Arctic heat

[jc456]

Even if we have to learn it the hard way as the oceans eat entire cities...

Where has that happened in your lifetime?

And if you are predicting the future are you saying in your lifetime?

Where's that excess water coming from?

 

[jc456]

Even if we have to learn it the hard way as the oceans eat entire cities...

Just a three foot rise will have a major impact on port cities, not to mention Florida and Bangladesh.

Where's it coming from?

 

[Crick]

Do you read NOTHING?

Where do you think it might be coming from? Asteroids? Comets? Magic?

 

[Wuwei]

A Milankovitch cycle is a cyclical movement related to the Earth's orbit around the Sun. There are three of them: eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession.

Are you arguing that orbital forcing is not a trigger for the glacial cycle?

No. The science is too complicated for me to make a blanket statement to that effect.

Yes, I know what Milankovitc cycles are. What I am saying is that I don't think the authors have a compelling argument that trumps all others. There are also large historical forcings by asteroids or super volcanic eruptions correlated with large species extinctions, which can radically change the atmospheric mix.

Also the M-cycle that fits much of the historical data best is the precession period, not the eccentricity or axial tilt. The precession period has the least influence on insolation, so why does climate "choose" to sync with precession?

So there are problems with that model. There are other climate models such as rising CO2 that also involves complex modelling. So the choice of one over the other is to me a bit arbitrary at this point. I am willing to wait another 10 years to see where our current climate is heading before a more reliable decision can be made.

 

[ding]

A Milankovitch cycle is a cyclical movement related to the Earth's orbit around the Sun. There are three of them: eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession.

Are you arguing that orbital forcing is not a trigger for the glacial cycle?

No. The science is too complicated for me to make a blanket statement to that effect.

Yes, I know what Milankovitc cycles are. What I am saying is that I don't think the authors have a compelling argument that trumps all others. There are also large historical forcings by asteroids or super volcanic eruptions correlated with large species extinctions, which can radically change the atmospheric mix.

Also the M-cycle that fits much of the historical data best is the precession period, not the eccentricity or axial tilt. The precession period has the least influence on insolation, so why does climate "choose" to sync with precession?

So there are problems with that model. There are other climate models such as rising CO2 that also involves complex modelling. So the choice of one over the other is to me a bit arbitrary at this point. I am willing to wait another 10 years to see where our current climate is heading before a more reliable decision can be made.

We know that asteroids or super volcanos are not the trigger for the glacial-interglacial because what we are seeing are cyclical events. Milankovitch cycles incorporate eccentricity, precession and axial tilt. So I still don't get what you are trying to say.

 

[Wuwei]

We know that asteroids or super volcanos are not the trigger for the glacial-interglacial because what we are seeing are cyclical events. Milankovitch cycles incorporate eccentricity, precession and axial tilt. So I still don't get what you are trying to say.

Those three different aspects of M cycles have different periods, If I understood it correctly, I read that the the recent glacial cycles are synchronized only with the eccentricity, and not the precession and tilt. Looking at eccentricity alone does not synchronize with high insolation, as much as the other two aspects. So the M cycle model is iffy to some.

As far as the controversy today, the deep geologic history doesn't really matter to me as much as it would to a climate "historian". Today's rapid rise of CO2 is an independent concern.

 

[ding]

We know that asteroids or super volcanos are not the trigger for the glacial-interglacial because what we are seeing are cyclical events. Milankovitch cycles incorporate eccentricity, precession and axial tilt. So I still don't get what you are trying to say.

Those three different aspects of M cycles have different periods, If I understood it correctly, I read that the the recent glacial cycles are synchronized only with the eccentricity, and not the precession and tilt. Looking at eccentricity alone does not synchronize with high insolation, as much as the other two aspects. So the M cycle model is iffy to some.

As far as the controversy today, the deep geologic history doesn't really matter to me as much as it would to a climate "historian". Today's rapid rise of CO2 is an independent concern.

We know that they were triggered by something. Most likely by orbital forcing. That isn't the point I was making. The point I was making is that the current temperature trend is nothing out of the ordinary of past glacial cycles. We know that CO2 does not trigger the cycles. CO2 merely reinforced the climate change.

 

[Wuwei]

We know that they were triggered by something. Most likely by orbital forcing. That isn't the point I was making. The point I was making is that the current temperature trend is nothing out of the ordinary of past glacial cycles. We know that CO2 does not trigger the cycles. CO2 merely reinforced the climate change.

To the historian, orbital forcing may be interesting, but it doesn't matter where we are in the glacial cycle. The temperature rise of the last 100 years is much more than any glacial cycle could manage. Of course I understand that there is no evidence that CO2 would necessarily trigger glacial cycles, but it had a strong part in contributing to the details of climate in the past.

 

[ding]

We know that they were triggered by something. Most likely by orbital forcing. That isn't the point I was making. The point I was making is that the current temperature trend is nothing out of the ordinary of past glacial cycles. We know that CO2 does not trigger the cycles. CO2 merely reinforced the climate change.

To the historian, orbital forcing may be interesting, but it doesn't matter where we are in the glacial cycle. The temperature rise of the last 100 years is much more than any glacial cycle could manage. Of course I understand that there is no evidence that CO2 would necessarily trigger glacial cycles, but it had a strong part in contributing to the details of climate in the past.

No. It is not.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

 

[Wuwei]

No. It is not.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

Can you look at the time between tic marks in the upper graph and see that they represent 100 yrs.
Then look at the tic marks in the lower graph and see they represent 100,000 years.
That is a factor of 1000 difference. Then compute the size in terms of pixels.

Obviously something is wrong somewhere if the area you circled is supposed to be the upper graph.

 

[ding]

No. It is not.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

Can you look at the time between tic marks in the upper graph and see that they represent 100 yrs.
Then look at the tic marks in the lower graph and see they represent 100,000 years.
That is a factor of 1000 difference. Then compute the size in terms of pixels.

Obviously something is wrong somewhere if the area you circled is supposed to be the upper graph.

You are not looking at the total picture. The time scale of the first graph is 1500 years. Not 100 years.

 

[ding]

No. It is not.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

Can you look at the time between tic marks in the upper graph and see that they represent 100 yrs.
Then look at the tic marks in the lower graph and see they represent 100,000 years.
That is a factor of 1000 difference. Then compute the size in terms of pixels.

Obviously something is wrong somewhere if the area you circled is supposed to be the upper graph.

Look at the AGT on both graphs for the past 1500 years. They are the same reading on both graphs.

 

[Wuwei]

You are not looking at the total picture. The time scale of the first graph is 1500 years. Not 100 years.

Look at the AGT on both graphs for the past 1500 years. They are the same reading on both graphs.

Yes I know what the time scales are and what the AGT is. Of course the zero base line could be different, but that doesn't matter to this argument.
Did you look at the tic marks? they are easier to compare than the full span of the graphs. The top is 100 years and the bottom is 100,000 years. The upper graph would be less than a pixel if scaled to the lower graph. Do you disbelieve that?

 

[ding]

You are not looking at the total picture. The time scale of the first graph is 1500 years. Not 100 years.

Look at the AGT on both graphs for the past 1500 years. They are the same reading on both graphs.

Yes I know what the time scales are and what the AGT is. Of course the zero base line could be different, but that doesn't matter to this argument.
Did you look at the tic marks? they are easier to compare than the full span of the graphs. The top is 100 years and the bottom is 100,000 years. The upper graph would be less than a pixel if scaled to the lower graph. Do you disbelieve that?

Are you serious? AGT has been standardized. Do the AGT's match for the last 1500 years on both curves? Yes or no? You keep saying 100 years, but you need to be saying 1500 years.

 

[Wuwei]

You are not looking at the total picture. The time scale of the first graph is 1500 years. Not 100 years.

Look at the AGT on both graphs for the past 1500 years. They are the same reading on both graphs.

Yes I know what the time scales are and what the AGT is. Of course the zero base line could be different, but that doesn't matter to this argument.
Did you look at the tic marks? they are easier to compare than the full span of the graphs. The top is 100 years and the bottom is 100,000 years. The upper graph would be less than a pixel if scaled to the lower graph. Do you disbelieve that?

Are you serious? AGT has been standardized. Do the AGT's match for the last 1500 years on both curves? Yes or no? You keep saying 100 years, but you need to be saying 1500 years.

I really don't know where you are coming from and what you believe. Yes. The AGT's match. But the time scales are 3 orders of magnitude apart. That is crucial.

 

[ding]

You are not looking at the total picture. The time scale of the first graph is 1500 years. Not 100 years.

Look at the AGT on both graphs for the past 1500 years. They are the same reading on both graphs.

Yes I know what the time scales are and what the AGT is. Of course the zero base line could be different, but that doesn't matter to this argument.
Did you look at the tic marks? they are easier to compare than the full span of the graphs. The top is 100 years and the bottom is 100,000 years. The upper graph would be less than a pixel if scaled to the lower graph. Do you disbelieve that?

Are you serious? AGT has been standardized. Do the AGT's match for the last 1500 years on both curves? Yes or no? You keep saying 100 years, but you need to be saying 1500 years.

I really don't know where you are coming from and what you believe. Yes. The AGT's match. But the time scales are 3 orders of magnitude apart. That is crucial.

No. They are not. The last 1500 years is the part that I circled in red on my previous post.

 

[Wuwei]

No. They are not. The last 1500 years is the part that I circled in red on my previous post.

The top graph spans 1,500 years.
The bottom graph spans 800,000 years.
Divide the two and see that the bottom spans 533 times more in years than the upper graph.
If both graphs are 1000 pixels wide on your monitor, the top graph would only span 2 pixels.
The area you circled is much bigger than 2 pixels.
You were confused by the similarity of the shape and didn't pay attention to the scale differences.

 

[ding]

No. They are not. The last 1500 years is the part that I circled in red on my previous post.

The top graph spans 1,500 years.
The bottom graph spans 800,000 years.
Divide the two and see that the bottom spans 533 times more in years than the upper graph.
If both graphs are 1000 pixels wide on your monitor, the top graph would only span 2 pixels.
The area you circled is much bigger than 2 pixels.
You were confused by the similarity of the shape and didn't pay attention to the scale differences.

You need to forget that pixel shit and make divisions on the graph.

 

[Wuwei]

You need to forget that pixel shit and make divisions on the graph.

I did exactly that and you kept saying I should consider the full 1500 years. I did that an now you say I should make divisions on the graph.

All I am trying to say is that the section you circled on the lower graph was way way too big.

Can you tell me what is wrong or misleading about the "pixel shit"?

 

[ding]

No. They are not. The last 1500 years is the part that I circled in red on my previous post.

The top graph spans 1,500 years.
The bottom graph spans 800,000 years.
Divide the two and see that the bottom spans 533 times more in years than the upper graph.
If both graphs are 1000 pixels wide on your monitor, the top graph would only span 2 pixels.
The area you circled is much bigger than 2 pixels.
You were confused by the similarity of the shape and didn't pay attention to the scale differences.

Here you go... It's not perfect but it is close and it makes perfect sense too.