Oooh, the earth has a "fever"
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
So. Tree rings. Oxygen isotope ratios. Lovely. Tree rings, especially. Because tree rings are not just governed by temperature, but water, nutrients, disease, etc. Lots of variables. Very precise, isn't it.
Are these same things used to measure temperature today?
"The largest fire starts but with the smallest spark." - David Crow
"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb
No, we use thermometers now. ;P
-
No, we use thermometers now. ;P
:-D
Ryan
"Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
you should really try reading some of the study before you start leaping to conclusions.
Fair enough. I didn't read the study first. However, in reading the brief, I can't help but think it's a lot of double speak. They talk about high and low confidence, and then say that: Despite these limitations, the committee finds that efforts to reconstruct temperature histories for broad geographic regions using multiproxy methods are an important contribution to climate research and that these large-scale surface temperature reconstructions contain meaningful climatic signals. Isn't that pushing an "agenda", when you say that you have low confidence in some of the analysis, yet it's still useful? And then there's the whole bizarre thing about 20th century warming but a little ice age. The thing is, it's written in a way to help you draw the conclusion that something we are doing is responsible for global warming, rather than a naturally occuring exit from the little ice age or other factors. The way I read it, it's full of hidden agenda. Marc Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
Marc Clifton wrote:
Isn't that pushing an "agenda", when you say that you have low confidence in some of the analysis, yet it's still useful?
the rest of that paragraph talks about why they think it's useful. and, they mention that their confidence overall goes up, when multiple proxies agree.
Marc Clifton wrote:
And then there's the whole bizarre thing about 20th century warming but a little ice age.
what's bizzare about the "Little Ice Age" ?
Marc Clifton wrote:
The thing is, it's written in a way to help you draw the conclusion that something we are doing is responsible for global warming, rather than a naturally occuring exit from the little ice age or other factors.
but they didn't write it that way because of some sinister "hidden agenda". they wrote it that way because that's what the bulk of current scientific research suggests. that question is pretty much settled, for the people who study such things. it's only the people who aren't climatologists who disagree... try this:
"Four out of five hairdressers agree: C# is a stupid language because it doesn't have pointers. Programmers who use C# disagree. Will the conflict ever be resolved ?"
-
No, we use thermometers now. ;P
I know that. The point I was trying to make is that unless we use the same tools then as we use now, can the results be entirely accurate?
"The largest fire starts but with the smallest spark." - David Crow
"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb
-
So read one headline from the Sydney Herald. Read down a bit, and they're talking about a 155 page paper that decides the earth has warmed by 1/2 degree C over the last 2000 years. 155 pages 1/2 degree C Fever. Riiiight. I wonder what the error was. +/- 5 C? I bet the error was more than the 1/2 degree C estimate. Sigh. It's hard to tell if the media gives science a bad name, or scientists do a fine job of it on their own. Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
With a thermometer big enough to accruate guauge the temperature of the other just were would you stick it? I suppose either the mouth of the world or the butt of the world but then someone would have to clarify just were those to regions exist? "Until the day of his death, no man can be sure of his courage" -- Jean Anouilh
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
So. Tree rings. Oxygen isotope ratios. Lovely. Tree rings, especially. Because tree rings are not just governed by temperature, but water, nutrients, disease, etc. Lots of variables. Very precise, isn't it.
Are these same things used to measure temperature today?
"The largest fire starts but with the smallest spark." - David Crow
"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb
DavidCrow wrote:
Are these same things used to measure temperature today?
according to this graph, yes[^] . the lines for all those different techniques continue into the present time. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Isn't that pushing an "agenda", when you say that you have low confidence in some of the analysis, yet it's still useful?
the rest of that paragraph talks about why they think it's useful. and, they mention that their confidence overall goes up, when multiple proxies agree.
Marc Clifton wrote:
And then there's the whole bizarre thing about 20th century warming but a little ice age.
what's bizzare about the "Little Ice Age" ?
Marc Clifton wrote:
The thing is, it's written in a way to help you draw the conclusion that something we are doing is responsible for global warming, rather than a naturally occuring exit from the little ice age or other factors.
but they didn't write it that way because of some sinister "hidden agenda". they wrote it that way because that's what the bulk of current scientific research suggests. that question is pretty much settled, for the people who study such things. it's only the people who aren't climatologists who disagree... try this:
"Four out of five hairdressers agree: C# is a stupid language because it doesn't have pointers. Programmers who use C# disagree. Will the conflict ever be resolved ?"
Intersting debate. I was going to give it to Marc on points, but Chris came back with a wicked left hook with his hairdesser comment. I'd say that the best estimate that climatologist have is that things are slightly warmer. In other words, if given the choice between the climate having gotten colder, warmer, or stayed the same... climatologists would pretty heavily favour "getting warmer." Of course that doesn't mean it actually hase gotten warmer. There seems to be a bit of an extrapaolation issue. But even if it has gotten warmer, the planet has a record of pretty dramatic temperature swings, long before humans had an opportunity to impact that temperature. Or said another way... humans didn't plunge us into the little ice age... so why would we conclude that humans are driving us out of it? The temperature of the planet goes up and down... I think what we are trying to do is "halt" thise fluctuations and keep the temeperature where we like it. That might be hard to do!!
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
maybe that "bad name" is a product of people who mock the results without taking the time to learn how they were derived.
Actually, I was going to write more, but decided not to. But since you ask, here's more: However, since proper thermometer records were not kept until the mid-19th century, scientists have had to use a number of interesting methods to infer temperature averages from different eras. OK, here's the first glint that "interesting methods" had to be used. Suspect #1 has arrived. Scientists preferred to measure the width of rings inside trees that were growing during the middle ages and also checked the ratios of oxygen isotopes in polar ice cores. So. Tree rings. Oxygen isotope ratios. Lovely. Tree rings, especially. Because tree rings are not just governed by temperature, but water, nutrients, disease, etc. Lots of variables. Very precise, isn't it. As to oxygen isotope ratios, again, it's conjecture as to how this correlates to temperature. Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
You forgot to point out 'Looking at paintings of glaciers from the 1800's' ... now THAT sounds scientific! Paul
-
You forgot to point out 'Looking at paintings of glaciers from the 1800's' ... now THAT sounds scientific! Paul
Paul Brower wrote:
You forgot to point out 'Looking at paintings of glaciers from the 1800's'
Yeah, I was ROTF when I read that. Painter: Hmm, this valley really needs a glacier in it to give it that "cold" feeling. :) Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Actually, I was going to write more, but decided not to
maybe you should have... a link would've been nice, too. here's the NAS report[^]. especially check out the report in brief[^]
• It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies. • Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.
the people who wrote the study are aware of the problems with some of their methods and they take those problems into account. you should really try reading some of the study before you start leaping to conclusions. the people who did the work aren't as dumb as you apparently think they are. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 9:48 Friday 23rd June, 2006
I think Marc's point is (and I agree with it) that when you are saying that your methods may have some trouble and your final result is half a degree, then perhaps you are within the margin for error. This doesn't jive with the global warming theorists of course which has become religion in some countries so they are interpreted as worst case. as a side note to that, I don't really know whether global warming is real or not but I think that the furor of it has gotten out of hand. Scientists who don't agree with the global warming position are piloried (sp?) endlessly for not falling into line. This is dangerous for science and the human race IMO.
-
I think Marc's point is (and I agree with it) that when you are saying that your methods may have some trouble and your final result is half a degree, then perhaps you are within the margin for error. This doesn't jive with the global warming theorists of course which has become religion in some countries so they are interpreted as worst case. as a side note to that, I don't really know whether global warming is real or not but I think that the furor of it has gotten out of hand. Scientists who don't agree with the global warming position are piloried (sp?) endlessly for not falling into line. This is dangerous for science and the human race IMO.
Allen Anderson wrote:
that when you are saying that your methods may have some trouble and your final result is half a degree, then perhaps you are within the margin for error.
but the "half a degree" is simply not the point of the study. the point of the study is to demonstrate the unusual increase in the last 100 years or so. yes, the earth's temperature goes up and down on it's own. but as far as we can tell, the rate of increase in past 100 years is unusual. again... go look at the pretty graph[^]
Allen Anderson wrote:
which has become religion
nonsense
Allen Anderson wrote:
Scientists who don't agree with the global warming position are piloried (sp?) endlessly for not falling into line
can you link to any specific examples of this ? can you show us scientists who did serious work who were shunned for not "falling into line" ? do you have any data at all to back up that statement ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
I read another headline yesterday that said it was the warmest in 400 years. Even if their methods of estimating temperatures before there were themometers were right, doesn't that just mean that 400 years ago it was the same temperature as it is today...when there were no cars?
yep. And according to some things I've read, the earth is currently in a relatively 'cool' period over the span of it's lifetime.
-
With a thermometer big enough to accruate guauge the temperature of the other just were would you stick it? I suppose either the mouth of the world or the butt of the world but then someone would have to clarify just were those to regions exist? "Until the day of his death, no man can be sure of his courage" -- Jean Anouilh
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
butt of the world
We in America call it "New Jersey". ... I know I'm gonna get flamed for that, but it was still fun.
-
With a thermometer big enough to accruate guauge the temperature of the other just were would you stick it? I suppose either the mouth of the world or the butt of the world but then someone would have to clarify just were those to regions exist? "Until the day of his death, no man can be sure of his courage" -- Jean Anouilh
-
-
Intersting debate. I was going to give it to Marc on points, but Chris came back with a wicked left hook with his hairdesser comment. I'd say that the best estimate that climatologist have is that things are slightly warmer. In other words, if given the choice between the climate having gotten colder, warmer, or stayed the same... climatologists would pretty heavily favour "getting warmer." Of course that doesn't mean it actually hase gotten warmer. There seems to be a bit of an extrapaolation issue. But even if it has gotten warmer, the planet has a record of pretty dramatic temperature swings, long before humans had an opportunity to impact that temperature. Or said another way... humans didn't plunge us into the little ice age... so why would we conclude that humans are driving us out of it? The temperature of the planet goes up and down... I think what we are trying to do is "halt" thise fluctuations and keep the temeperature where we like it. That might be hard to do!!
Chadlling wrote:
But even if it has gotten warmer, the planet has a record of pretty dramatic temperature swings, long before humans had an opportunity to impact that temperature
can you prove that ? well, of course you can't. we know the temperatures have gone up and down over huge spans of time, but as far as "dramatic" (ie. big temp over small time) goes, no, you can't - nothing personal, nobody can. the work in this study is probably the best anyone can do right now as far as documenting detailed historic temperature changes. and, as far as we can tell, there's never been an upswing like the one we're currently in the middle of. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
you should really try reading some of the study before you start leaping to conclusions.
Fair enough. I didn't read the study first. However, in reading the brief, I can't help but think it's a lot of double speak. They talk about high and low confidence, and then say that: Despite these limitations, the committee finds that efforts to reconstruct temperature histories for broad geographic regions using multiproxy methods are an important contribution to climate research and that these large-scale surface temperature reconstructions contain meaningful climatic signals. Isn't that pushing an "agenda", when you say that you have low confidence in some of the analysis, yet it's still useful? And then there's the whole bizarre thing about 20th century warming but a little ice age. The thing is, it's written in a way to help you draw the conclusion that something we are doing is responsible for global warming, rather than a naturally occuring exit from the little ice age or other factors. The way I read it, it's full of hidden agenda. Marc Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
Marc Clifton wrote:
And then there's the whole bizarre thing about 20th century warming but a little ice age.
The "little ice age" is called a maunder minimum and is entirely solar produced. Solar events are cross correlated and taken into account, they are easily measured from neutrino radiation effects. The little ice is a well known effect, and also taken into account. thus "multi" in the methods. You can use one to discount but if they take it into account along with many others they are wrong and you are right no matter how many they take into account you will never believe it, because you do not WANT to believe it. Your mind is made up before the results, no matter what results, no matter what tests. This is why I calmly state it doesn't matter. Those will believe what they want, and until it is too late, so the results are irrelevant. We might as well wait it out. The temperature could be 60C and there will still be people yelling there is no evidence of global warming. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Allen Anderson wrote:
that when you are saying that your methods may have some trouble and your final result is half a degree, then perhaps you are within the margin for error.
but the "half a degree" is simply not the point of the study. the point of the study is to demonstrate the unusual increase in the last 100 years or so. yes, the earth's temperature goes up and down on it's own. but as far as we can tell, the rate of increase in past 100 years is unusual. again... go look at the pretty graph[^]
Allen Anderson wrote:
which has become religion
nonsense
Allen Anderson wrote:
Scientists who don't agree with the global warming position are piloried (sp?) endlessly for not falling into line
can you link to any specific examples of this ? can you show us scientists who did serious work who were shunned for not "falling into line" ? do you have any data at all to back up that statement ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
the point of the study is to demonstrate the unusual increase in the last 100 years or so.
*Emphasis mine. But isn't that the crux of it? Without good historical data how can anything be labeled "unusual"? "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
-
I know that. The point I was trying to make is that unless we use the same tools then as we use now, can the results be entirely accurate?
"The largest fire starts but with the smallest spark." - David Crow
"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb
DavidCrow wrote:
I know that. The point I was trying to make is that unless we use the same tools then as we use now, can the results be entirely accurate?
The timber industry is required to cut tree ring samples from a predetermined number of trees at each tree culling. The trees are marked and an inch is taken from the base and sent off somewhere. So yes, it is not used as a primary gauge of temperature, but we do use it to cross-correlate with temperature changes in the region to determine past changes. We can measure the moisture profile of the soil today, and temperature and use them as reference guides for the past. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
the point of the study is to demonstrate the unusual increase in the last 100 years or so.
*Emphasis mine. But isn't that the crux of it? Without good historical data how can anything be labeled "unusual"? "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
Mike Mullikin wrote:
But isn't that the crux of it? Without good historical data how can anything be labeled "unusual"?
i think what the authors are saying is that they have enough data, from a number of different sources, which all correlate, to be able to put some weight behind that "unusual". Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker