Changes in ocean currents, due to continental drift, among other things, also have widespread effects, when looking at longer time periods.

I have never suggested that humans, and the industrial revolution have no effect, but the regional surface data you point to, is not the foundation you think it is, IMO.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: WilliamR
a reply to: InTheLight

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

Right now I include Sun activity, human activity/pollution, surface warming trends (oceans/winds), ending with regional climate changes. It is a daunting task.

We, apparently, have a similar thought process, as it relates to this issue.

Have you ever looked into Milankovitch cycles? They throw a whole new monkey into the wrench.

a reply to: Mach2

Milankovitch cycles, cycles of solar output, ice core data, are all historic patterns that need to be taken into account.

Milankovitch says the planet should be cooling slowly, a bit. Instead it's warming. Rapidly.
Sun does not seem to be getting warmer.
The things that caused warming in the past don't seem to be happening. But maybe it's something we don't know about. Maybe it isn't CO2.

Changes in ocean currents, due to continental drift, among other things, also have widespread effects, when looking at longer time periods.

Changes in ocean currents change how heat is distributed on the planet, they do not increase the total amount of heat in the system. CO2 can.


(sorry OP, but your thread was pretty much destined to go here)

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: WilliamR
a reply to: InTheLight

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

Right now I include Sun activity, human activity/pollution, surface warming trends (oceans/winds), ending with regional climate changes. It is a daunting task.

We, apparently, have a similar thought process, as it relates to this issue.

Have you ever looked into Milankovitch cycles? They throw a whole new monkey into the wrench.

No, but I will and planetary alignments may be another one.

a reply to: InTheLight

The Milankovich cycles involve cyclical changes in Earth's orbit and axial tilt. Both are affected by the gravitational effects of other planets but not so much with "alignments." There is strong evidence that these cycles are what influence glacial and interglacial cycles on Earth.

Here's a fun thing:
biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu...

a reply to: Phage

You took my reply a bit out of context. That is not like you at all.

OP posted:

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

I was just pointing out some other things, beyond his fascination with regional, localized data.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: InTheLight

The Milankovich cycles involve cyclical changes in Earth's orbit and axial tilt. Both are affected by the gravitational effects of other planets but not so much with "alignments." There is strong evidence that these cycles are what influence glacial and interglacial cycles on Earth.

Here's a fun thing:
biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu...

Yes, lots of fun.

I guess where I seem to be stuck regarding climate change is the drastic increase in temperatures from 1940 onwards, which I am attributing to pollution from population growth hence more fossil fuel usage, hence more meat eaters (methane), hence more industrialization, increased air conditioning (freon) earlier on (ozone depletion) and now HFC etc.

a reply to: InTheLight

a reply to: Mach2

Thank you both for your contributions, but this is what i meant by discussing things all at once and in the abstract.

Each of the things you listed describe parts of the system in an abstract or theoretical form. You would still need to analyse each part individually to understand the relationship between them. That's what all the data sets are for.

We can examine that data, if for nothing else then at least out of curiosity.

a reply to: Mach2

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).


I too think that focusing on individual station data can be deceptive. That's why global temperature models don't do it that way. But I also think that showing people how to access the data (which some claim is hidden) is a good thing. As long as the proper caveats are provided.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Mach2

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


I too think that focusing on individual station data can be deceptive. That's why global temperature models don't do it that way. But I also think that showing people how to access the data (which some claim is hidden) is a good thing. As long as the proper caveats are provided.

I do believe there are other factors which have a greater influence on warming, yes, but over great periods of time, which has been proven via core samples. I am leaning on extremely short time events, from 1940 onwards, and looking at human activity along with Sun activity and other factors to try to figure out the abrupt change.

a reply to: WilliamR

I think you are missing my point.

Examining the data you are specifically pointing to is not of any great value, if you are not giving it context within the larger picture.

I understand what you are asking.

a reply to: Phage

(sorry OP, but your thread was pretty much destined to go here)

I thought so too, but i wasn't counting on the first 2 pages.

Milankovitch says the planet should be cooling slowly, a bit. Instead it's warming. Rapidly. Sun does not seem to be getting warmer. The things that caused warming in the past don't seem to be happening. But maybe it's something we don't know about. Maybe it isn't CO2.

Let's leave Milankovitch aside for a moment. Where and when, would you say, is it warming rapidly? Would be nice if we could start at places with good data.

a reply to: WilliamR

Where and when, would you say, is it warming rapidly? Would be nice if we could start at places with good data.

On average, across the entire planet. And that is what is important. As I pointed out, ocean currents redistribute heat through out the entire system. Ocean currents can change (ENSO and AMOC for example), but they do not cause the average temperature of the planet to rise. They do not cause the system to retain heat. A system the size of Earth carries a lot of "inertia". The amount of heat it contains is great and a slight change in temperature represents a great change in that heat. A seemingly small rise in average temperature over 100 years, represents a rapid change.


The trouble with starting with "good data", is that we have to look to data from the past if we are trying to determine if there is a trend. The data are getting better, but we still must deal with the past data. Much of that data has known weaknesses, known instrumental biases. Those biases can be corrected. But there is a great deal of misinformation about how, and why, those adjustments are made.

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

www.nytimes.com...