Dont Call It Global Warming

[chuckChuck]

As I pointed out before neither Swift Current nor Saskatoon or any single weather station data or the prairie region are sufficient to draw conclusions about human caused climate change on a global scale.

One of the primary reasons is because the oceans are absorbing most of the global warming.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content

Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content

Change over time

The ocean is the largest solar energy collector on Earth. Not only does water cover more than 70 percent of our planet’s surface, it can also absorb large amounts of heat without a large increase in temperature. This tremendous ability to store and release heat over long periods of time gives the ocean a central role in stabilizing Earth’s climate system.

Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are preventing heat radiated from Earth’s surface from escaping into space as freely as it used to; most of the excess heat is being stored in the upper ocean. As a result, upper ocean heat content has increased significantly over the past two decades.
More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. Recent studies estimate that warming of the upper oceans accounts for about 63 percent of the total increase in the amount of stored heat in the climate system from 1971 to 2010, and warming from 700 meters down to the ocean floor adds about another 30 percent.

[helmach]

We know since the 1800's that several gasses trap heat. It's why earth is warm and the moon is cold even though they are the same distance from the sun.

Yes or no?

Temps on the moon can be extreamly high like in excess of 100 degrees C in the daytime

also the surface at night can drop as low as -160 degrees C

Why do you ask is the reason for the huge variation in tempature?

Simple, the moon has NO ATMOSPHERE to hold in heat at night or prevent heat from reaching the surface during day time cycles.

[tweety]

Temps on the moon can be extreamly high like in excess of 100 degrees C in the daytime

also the surface at night can drop as low as -160 degrees C

Why do you ask is the reason for the huge variation in tempature?

Simple, the moon has NO ATMOSPHERE to hold in heat at night or prevent heat from reaching the surface during day time cycles.

I ask yes or no for the whole paragraph. Should i have kept it even simpler?

[jazz]

Tweety its too bad you couldn't have sat in with me while I studied systems dynamics. If you had, you would realize that chaotic systems like planet earth cannot possibly stay in equilibrium all the time. You are looking for constistancy in a system that has millions of externalities, CO2 being an insignificant component. Every thing you think you see is all in the normal realm of variation and volitility in such a system. These systems change and rebalance all the time. They do not tip over into catastrophe without some hard external input.

The other thing you would have found out is that chaotic systems cannot be accurately modelled. The temp variation you think will be happening is well within the modelling error.

There is no climate emergency other than what mother earth has been dealing humans for the past 2 million years.

[tweety]

Tweety its too bad you couldn't have sat in with me while I studied systems dynamics. If you had, you would realize that chaotic systems like planet earth cannot possibly stay in equilibrium all the time. You are looking for constistancy in a system that has millions of externalities, CO2 being an insignificant component. Every thing you think you see is all in the normal realm of variation and volitility in such a system. These systems change and rebalance all the time. They do not tip over into catastrophe without some hard external input.

The other thing you would have found out is that chaotic systems cannot be accurately modelled. The temp variation you think will be happening is well within the modelling error.

There is no climate emergency other than what mother earth has been dealing humans for the past 2 million years.

And to deal with volatility, you integrate. Area under the curve. Did you fall asleep in class for ALL the rest?

You just can't remain on the subject. What is Climate. What is weather.

This is absolutely pointless

[chuckChuck]

Jazz or A5. Name one major scientific organization that says increasing CO2 levels are not causing the greenhouse effect and global warming.

[jazz]

And to deal with volatility, you integrate. Area under the curve. Did you fall asleep in class for ALL the rest?

You just can't remain on the subject. What is Climate. What is weather.

This is absolutely pointless

Yeah unfortunately solving for the entire earth is a little more complicated than that. How many variables affect the earths climate? How many do we have accurate measurements for? Have you measured the CO2 being liberated from tectonic plates?

Flawed incomplete data, estimates being fed into chaotic system models yields wild errors and the error bars grow rapidly as time is added to the equations so the results further out are practically garbage. In many cases they leave the variables right out of the model otherwise it would be cranking away forever and never converge.

Any other fields you know of trying to do 100 year projections of chaotic systems with hundreds of variables they cant even measure? This is junk science at its worst.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Woe! Slow down. You just can't get past the religious notion you are either a believer in global warming and crazy or you're a denier and crazy. Catholic and Protestant.

The data with record lows in Antarctica hints its CLIMATE may be cooling, won't know for 30 more years
the record highs in Arctic shows its CLIMATE may be warming, won't know for sure for 30 years.

Again, not so hard to understand. They are just temperature readings - you know - a thermometer - they been around for a lot of years, water boils at 100 c. and freezes at zero. Easy to calibrate.

Leave the meaningless emotional socio-politcal BS out of this discussion. Is that possible?

AF5, We know a few things. Temps have warmed a couple degrees last hundred years which means the CLIMATE for the planet is warming. A relatively steady CO2 has been around a long time, the last 100 years have shown it to go from 300 to 412 ppm. We know since the 1800's that several gasses trap heat. It's why earth is warm and the moon is cold even though they are the same distance from the sun.

Yes or no?

Can I get a citation for the couple of degrees of warming over the past century ? None of the credible organizations are making that claim that I have seen. Can't respond to the entire paragraph until that falsehood is rectified for proven correct.

[tweety]

Yeah unfortunately solving for the entire earth is a little more complicated than that. How many variables affect the earths climate? How many do we have accurate measurements for? Have you measured the CO2 being liberated from tectonic plates?

Flawed incomplete data, estimates being fed into chaotic system models yields wild errors and the error bars grow rapidly as time is added to the equations so the results further out are practically garbage. In many cases they leave the variables right out of the model otherwise it would be cranking away forever and never converge.

Any other fields you know of trying to do 100 year projections of chaotic systems with hundreds if variables they cant even measure? This is junk science at its worst.

If only they had a way to describe the chaotic CHANGES had over a period of time - for say oh pick a number - how about 30 years. Wonder what they could call it, I would suggest they use CLIMATE. What would make it even better is if they had a complicated instrument yet to be invented or discovered that could take a temperature. Wouldn't that be great. And even maybe someday someone could figure out the math behind taking those chaotic temperature readings and somehow come up with a number that represents them all equally weighted. Then year after year you could figure out if that chaotic system is rising or falling. Maybe one day. Hopefully.

Wouldn't that be wonderful. Then this stupid discussion would be over.

[A990]

Can I get a citation for the couple of degrees of warming over the past century ? None of the credible organizations are making that claim that I have seen. Can't respond to the entire paragraph until that falsehood is rectified for proven correct.

.

[tweety]

Seems someone has invented a temperature taking kind of device.

AF5 - who cares if its 1.5 or 2.0 or 1.1 or a couple.Not important for this discussion.

<iframe height='100' src='https://www.theworldcounts.com/embed/challenges/21?background_color=white&color=black&font_family= %22Helvetica+Neue%22%2C+Arial%2C+sans-serif&font_size=14' style='border: none' width='300'></iframe>

Darn, doesn't work. Here is the site. https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/global-warming/average-global-temperature https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/global-warming/average-global-temperature

So is CLIMATE right now going up or down?

[jazz]

Wouldn't that be wonderful. Then this stupid discussion would be over.

Sure would. It would be also nice if such a model took into account the hundreds of other variables that affect climate, actually accounted for past data accurately, admitted inherent uncertainty in the results and left the politics and policy out of it.

Wouldn't it be nice if such a model actually made an accurate prediction, then we would have the basis for a theory to work from wouldn't we? Then we would have some way to test all that conjecture like arctic ice free, end of skiing, no snow, more wildfires, crop failures, statue of liberty under water (a personal favorite of mine), ME uninhabitable, cold equals hot, etc.