The coming Ice Age

CrustyJeep · Feb 15, 2012

Jaydog said:
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that England was exempt from Global Warming :booo:

It isn't, but it also is not necessarily representative of global mean temperature. Sheesh.

But hey, why not? We've been having a pretty mild/warm winter around here. Wouldn't you say that that supports global warming theory?

ZedMikey · Feb 15, 2012

Jaydog said:
So, if Co2 causes the Earth to warm up how can you explain this chart?

First, I would say England =/= Earth. Looking at the temperature change in one area (especially an area like England that has temperatures that are heavily regulated by huge thermal mass of water it's surrounded by) is not representative of the temperature change of the world, just like the Greenland ice cores Clark posted earlier. GLOBAL climate change, Jay... remember that term? Not ENGLAND climate change. It is the average temperature of all points on the Earth that is increase... not EVERY point on Earth increasing equally.

Next I would suggest that the trendline in that graph looks to be a linear fit of all the data, which does nothing to represent the change in the rate of temperature rise/fall. A graph showing the running 11-year mean or some such would be a far better indicator of what is really happening in that data set...

Like this version of the data from the Met Office Hadley Centre.

The red line is a 10-year mean. It is not a linear change...

ZedMikey · Feb 15, 2012

For ****s and giggles, I downloaded the raw HadCET data. I'll see if I can whip up a quick plot with some more appropriate trendlines than that ridiculous linear fit added to the plot Jay posted...

whatthe? · Feb 15, 2012

1. I don't see that big of difference between the two parties. So not much difference in funding.

2. Thanks

3. See post 419.

4. I think climate scientists are just as ethical as other scientists which why I'm very skeptical of them. They most likely operate like the scientists me and my family have or do work with.

CrustyJeep · Feb 15, 2012

whatthe? said:
4. I think climate scientists are just as ethical as other scientists which why I'm very skeptical of them. They most likely operate like the scientists me and my family have or do work with.

Well by all means, let's hear it!

whatthe? · Feb 15, 2012

CrustyJeep said:
Well by all means, let's hear it!

Post 218

CrustyJeep · Feb 15, 2012

whatthe? said:
Post 218

Post 221.

whatthe? · Feb 15, 2012

CrustyJeep said:
Post 221.

I'm going to assume you can read more than what's on the current page and have you read post 419. Ask ZM if you need help.

ZedMikey · Feb 15, 2012

CrustyJeep said:
Post 221.

Post 489.

whatthe? · Feb 15, 2012

ZedMikey said:
Post 489.

:haha::haha: Post 1069-That which is yet to come.

ZedMikey · Feb 15, 2012

A'ight. I whipped up some plots from the HadCET data...

On this first plot, I have the raw data of annual mean temps in Central England for 1659 to 2011 in grey. The black line is a 10-year running mean, which matches the smoothed version of the running mean seen on the plot I posted from the Met Office Hadley Centre.

The red line is exactly what I figured the trendline in Jay's post was. A linear regression of the entire data set that shows .26 deg C increase per century. The equation on the chart displays it as .0026 deg C per year. That is a poor representation of the behavior of the data.

Slightly better would be the blue line. It is a 100-year running mean, i.e., it is the average of the previous 100 data points. Even this clearly shows an increase in the rate of temperature rise in the 20th century, particularly in the second half. Notice how this curve is shaped like the CO2 curve from Jay's post? Fairly flat until it begins curving upward in the early 1900s... there is a large lag because it is a 100-year running average instead of an actual non-linear fit of some sort.

My second plot shows things a little differently. Again, the raw data is the grey in the background, but here I show a series of linear trendlines. The longest one is the same trendline from the first graph: a linear regression fit using all the data from 1659 to 2011. It shows the same .26 deg C per century increase.

The next shorter trendline is using the data from 1711-2011, and shows a change of .23 deg C per century (the source of Jay's plot should have used this data set... since their misrepresenting the data, anyway, might as cherry pick the part of the data that gives the best results). I removed the trendline equations for the middle ones just to keep the clutter down.

1761 to 2011: .37 deg C increase per century

1811 to 2011: .49 deg C increase per century

1861 to 2011: .66 deg C increase per century

1911 to 2011: .80 deg C increase per century

1961 to 2011: 2.5 deg C increase per century!

This clearly shows that not only is England's average annual temp increasing, but the rate at which it is increasing is also increasing. This is exactly what we'd expect from the CO2 levels.

I can easily pull up trendlines from any year to any other, if anybody wants something in particular.

ZedMikey · Feb 15, 2012

whatthe? said:
:haha::haha: Post 1069-That which is yet to come.

You better post something mindblowing in post 1069... :D

CrustyJeep · Feb 15, 2012

whatthe? said:
I'm going to assume you can read more than what's on the current page and have you read post 419. Ask ZM if you need help.

OK, so you don't think scientists are very ethical. Maybe you're right. But, it isn't as if the raw data is unavailable. If these scientists are so unethical, and if their findings are so skewed, then why aren't there people, like oh I don't know, you and Jaydog for example, coming out of the woodwork to show how ****ed up their findings are? It seems like the best you guys can come up with is to try and use a temperature chart from central England to discount global climate data. You can't even seem to predict that whoever you show that kind of **** to is going to instantly spot your FAIL and laugh at you. Why can't you and the army of other skeptics do any better than that?

CrustyJeep · Feb 15, 2012

ZedMikey said:
You better post something mindblowing in post 1069... :D

By that time he may well have grown an additional brain cell, effectively doubling his IQ. You may get what you ask for :cheer:

ZedMikey · Feb 15, 2012

CrustyJeep said:
By that time he may well have grown an additional brain cell, effectively doubling his IQ. You may get what you ask for :cheer:

You don't have to be mean, Crusty... he's at least twice as smart as Jay. :redneck:

TreeClimber · Feb 15, 2012

CrustyJeep said:
By that time he may well have grown an additional brain cell, effectively doubling his IQ. You may get what you ask for :cheer:

ZedMikey said:
You don't have to be mean, Crusty... he's at least twice as smart as Jay. :redneck:

Jay only has 1 brain cell? That's not nice, Mr ZedMikey!

ShaftyVonHelmet · Feb 15, 2012

This thread is ****ing funny! Higher education wheelers for the win :masturbanana[1]:

whatthe? · Feb 15, 2012

ZedMikey said:
You don't have to be mean, Crusty... he's at least twice as smart as Jay. :redneck:

So how far is that above Crusty? 3 standard deviations at minimum.:kissmyass:

CrustyJeep · Feb 15, 2012

TreeClimber said:
Jay only has 1 brain cell?

1/2 a cell by my uneducated math. Dayum :lol:

ZedMikey · Feb 15, 2012

CrustyJeep said:
1/2 a cell by my uneducated math. Dayum :lol:

I'm comfortable rounding up to 1. :awesomework:

CrustyJeep · Feb 15, 2012

ZedMikey said:
I'm comfortable rounding up to 1. :awesomework:

But that's off by like an order of magnitude or something :eek2:

Clark · Feb 15, 2012

whatthe? said:
They most likely operate like the scientists me and my family have.......

Forget this ice age nonsence. I want to know what you and your family have scientists for.
:corn:

ZedMikey · Feb 16, 2012

CrustyJeep said:
But that's off by like an order of magnitude or something :eek2:

That's ok. I'm faking all the numbers, anyway. :redneck:

Jaydog · Feb 16, 2012

CrustyJeep said:
It isn't, but it also is not necessarily representative of global mean temperature. Sheesh.

But hey, why not? We've been having a pretty mild/warm winter around here. Wouldn't you say that that supports global warming theory?

It seems pretty representative to me, one thing that everyone's data shows is less than 1 degree Celsius increase over the past century with a slightly higher increase since the 70's. Maybe it's just too clear and concise for you.

Just in case you need a link, it's actually .74C over the past century
http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq

CrustyJeep · Feb 16, 2012

Jaydog said:
It seems pretty representative to me, one thing that everyone's data shows is less than 1 degree Celsius increase over the past century with a slightly higher increase since the 70's. Maybe it's just too clear and concise for you.

Just in case you need a link, it's actually .74C over the past century
http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq

And how many degrees do you think would be too many?

Jaydog · Feb 16, 2012

CrustyJeep said:
And how many degrees do you think would be too many?

That's the point we have no control over how much the Earth warms, I don't understand how you think that humans can regulate the temperature of the globe. The chart I put up shows how the temp has risen over time, and its minimal, even if you put the data into 10 different charts and make the lines bounce around, all Zed charts did were show the same data, he just changed the time frame, which shorter times and larger temp variations will give you the drastic changes on the chart, but it isn't an honest long term evaluation. The one thing that all scientists agree on is the thing that Zed filled up the last two pages with, and does absolutely nothing to support his position on AGW.

Here are the points that I have already made, but then again I'm dumb, so please explain it, The Earth has had CO2 levels higher that 3000ppm without humans here, currently we are around 300ppm with humans here, we have had several heating and cooling stages throughout the history of the Earth, without humans here, So what makes this different than any other cycle that the Earth has gone through? And how could the Earth reach a CO2 level of 3000ppm without us?

ZedMikey · Feb 16, 2012

Jaydog said:
It seems pretty representative to me, one thing that everyone's data shows is less than 1 degree Celsius increase over the past century with a slightly higher increase since the 70's. Maybe it's just too clear and concise for you.

Just in case you need a link, it's actually .74C over the past century
http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq

That's actually a pretty good link you posted there, Jay. You should read it. Over and over and over... It addresses pretty much everything you've brought up in this thread.

ZedMikey · Feb 16, 2012

Jaydog said:
That's the point we have no control over how much the Earth warms, I don't understand how you think that humans can regulate the temperature of the globe. The chart I put up shows how the temp has risen over time, and its minimal, even if you put the data into 10 different charts and make the lines bounce around, all Zed charts did were show the same data, he just changed the time frame, which shorter times and larger temp variations will give you the drastic changes on the chart, but it isn't an honest long term evaluation. The one thing that all scientists agree on is the thing that Zed filled up the last two pages with, and does absolutely nothing to support his position on AGW.

You're missing the point that we DO have control over how much the Earth warms. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Release less CO2 into the atmosphere... less greenhouse effect.

The chart you put up does not properly represent the behavior of the data. Diluting the effects of the huge rises in temperature of the last few decades by adding in the previous few centuries of relatively stable temperatures is poor data analysis. Plain and simple. There's a reason you didn't get that chart from a peer-reviewed paper. It is bad technique.

Not to mention, the conclusion drawn on your chart is completely wrong! Of course the simple linear regression in the chart you posted doesn't show an increase in the rate of temperature rise across the entire HadCET dataset... that technique isn't capable of showing second derivative effects! It's linear! The accelerated increase of atmospheric CO2 has a corresponding accelerated increase in temperatures in the HadCET data, and my plots prove it.

I don't expect you to understand any of this, but maybe you could have your dog explain it to you.

Jaydog said:
Here are the points that I have already made, but then again I'm dumb, so please explain it, The Earth has had CO2 levels higher that 3000ppm without humans here, currently we are around 300ppm with humans here, we have had several heating and cooling stages throughout the history of the Earth, without humans here, So what makes this different than any other cycle that the Earth has gone through? And how could the Earth reach a CO2 level of 3000ppm without us?

Ugh... this again. Seriously. There is a natural carbon cycle on this planet. Releasing billions of metric tons of CO2 per year by burning fossil fuels is NOT part of this natural carbon cycle.

One important part of this carbon cycle... The oceans have a huge amount of CO2 dissolved in them. As a variety of parameters fluctuate, the oceans can hold a varying amount of CO2. Currently, the oceans are one of the biggest sinks of CO2 we have. A large portion of the CO2 we release ends up dissolved in the ocean (this is a bad thing for the oceanic ecosystem, but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand).

At other times, the oceans have acted as sources of carbon, and the dissolved CO2 has outgassed into the atmosphere. Depending on many other variables, this could lead to high concentrations of atmospheric CO2.

These sort of concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have not happened for at least the last 400,000 years, though. Actually, according to the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, we are sitting significantly higher than anything in the past 400,000 years.

I saw something, (I thought it was in that link you posted, Jay) that atmospheric CO2 levels haven't been as high as they are now in 2.1 million years. I'm still looking for that quote...

ZedMikey · Feb 16, 2012

Apparently, I got my wording mixed up. A reconstruction of CO2 levels for the past 2.1 million years shows that you have to go back farther than that to find CO2 levels as high as they are currently...

CrustyJeep · Feb 16, 2012

Jaydog said:
That's the point we have no control over how much the Earth warms, I don't understand how you think that humans can regulate the temperature of the globe.

And how are you so sure we humans can't have any effect on global temperatures? You can't. You pulled that out of your ass. You have no way to back up that assertion. The only thing we really know for certain is that current conditions work for us, and that's a fairly good reason to hope they stay as they are, and worry about them changing.

Jaydog said:
Here are the points that I have already made, but then again I'm dumb, so please explain it, The Earth has had CO2 levels higher that 3000ppm without humans here, currently we are around 300ppm with humans here, we have had several heating and cooling stages throughout the history of the Earth, without humans here, So what makes this different than any other cycle that the Earth has gone through? And how could the Earth reach a CO2 level of 3000ppm without us?

Are you referring to half a billion years ago? I'll give you a hint. That CO2 was there until plants, algae mainly, sequestered it. We are busy undoing millions of years worth of work every year. Are you saying you're perfectly OK with going back to 3000ppm, even though it hasn't been like that for hundreds of millions of years? What in the blue **** gives you the idea that it wouldn't suck donkey balls if it was back to 3000ppm? Could we even break the air? The last time the Earth saw those numbers, I don't think there was any such thing as a mammal back then, let alone a human, let alone massive societies that can implode if you look at them funny.