HiTekExec
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2019
- Threads
- 4
- Messages
- 351
- Reaction score
- 420
- Location
- Moreno Valley, CA
- First Name
- Michael
- Vehicle(s)
- 2021 GT500; 2021 Mach-e GT Performance
That would be the state of Confusion...
Sponsored
This doesn't make sense and becomes a philosophical argument because we only know what WE know, not what we DON'T know. The 140 years is the ONLY data set we have for hard data on ocean temperature. The previous climate cycles from my understanding are not absolute, as the data is limited.Hello; OK so data from 140 years out of climate cycles of hundreds of thousands of years if we limit to only the most recent ICE AGE climate events. I know this will not be a good analogy so do not make a federal case out of it.
This might be like taking the temperature for 15 minutes one day and then making calls for a year. Weak analogy to be sure.
Now if the data is used to say there is an absolute gradual warming of oceans, then you might have a case. I use a sports analogy. If records are kept in sports for s long time you can have a way to compare past players to current players unless some standard has changed. Lets use college baseball. In the past they all used wooden bats and now they use aluminum bats. Makes it hard to do direct comparisons.
If the temperature measures of the oceans were taken using a standard procedure at the same places and times of the year and other such standards have been in place then we can have confidence in the data.
It is part of using significant numbers. If I measure something using feet as my smallest unit and you measure using inches as the smallest unit, then the confidence of the combined results cannot have a confidence any closer than a foot.
I am not saying the oceans are not getting warmer. It seems they are. This is not in dispute as far as I can tell.
You are wrong, the Roman warming period was warmer than today. If I recall correctly by approximately 2 degrees C.Greenland have shown a steady rise (and also variation) in the rise in temperature, and currently it is the highest it's ever been.
Because in the earths history there have been periods when the earth is covered in ice and periods when the earth had no ice caps at the poles.Why is the ice age even relevant?
That is contradictory from what I have read. If you read the whole thread you will recall some of us who are older know the information being given out has changed. When I was in HS, science class had a chapter on the greenland ice cores and they showed the Co2 levels were much higher than today.The oldest known ice core is 800,000 years old and the carbon levels today are still way higher than the past.
The oldest ice core is 2.7 million yearsThis doesn't make sense and becomes a philosophical argument because we only know what WE know, not what we DON'T know. The 140 years is the ONLY data set we have for hard data on ocean temperature. The previous climate cycles from my understanding are not absolute, as the data is limited.
You are now entering paleontology, which is a completely different field of study. I never studied ancient history in detail or read about the ice ages. Why is the ice age even relevant? We don't live in a past period or epoch. Life has adapted to the current conditions of this age, not something that goes way back when mammoths were around. 2,000 year ice cores from Greenland have shown a steady rise (and also variation) in the rise in temperature, and currently it is the highest it's ever been. Ideally yes a standard procedure should be used but it isn't realistic and impossible. You can't retroactively record something when we weren't even there. It is physically impossible to collect ocean data over millions of years using standard procedures today which is why mathematical algorithms are used to make an educated guess based off of the carbon in the cores. We are seeing the effects of the elevated temperatures which is due increased carbon. You are deducing one factor and not able to explain the why or how. The temperature isn't the only thing you should be looking at to determine a change. What about the pH levels back then?
The oldest known ice core is 800,000 years old and the carbon levels today are still way higher than the past. Like you said, there is variation, because the methodology is different atmospheric readings is different than ice core readings but thats all there is.
The authors of the paper you listed stated that it needs further investigation into if a 60 year dataset is viable to make assumptions for what they were doing, there are data sets that go back long before 60 years and you are moving the goal post by saying lets go back millions of years.
What you don;t know is that the Roman Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period were regional phenomena, not globally coherent episodes.You are wrong, the Roman warming period was warmer than today. If I recall correctly by approximately 2 degrees C.
Because in the earths history there have been periods when the earth is covered in ice and periods when the earth had no ice caps at the poles.
There is a cycle of warm and cold periods.
That is contradictory from what I have read. If you read the whole thread you will recall some of us who are older know the information being given out has changed. When I was in HS, science class had a chapter on the greenland ice cores and they showed the Co2 levels were much higher than today.
So which do we believe? When information changes without any explanation red flags go up. Lots of NOAA charts and graphs have disappeared. No longer accessible to the public. Why?
Around 300 ppm of Co2 is starvation for plant life. We are at 400 or so today, almost not enough to support plant life.
That isn't true. The Roman warming period was not a global event, it was only regional, and it wasn't raised by 2 degrees globally. The temperatures today are still higher.You are wrong, the Roman warming period was warmer than today. If I recall correctly by approximately 2 degrees C.
Because in the earths history there have been periods when the earth is covered in ice and periods when the earth had no ice caps at the poles.
There is a cycle of warm and cold periods.
That is contradictory from what I have read. If you read the whole thread you will recall some of us who are older know the information being given out has changed. When I was in HS, science class had a chapter on the greenland ice cores and they showed the Co2 levels were much higher than today.
So which do we believe? When information changes without any explanation red flags go up. Lots of NOAA charts and graphs have disappeared. No longer accessible to the public. Why?
Around 300 ppm of Co2 is starvation for plant life. We are at 400 or so today, almost not enough to support plant life.
Hello; Thank you for helping make two of my points. First is the ice core data is not necessarily representative of the globe. The older ice is only found in some limited places.That isn't true. The Roman warming period was not a global event, it was only regional, and it wasn't raised by 2 degrees globally. The temperatures today are still higher.
Still not understanding. It is well known that the earth goes through cycles. The rate that it is warming is not natural at all otherwise the observations of the effects on the ocean and other organisms would not be happening, the rate of ocean acidification is not natural.
Hello; Yes we will adapt. This has been the hallmark of humans. We have been able to adapt to a very wide range of environments so far. I saw some years ago an estimation of how parts of Russian might become productive crop land with warming.Warmer climate? Longer growing seasons. If the oceans rise, we will move inland.
We will adapt.