Timeline for How reliable would measuring global heating from satellite be?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 15, 2019 at 15:12 | comment | added | John | @Ale..chenski because humans civilization is built around producing large amounts of cereal crops in highly fertile areas with existing infrastructure, ares which cease to be fertile as rainfall patterns and temprature change. land is not interchangeable, soils vary widely in quality. Worse we are driving our pollinators extinct which will make soil fertility moot. disruption of food production is hte single biggest cause of civilization collapse in history, and out current civilization is so interconnected such collapse will not stay isolated. | |
| Nov 15, 2019 at 6:16 | comment | added | Ale..chenski | @john, how it is that "human civilization is delicate"? Animals can't migrate over the edges of lands when climate zones shift, they stay and die. But modern human can. What could be wrong if Russians will supply you with bananas and pineapples from Siberia? And you can comfortably live in Northern Canada... | |
| Nov 15, 2019 at 4:56 | comment | added | John | I really hate the "it was higher in earth's history" mentality. we also had jungles in the arctic, a desert larger than all the current ones combined, and dinosaurs running around. no one thinks we are going to wipe out life on earth, we are worried about screwing our civilization over to the point of collapse or regression by damaging our infrastructure and major food sources. Human civilization is delicate, life as a whole is not. | |
| Nov 13, 2019 at 6:09 | comment | added | polcott | "he time lag in ice core data cannot be refuted." It already has been refuted go look at the linked source. | |
| Nov 13, 2019 at 5:16 | comment | added | Ale..chenski | @polcott, the time lag in ice core data cannot be refuted. Even a bold correlation over entire Vostok data set in analysis by J.Hansen et al. shows a peak of 92.5% with shift by 700 years. This cannot be "refuted". Despite some assumptions about discrepancy between age of air bubbles and surrounding ice, the Vostok record has an advantage of having "synchronous sampling" of Co2 and Temps, so there can be no mistakes or stretching like if you try to put into a bucket many individual uncorrelated proxies as "Shakun et al." did. "Hide the lag" :-) | |
| Nov 12, 2019 at 11:07 | comment | added | Michael Walsby | Regarding extinction events, we are near the start of one which began a few hundred years ago and will probably take a few thousand years to run its course. It has nothing to do with climate change, but everything to do with human activity. | |
| Nov 12, 2019 at 3:35 | comment | added | polcott | The lag has been refuted and even with a lag it is still linear and thus not logarithmic or exponential. skepticalscience.com/… "approximately 7% of the overall glacial-interglacial global temperature increase occurred before the CO2 rise, whereas 93% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase." | |
| Nov 12, 2019 at 2:50 | comment | added | Ale..chenski | @polcott, no, you are mistaken. the correlation is not "linear". Accurate mathematical studies by Hansen et al. indicate that there is indeed a fine-scale correlation, but the increase in CO2 lags temperature increases by ~800 years. So the most obvious and unbiased interpretation of ice core data is that CO2 is just a delayed function of surface temperature, and not the cause. | |
| Nov 12, 2019 at 2:01 | comment | added | polcott | The errorbars for CO2 back then are very wide. Much more recent data shows a very strong linear correlation between CO2 and temperatures that is predominantly caused by a third factor. We can know for sure that the green house effect is real because it is the only reason why the Earth is warmer than the Moon. | |
| Nov 12, 2019 at 1:40 | comment | added | Ale..chenski | @polcott, the major premise of AGW is an alleged increase of surface temperatures with growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The chart you appended clearly indicates the absence of this cause-effect relation: 450MBC the CO2 is at 4000 ppm level and increasing, while the temps drop; 350MBC- Co2 drops, but temps stays flat; 140MBC - Co2 drops, but temps are sharply up and stays flat for ~40M years, while CO2 continues to drop from 2000 ppm to 1000 ppm. Correlation between alleged mass extinctions and CO2 levels is also a clear imagination at most. | |
| Nov 12, 2019 at 1:21 | comment | added | Ale..chenski | @polcott, this is a very sensitive topic, so you better try to use accurate terminology.I am saying that some surface spots on Earth are getting "hotter" over, say, 100-years trend, and some spots are getting colder, all in accord with global NOAA network data. The trends are not uniform across the globe. I am stating that the same change in "average surface temperature" (aka "warming") can produce positive or negative "global radiative imbalance", depending on particular distribution of trends and affected areas.This is a simple mathematical consequence of sigma*T^4 emission law. | |
| Nov 12, 2019 at 1:00 | comment | added | polcott | "Second, you confuse "global change in average surface temperature" with "global heating"." In other words you are saying then when the Earth is measured to be hotter, the Earth is not really hotter at all. You could only be correct if the increase in heat measured on the surface was offset by a loss of heat somewhere else such as the Oceans. | |
| Nov 12, 2019 at 0:41 | comment | added | polcott | "no water-amplified "runaway" effects (aka "feedbacks") have lead to any terrible effects to life on Earth." I think that the five mass extinctions would probably count as: "terrible effects to life on Earth". | |
| Nov 12, 2019 at 0:17 | history | answered | Ale..chenski | CC BY-SA 4.0 |