If you can't accept that temperatures were different in previous eons, when the day-night cycle and the atmospheric concertation was different, then there's nothing to talk about. If you don't think the different element concentrations and day-night cycle don't effect climate, then there's no reason for me to believe that fossil evidence of tropical conditions would convince you. Ever.
I do believe in this. Which is exactly why I think the "anthropogenic" part is inadequately proven. How the hell are you using "the climate changes drastically over long periods of time throughout the Earth's history" to support the conclusion that any climate change we see must therefore be the work of man?
Because the changes in temperature are never as sudden as the speed we've seen since the industrial revolution. It's accelerated in a way that doesn't naturally occur anywhere else.
We have effectively (or are effectively) ending the Ice Age over the span of 200-300 years. Major planetary transitions like this ten to take at least 10,000 years, but could take as long as several hundred thousand years. The new normals then last tens of millions of years.
The magnitude of the change is smaller, but the rate of change hasn't been matched outside of mass extinction events. We're not as fast as a 6 mile wide asteroid hitting Mexico, but we're certainly causing a rapid change, and one that isn't likely to only continue at this fast pace given the melting perma-frost emitting methane into the atmosphere.
There's a beautiful article about 'rapid temperature change' on Wattsupwiththat. It's a generalization of McIntyre's idea that the 'hockeystick graph' is a numerical artifact.
It makes sense to me. And from hints that you dropped about a year ago, I get the feeling that you're pretty good at math yourself, so it might make sense to you, too.
Oh, I guess that link I put isn't working! I just tried it myself and it comes up empty. Or maybe my internet's acting up?
The long/layman version is: "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by AW Montford, based on the work of Canadian professor Steven McIntyre. The shorter/less-laymanish version is the article "Mining for Hockey Sticks" on Wattsupwiththat.com (the link I tried to give you -- even if you don't agree with the article, it's nicely written, and will remind you why you like math... or at least why I like math).
The issue with global warming is that we really only have accurate data for the last fifty years or so -- and even then, the technology has changed from slow mercury thermometers to the very fast ones that they used during covid. Prior to fifty years ago there was poor coverage, making the 'global average temperature' a bit of a crap shoot.
And then: going back through the centuries, we really only have proxies like tree rings and ice cores. Proxies are fine, but they tend to fall into the realm of 'red noise' (as explained in the article). That's fine, but you somehow need to calibrate the data. But we only have about fifty years worth of reasonable data to calibrate things!
Now: My (McIntyre's) claim is that if you want to fit 1000 years of proxy data using only 50 years of 'real' data... and if you want to maintain 'autocorrelations' -- meaning that you want the peaks/troughs of the proxy data to roughly mean the same thing throughout history... then a 'hockey stick' is an inevitable outcome of that mathematical process. The article, if you can access it, involves generating series(es?) of 'red noise' data sets and showing that 'hockey sticks' naturally emerge.
Okay: I understand that what I just wrote looks suspiciously like I'm just using big words to confuse people. But I'm really not! There's just an outstanding issue of how you generalize from proxies to real data. I've gone through the math myself, and I think McIntyre (and Eschenbach) are correct.
I might be wrong. Obviously Michael Mann disagrees with me, but -- and you have no way of verifying this -- my pedigree is better than his. This is one of the times I wish Freeman Dyson were still around, because he'd probably be able to sort this out. I mean... he did... but from a different point of view.
I do believe in this. Which is exactly why I think the "anthropogenic" part is inadequately proven. How the hell are you using "the climate changes drastically over long periods of time throughout the Earth's history" to support the conclusion that any climate change we see must therefore be the work of man?
Because the changes in temperature are never as sudden as the speed we've seen since the industrial revolution. It's accelerated in a way that doesn't naturally occur anywhere else.
We have effectively (or are effectively) ending the Ice Age over the span of 200-300 years. Major planetary transitions like this ten to take at least 10,000 years, but could take as long as several hundred thousand years. The new normals then last tens of millions of years.
The magnitude of the change is smaller, but the rate of change hasn't been matched outside of mass extinction events. We're not as fast as a 6 mile wide asteroid hitting Mexico, but we're certainly causing a rapid change, and one that isn't likely to only continue at this fast pace given the melting perma-frost emitting methane into the atmosphere.
There's a beautiful article about 'rapid temperature change' on Wattsupwiththat. It's a generalization of McIntyre's idea that the 'hockeystick graph' is a numerical artifact.
It makes sense to me. And from hints that you dropped about a year ago, I get the feeling that you're pretty good at math yourself, so it might make sense to you, too.
I doubt it's a numerical artifact. Do you have a link?
Oh, I guess that link I put isn't working! I just tried it myself and it comes up empty. Or maybe my internet's acting up?
The long/layman version is: "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by AW Montford, based on the work of Canadian professor Steven McIntyre. The shorter/less-laymanish version is the article "Mining for Hockey Sticks" on Wattsupwiththat.com (the link I tried to give you -- even if you don't agree with the article, it's nicely written, and will remind you why you like math... or at least why I like math).
The issue with global warming is that we really only have accurate data for the last fifty years or so -- and even then, the technology has changed from slow mercury thermometers to the very fast ones that they used during covid. Prior to fifty years ago there was poor coverage, making the 'global average temperature' a bit of a crap shoot.
And then: going back through the centuries, we really only have proxies like tree rings and ice cores. Proxies are fine, but they tend to fall into the realm of 'red noise' (as explained in the article). That's fine, but you somehow need to calibrate the data. But we only have about fifty years worth of reasonable data to calibrate things!
Now: My (McIntyre's) claim is that if you want to fit 1000 years of proxy data using only 50 years of 'real' data... and if you want to maintain 'autocorrelations' -- meaning that you want the peaks/troughs of the proxy data to roughly mean the same thing throughout history... then a 'hockey stick' is an inevitable outcome of that mathematical process. The article, if you can access it, involves generating series(es?) of 'red noise' data sets and showing that 'hockey sticks' naturally emerge.
Okay: I understand that what I just wrote looks suspiciously like I'm just using big words to confuse people. But I'm really not! There's just an outstanding issue of how you generalize from proxies to real data. I've gone through the math myself, and I think McIntyre (and Eschenbach) are correct.
I might be wrong. Obviously Michael Mann disagrees with me, but -- and you have no way of verifying this -- my pedigree is better than his. This is one of the times I wish Freeman Dyson were still around, because he'd probably be able to sort this out. I mean... he did... but from a different point of view.