[zaimer]

Originally Posted by pauly1119

https://weather.com/en-IN/india/news...ssil-himalayas
Sea levels have always changed

It is not the matter of (in this instance) the sea levels changing, it is the rate and conditions of the change. I'm also uncertain what your included article is referring to? Are you believing that to back your point?

Mountains are formed (most commonly) with the collision of tectonic plates. That is why fossils (of sea life) may be found in the Himalayas. The fish were in the sediment either before or during the creation of the mountains; that has little, if anything, to do with the sea levels at that time. There are several possible attributes which began in the late 1800's. That is around the time the Industrial Revolution came to an end, also the creation of the first automobiles. Think of the advances since 1900.. people live longer, populations have increased, technology has increased immensely, more power consumption, more waste, etc. etc.

[redcoats1976]

Originally Posted by Crazy Drywall Guy

I think it's well over half.... I have yet to see a Camaro driver wearing a mask 😷

i wear one,but not while im driving.have seen some people driving alone while wearing a mask...WTF?

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by redcoats1976

i wear one,but not while im driving.have seen some people driving alone while wearing a mask...WTF?

Once you put your mask on, it's likely safer to LEAVE it on until you return home and can immediately wash your hands (and the mask).

[Staves]

Originally Posted by ember1205

Once you put your mask on, it's likely safer to LEAVE it on until you return home and can immediately wash your hands (and the mask).

I always wear my mask while driving. I’ll be damned if I’m going to catch Covid from my glovebox!

[EJR8402]

Originally Posted by zaimer

It is not the matter of (in this instance) the sea levels changing, it is the rate and conditions of the change. I'm also uncertain what your included article is referring to? Are you believing that to back your point?

Mountains are formed (most commonly) with the collision of tectonic plates. That is why fossils (of sea life) may be found in the Himalayas. The fish were in the sediment either before or during the creation of the mountains; that has little, if anything, to do with the sea levels at that time. There are several possible attributes which began in the late 1800's. That is around the time the Industrial Revolution came to an end, also the creation of the first automobiles. Think of the advances since 1900.. people live longer, populations have increased, technology has increased immensely, more power consumption, more waste, etc. etc.

How reliable can we really consider the data to be regarding global sea levels in the year 1000? or 1500?

Depending on how the data is presented, a graph can either look like a dramatically steep incline or a relatively small change.

I'm not necessarily being argumentative- I just like to understand the reliability of the data on which I form a conclusion.

[dangjohnny]

Originally Posted by Staves

I always wear my mask while driving. I’ll be damned if I’m going to catch Covid from my glovebox!

You sir just made my day. Thank you.

[Crazy Drywall Guy]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

Shall we talk about the A8 shudder then instead ?

(just a joke to lighten the mood )

The A8 shutter is Trump's fault.

[zaimer]

Originally Posted by EJR8402

How reliable can we really consider the data to be regarding global sea levels in the year 1000? or 1500?

Depending on how the data is presented, a graph can either look like a dramatically steep incline or a relatively small change.

I'm not necessarily being argumentative- I just like to understand the reliability of the data on which I form a conclusion.

I’ve heard that thought myself, as you had said, particularly regarding data from so long ago. I do take such data with some skepticism. Unfortunately many jump to conclusions based off of a skewed images and/ideas. The election, anyone?

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Crazy Drywall Guy

The A8 shutter is Trump's fault.

One hundred percent

Originally Posted by zaimer

I’ve heard that thought myself, as you had said, particularly regarding data from so long ago. I do take such data with some skepticism. Unfortunately many jump to conclusions based off of a skewed images and/ideas. The election, anyone?

On this note, above I linked an interesting article from a Wall Street quant, and I don't see any problems with her analysis. Below is the gist, graph 1 is the ubiquitous temperature delta diagram one can see everywhere, while graph 2 is the actual warming trend after adjusting for the fact that much of the early information is incomplete, but not uniformly missing from around the world. It also nicely corresponds to the "ice age fear" in the 1970's.

I'll be happy to be corrected by anyone who is willing to engage in a discussion where this may or may not be mistaken beyond parroting statements such as "x scientists cannot be wrong". After all, this is a weather/climate thread, so this is squarely on topic

[pauly1119]

Originally Posted by zaimer

It is not the matter of (in this instance) the sea levels changing, it is the rate and conditions of the change. I'm also uncertain what your included article is referring to? Are you believing that to back your point?

Mountains are formed (most commonly) with the collision of tectonic plates. That is why fossils (of sea life) may be found in the Himalayas. The fish were in the sediment either before or during the creation of the mountains; that has little, if anything, to do with the sea levels at that time. There are several possible attributes which began in the late 1800's. That is around the time the Industrial Revolution came to an end, also the creation of the first automobiles. Think of the advances since 1900.. people live longer, populations have increased, technology has increased immensely, more power consumption, more waste, etc. etc.

While most of which happen 50 million years ago is based on theory I could agree it is possible but its also possible sea levels have been that high. Also hard to explain Lion City, Pyramids of Yonaguni Jima or Dwarka ancient advanced civilizations that are completely under the sea. Point I was making is sea level has probably changed by hundreds if not thousands of feet over the years.

[ember1205]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Here's the factual truth: No one actually knows. Earth has been around for what we believe to be billions of years. We have actual, factual temperature data going back MAYBE a couple of hundred years. And the further back we go, the fewer samples of data points we have to work with.

In January of 2020, it was cold. In February of 2020, it was even colder. WOW! We're going to be in a full-on ice age by September 2020.

Come the end of March, it was "hold the phone - temps are going UP!" April - warmer. May - warmer still! July- hot. August - REALLY hot. Holy crap, we're all going to burn to death by December!

Obviously, the smaller the sample size compared to the overall duration and magnitude of cyclical changes means that we are drawing terrible conclusions.

Does the average temperature fluctuate over large periods of time? I believe that it does and there is little we can do to stop the changes. Do we have an impact on overall climate (which impacts temperatures)? Again, I believe that we do.

We have been told for decades that greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the atmosphere. Over the last year, these gases have HEAVILY dissipated and the planet's temps seem to have actually gone UP because - wait for it - more sunlight is reaching the ground!

Do I believe that climate change is real? Yes. Do I believe that the things we do on this planet can affect it? I do. Is getting rid of the ICE and going all electric the answer? Hells no.

Generating electricity causes CO2 emissions. All we're doing is moving the emissions to a more central location!

[Aragorn]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

One hundred percent



On this note, above I linked an interesting article from a Wall Street quant, and I don't see any problems with her analysis. Below is the gist, graph 1 is the ubiquitous temperature delta diagram one can see everywhere, while graph 2 is the actual warming trend after adjusting for the fact that much of the early information is incomplete, but not uniformly missing from around the world. It also nicely corresponds to the "ice age fear" in the 1970's.

I'll be happy to be corrected by anyone who is willing to engage in a discussion where this may or may not be mistaken beyond parroting statements such as "x scientists cannot be wrong". After all, this is a weather/climate thread, so this is squarely on topic

Not sure if you read to the bottom of the article, but there’s some interesting commentary there by people extremely smarter than I am! Here’s one post but feel free to read through all of them if you haven’t already done so.

Clearly you are very competent with data analysis but you don’t appear to have the scientific literacy to understand what the data actually represents. What exactly is your scientific background? The anomalies are calculated on a station by station basis as anomalies for that particular location against the 1950-80 average for that location. The station data is then compiled into grid squares and thus the anomaly values are anomalies for the average of that square (again 1950-80) not anomalies for the whole grid. In other words an anomaly of 1 degree for a grid square at 60 degrees North means that it is 1 degree warmer than the average for that grid square over the period 1950-80 not 1 degree warmer than the average for the whole planet (1950-80). if a grid square at the equator also has an anomaly value of 1 degree then both locations are 1 degree above their normal average for the period 1950-1980 and NOT 1 degree above the global average for this period.Indeed they could have the same anomaly value yet have vastly different actual temperatures, The fact that the equator is warmer is therefore irrelevant because the anomaly data shows temperature change relative to the location not relative to the planet. So the fact that “in the tropics, for every degree latitude away from the equator, the temperature drops 0.133 °C” is irrelevant and trying to correct for it is unnecessary.

[Aragorn]

Originally Posted by ember1205

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Here's the factual truth: No one actually knows. Earth has been around for what we believe to be billions of years. We have actual, factual temperature data going back MAYBE a couple of hundred years. And the further back we go, the fewer samples of data points we have to work with.

In January of 2020, it was cold. In February of 2020, it was even colder. WOW! We're going to be in a full-on ice age by September 2020.

Come the end of March, it was "hold the phone - temps are going UP!" April - warmer. May - warmer still! July- hot. August - REALLY hot. Holy crap, we're all going to burn to death by December!

Obviously, the smaller the sample size compared to the overall duration and magnitude of cyclical changes means that we are drawing terrible conclusions.

Does the average temperature fluctuate over large periods of time? I believe that it does and there is little we can do to stop the changes. Do we have an impact on overall climate (which impacts temperatures)? Again, I believe that we do.

We have been told for decades that greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the atmosphere. Over the last year, these gases have HEAVILY dissipated and the planet's temps seem to have actually gone UP because - wait for it - more sunlight is reaching the ground!

Do I believe that climate change is real? Yes. Do I believe that the things we do on this planet can affect it? I do. Is getting rid of the ICE and going all electric the answer? Hells no.

Generating electricity causes CO2 emissions. All we're doing is moving the emissions to a more central location!

This is from nasa.gov

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95% probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. Carbon dioxide from human activity is increasing more than 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age.3

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Aragorn

Not sure if you read to the bottom of the article, but there’s some interesting commentary there by people extremely smarter than I am! Here’s one post but feel free to read through all of them if you haven’t already done so.

Clearly you are very competent with data analysis but you don’t appear to have the scientific literacy to understand what the data actually represents. What exactly is your scientific background? The anomalies are calculated on a station by station basis as anomalies for that particular location against the 1950-80 average for that location. The station data is then compiled into grid squares and thus the anomaly values are anomalies for the average of that square (again 1950-80) not anomalies for the whole grid. In other words an anomaly of 1 degree for a grid square at 60 degrees North means that it is 1 degree warmer than the average for that grid square over the period 1950-80 not 1 degree warmer than the average for the whole planet (1950-80). if a grid square at the equator also has an anomaly value of 1 degree then both locations are 1 degree above their normal average for the period 1950-1980 and NOT 1 degree above the global average for this period.Indeed they could have the same anomaly value yet have vastly different actual temperatures, The fact that the equator is warmer is therefore irrelevant because the anomaly data shows temperature change relative to the location not relative to the planet. So the fact that “in the tropics, for every degree latitude away from the equator, the temperature drops 0.133 °C” is irrelevant and trying to correct for it is unnecessary.

This objection, as I understand it (because there is more discussion that followed), was against her correction being applied strictly as though elevation and latitude were the the only suitable (or absolutely dominant) factors, which sounds fair, but then no correction, as in the original temperature trend graph, would be even worse.

Human consumption and population growth obviously have an impact on numerous aspects of nature, including temperature and weather patterns, I'm just sceptical about the actual extent, the urgency and the presentation. Finding some captured "scientific knowledge share" videos from the late 70's that claimed a coming ice age in no uncertain and dire terms didn't bolster my confidence either, and back then the mainstream media was definitely much more trustworthy in their choice of reporting sources and their narratives.