JTA66 Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 I guess JB's never heard of Occam's razor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowenOutThere Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 30 minutes ago, IronTy said: Things were looking so good for us up until about 1800. If there was only some scientifically agreed on opinion that could explain this unknown phenomenon. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattie g Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 59 minutes ago, SnowenOutThere said: I don't understand this argument, why say its natural cycles when this graph really tells you all you need to know, unless you are trying to work around not saying cc so you don't upset the people who upset the mods. Out of curiosity, are these temperature measurements affected by UHI? I'm not arguing against GW, but I feel like the extent of temperature increase can be argued against because so many sites are affected by UHI nowadays. That's also an odd graph because it's labeled "Global Average Temperature Change." But what is the base temperature that it's measuring from? Were is the starting point for 0.0C? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eskimo Joe Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 30 minutes ago, JTA66 said: I guess JB's never heard of Occam's razor. He believes in everything but that these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTy Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 1 hour ago, JTA66 said: I guess JB's never heard of Occam's razor. I think the the next super nino will finally see the end of Joe. He won't be able to stomach the increase in world temps. I'm not sure he's yet to recover from the last super nino. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTy Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 47 minutes ago, SnowenOutThere said: If there was only some scientifically agreed on opinion that could explain this unknown phenomenon. Underwater volcanoes first formed in 1800. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted February 1, 2023 Author Share Posted February 1, 2023 2 hours ago, SnowenOutThere said: I don't understand this argument, why say its natural cycles when this graph really tells you all you need to know, unless you are trying to work around not saying cc so you don't upset the people who upset the mods. I am not denying CC but two things can be true. That chart is misleading, its showing temp change not temps. The mideval period was significantly warmer than now because it came at the end of hundreds of years of "warming" temps. We will get back and surpass that quickly though at the rate we are warming now. There were times millions of years ago when the Earth's average global temperature was above 90 degrees. We wouldn't survive in that climate but just saying. We wouldn't even be able to breath at points billions of years in the past when the atmosphere wasn't composed the same as now. The real threat of CC is if we change the environment faster than our biology can adapt. But no I do not want to have that conversation and debate with anyone. There are other places for that. My point is I don't even have to engage in that nonsense because the fact it was warmer at random points in the distant past has absolutely no bearing on a conversation about our snow climo now and whether it is currently getting worse or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted February 1, 2023 Author Share Posted February 1, 2023 53 minutes ago, IronTy said: Underwater volcanoes first formed in 1800. floating near surface underwater volcanoes that don't show up on any measure of seismic activity 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattie g Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 18 hours ago, psuhoffman said: I am not denying CC but two things can be true. That chart is misleading, its showing temp change not temps. The mideval period was significantly warmer than now because it came at the end of hundreds of years of "warming" temps. We will get back and surpass that quickly though at the rate we are warming now. There were times millions of years ago when the Earth's average global temperature was above 90 degrees. We wouldn't survive in that climate but just saying. We wouldn't even be able to breath at points billions of years in the past when the atmosphere wasn't composed the same as now. The real threat of CC is if we change the environment faster than our biology can adapt. But no I do not want to have that conversation and debate with anyone. There are other places for that. My point is I don't even have to engage in that nonsense because the fact it was warmer at random points in the distant past has absolutely no bearing on a conversation about our snow climo now and whether it is currently getting worse or not. My problem with it is that there's no explanation of how it's measuring temp change. I honestly can't figure out what it's supposed to be telling me...and I my project consists primarily of folks who do data analytics and advanced reporting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted February 2, 2023 Author Share Posted February 2, 2023 2 minutes ago, mattie g said: My problem with it is that there's no explanation of how it's measuring temp change. I honestly can't figure out what it's supposed to be telling me...and I my project consists primarily of folks who do data analytics and advanced reporting. I know one way they estimate historical temperatures are ice core samples. It’s misleading because it makes it seem like it’s warmer now than the mid eval period if you just glance at the chart. What it’s actually showing is that we are warming way faster in the last 100 years than anytime during the last 2000 years. That’s relevant to an AGW discussion but I’m not (and we aren’t supposed to be) talking about that. But the mid eval period was still warmer than now (although at the rate we’re warming that may not be true for long) because from like 1000BC until 1100AD temps were warming. They were warming at a relatively slow pace, especially compared to now, but look at the chart and you can see from 0-1100AD temp change was slightly above 0 just about the whole time. So the accumulation of all that warming eventually lead to a very warm period in the Middle Ages. That’s well documented. Based on what we know about the climate in Europe and Asia during this period it’s likely the DC area had a climate closer to Rome or Atlanta during that period and snow was virtually non existent. I don’t think that fact is really relevant since no one is comparing now to then and when people say our snow climo is degrading we mean compared to 50 or 100 or 150 years ago not 800 years ago lol. But I’m also not trying to hide things or manipulate facts. It is what it is. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted February 2, 2023 Author Share Posted February 2, 2023 @mattie g my frustration is this side discussion and AGW in general is totally irrelevant my actual point and analysis that currently our snow climo is degrading. The fact it was warmer at points in the distant past is irrelevant to whether it’s getting warmer right now. Whether it’s a natural cycle or human caused is irrelevant to whether it’s snowing less now than 50 or 100 years ago. AGW worriers on both sides who can’t just let it go keep hijacking the discussion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevWarReenactor Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 I feel like I've been aware of PSU now for at least 5-6 years. THings have been bad for so long that not once during that 5-6 year period have I seen him type "Upcoming pattern looks good for snow". Sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattie g Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 13 minutes ago, psuhoffman said: I know one way they estimate historical temperatures are ice core samples. It’s misleading because it makes it seem like it’s warmer now than the mid eval period if you just glance at the chart. What it’s actually showing is that we are warming way faster in the last 100 years than anytime during the last 2000 years. That’s relevant to an AGW discussion but I’m not (and we aren’t supposed to be) talking about that. But the mid eval period was still warmer than now (although at the rate we’re warming that may not be true for long) because from like 1000BC until 1100AD temps were warming. They were warming at a relatively slow pace, especially compared to now, but look at the chart and you can see from 0-1100AD temp change was slightly above 0 just about the whole time. So the accumulation of all that warming eventually lead to a very warm period in the Middle Ages. That’s well documented. Based on what we know about the climate in Europe and Asia during this period it’s likely the DC area had a climate closer to Rome or Atlanta during that period and snow was virtually non existent. I don’t think that fact is really relevant since no one is comparing now to then and when people say our snow climo is degrading we mean compared to 50 or 100 or 150 years ago not 800 years ago lol. But I’m also not trying to hide things or manipulate facts. It is what it is. Sorry...I think that came out wrong. What I meant was that I can't figure out what the starting point for the temp change is. Is it temp change year on year? Temps change based on average during the timeframe shown? We see a big spike from about 1900, which is alarming, but without that context I get a little lost. I'm not denying warming in any way, but I will admit that I question if the process of calculating temps imparts a warm bias into the data (particularly the effects of station siting and UHI). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowenOutThere Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 1 hour ago, psuhoffman said: So the accumulation of all that warming eventually lead to a very warm period in the Middle Ages. It was only a warm period in Europe and possibly North America, which is probably why the chart doesn't look that impressive, meanwhile the change we are currently undergoing is planet wide in nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted February 2, 2023 Author Share Posted February 2, 2023 32 minutes ago, SnowenOutThere said: It was only a warm period in Europe and possibly North America, which is probably why the chart doesn't look that impressive, meanwhile the change we are currently undergoing is planet wide in nature. The chart doesn't look that impressive because it's not showing temperatures, its showing "change in temperatures". The temperatures warmed very gradually for 1000 years leading to that warm period. That chart is showing that temps are warming faster now than at any time in the last 1000 years, but its not showing what the temperatures actually were during any given time period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazzo83 Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 1 hour ago, mattie g said: Sorry...I think that came out wrong. What I meant was that I can't figure out what the starting point for the temp change is. Is it temp change year on year? Temps change based on average during the timeframe shown? We see a big spike from about 1900, which is alarming, but without that context I get a little lost. I'm not denying warming in any way, but I will admit that I question if the process of calculating temps imparts a warm bias into the data (particularly the effects of station siting and UHI). UHI accounts for such a small portion of the surface area of Earth that it's a non-factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattie g Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 56 minutes ago, pazzo83 said: UHI accounts for such a small portion of the surface area of Earth that it's a non-factor. I realize that UHI affects a relatively small portion of the earth, which is my point. What are the locations whose data is fed into this model? Are these temperatures being taken at on-the-ground sites across the word? Are they just official record stations, such as airports, etc. like we have in the US? Are current temperatures being collected with satellites? Are they being collected at the thermal vents to underwater volcanoes? Again...I'm not doubting that warming is occurring, but there is some room to question whether temperature readings are biased warm (i.e., warmer than temps already are) in the modern day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowenOutThere Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 58 minutes ago, psuhoffman said: The chart doesn't look that impressive because it's not showing temperatures, its showing "change in temperatures". The temperatures warmed very gradually for 1000 years leading to that warm period. That chart is showing that temps are warming faster now than at any time in the last 1000 years, but its not showing what the temperatures actually were during any given time period. Is this chart better? Imo the medieval warm period still seems a little weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 23 hours ago, SnowenOutThere said: I don't understand this argument, why say its natural cycles when this graph really tells you all you need to know, unless you are trying to work around not saying cc so you don't upset the people who upset the mods. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Just for fun, post the same map for 1/100 of that time frame. Human lives are short. We think in small scales. The reality is that the climate isn’t 30 years. It isn’t 300 either. Granted there are relevant climate trends DURING our lifetimes but relative to the planet, they are insignificant. We have had a rotten run of luck. But in the context of snow, luck matters. Last Jan and Feb here were both much colder than normal if I remember correctly, which is iffy. But did we get a lot of snow? Yes this year has been tough and warm, but all of the prior 6 haven’t been wall to wall warm. We are just as likely to go in a 6 year great period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Its a Breeze Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 6 minutes ago, SnowenOutThere said: Is this chart better? Imo the medieval warm period still seems a little weak. This chart suffers from the same lack of information as the other. 90% of the other chart (the black/dark line, which we assume is a X year average) is above the 0 line. 90% of this chart is below it. What is the 0 line? Why is is different in both charts? Whether anomaly or average temp change...from what? A certain year? Who decided X year should be the base state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 16 minutes ago, WinterWxLuvr said: The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Just for fun, post the same map for 1/100 of that time frame. which is alarming when considering how much the Earth has warmed in just the last .0000022% of its lifespan. A blip on any natural timescales. 16 minutes ago, WinterWxLuvr said: We have had a rotten run of luck. But in the context of snow, luck matters. Last Jan and Feb here were both much colder than normal if I remember correctly, which is iffy. But did we get a lot of snow? Yes this year has been tough and warm, but all of the prior 6 haven’t been wall to wall warm. We are just as likely to go in a 6 year great period. It's been pretty overwhelmingly warm on the whole, with colder months being more of a rarity. Not just for the US, but for the entire northern hemisphere as a. Keep in mind how this is also using the 1991-2020 average. Using any previous baseline would cause this period to stand out even more. Our last horrific dud stretch of winters was much more localized with its warmth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowenOutThere Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 3 minutes ago, Its a Breeze said: This chart suffers from the same lack of information as the other. 90% of the other chart (the black/dark line, which we assume is a X year average) is above the 0 line. 90% of this chart is below it. What is the 0 line? Why is is different in both charts? Whether anomaly or average temp change...from what? A certain year? Who decided X year should be the base state? Here is a chart with a lot of information if you want it, https://xkcd.com/1732/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazzo83 Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 31 minutes ago, mattie g said: I realize that UHI affects a relatively small portion of the earth, which is my point. What are the locations whose data is fed into this model? Are these temperatures being taken at on-the-ground sites across the word? Are they just official record stations, such as airports, etc. like we have in the US? Are current temperatures being collected with satellites? Are they being collected at the thermal vents to underwater volcanoes? Again...I'm not doubting that warming is occurring, but there is some room to question whether temperature readings are biased warm (i.e., warmer than temps already are) in the modern day. they are collected in a variety of ways, but even so, any sort of bias (like you suggest would come from UHI or a faulty recording sensor etc) can easily be detected and corrected via statistical methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazzo83 Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 statisticians, data scientists, etc are always dealing with very messy, problematic datasets from which they are still able to glean meaningful insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomeguyfromTakomaPark Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 17 minutes ago, Its a Breeze said: This chart suffers from the same lack of information as the other. 90% of the other chart (the black/dark line, which we assume is a X year average) is above the 0 line. 90% of this chart is below it. What is the 0 line? Why is is different in both charts? Whether anomaly or average temp change...from what? A certain year? Who decided X year should be the base state? If you'd like to educate yourself the graph was adapted from this paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0805721105 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WxUSAF Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 We’ve let the AGW/CC talk pass as it relates to our winter weather. We are definitely not permitting discussion on political response and actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fujiwara79 Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 it's hilarious when people say there were tropical rainforests in the north pole a billion years ago, or there was an ice age 25000 years ago. modern civilization began about 5000 years ago. the climate has been relatively stable during that whole time (other than some minor cold/warm periods like LIA or MWP). that should be your basis of comparison. talking about how the earth was a sauna back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth doesn't prove or disprove anything, nor is it even relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Its a Breeze Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 46 minutes ago, SnowenOutThere said: Here is a chart with a lot of information if you want it, https://xkcd.com/1732/ This uses the 1961-1990 average to compare 4,000 years. Why? lol 33 minutes ago, SomeguyfromTakomaPark said: If you'd like to educate yourself the graph was adapted from this paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0805721105 Thanks! I'll look through this deeper at home. (the second chart was derived from this right?) 34 minutes ago, pazzo83 said: statisticians, data scientists, etc are always dealing with very messy, problematic datasets from which they are still able to glean meaningful insight. I mean...yeah? (I am a data scientist) Depends on how messy and how problematic... And just so that it is ABUNDANTLY clear, I am in no way saying the earth is not warming. It is. Or that the warming in the past hundred years has not be significant as compared to more recent history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wxdood Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 34 minutes ago, WxUSAF said: We’ve let the AGW/CC talk pass as it relates to our winter weather. We are definitely not permitting discussion on political response and actions. So Delete my comment but leave the others discussing it. Appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ajb Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 For people really interested in the science of that which shall not be named, I really encourage you to look at the IPCC working group 1 report. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ There's a ton of information there, with links to the original papers, and it should be able to answer all of your questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now