Arctic heat

[ding]

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"?

Gridlines are better way of visualizing it. The bottom line is that a graph is not digital, It is analog. What you are really trying to describe is resolution. We have plenty of resolution with this graph. Yes, the last 1500 years are a small portion of the graph but we can see from this that temperatures began to rise 20,000 years ago rather sharply, right? Does that make sense to you? And since that time we have had two saw tooth events where temps fell and then rose again, right?

 

[Wuwei]

Gridlines are better way of visualizing it. The bottom line is that a graph is not digital, It is analog. What you are really trying to describe is resolution. We have plenty of resolution with this graph. Yes, the last 1500 years is a small portion of the graph but we can see from this that temperatures began to rise 20,000 years ago rather sharply, right? Does that make sense to you? And since that time we have had two saw tooth events where temps fell and then rose again, right?

The divisions you made are 20,000 years span. 1,500 is .075 times that size. The upper graph would be fit in a section .075 the size of the divisions you made. You are confused by the similar shapes at the end which are clearly unrelated.

 

[ding]

Gridlines are better way of visualizing it. The bottom line is that a graph is not digital, It is analog. What you are really trying to describe is resolution. We have plenty of resolution with this graph. Yes, the last 1500 years is a small portion of the graph but we can see from this that temperatures began to rise 20,000 years ago rather sharply, right? Does that make sense to you? And since that time we have had two saw tooth events where temps fell and then rose again, right?

The divisions you made are 20,000 years span. 1,500 is .075 times that size. The upper graph would be fit in a section .075 the size of the divisions you made. You are confused by the similar shapes at the end which are clearly unrelated.

Sure, so what? Are you still arguing that the last 1500 years are not in this graph? What is today's AGT? Are you arguing that we did not enter an interglacial cycle ~20,000 years ago? Are you arguing that today's AGT is not inline with the past 4 interglacial cycles?

 

[ding]

 

[Wuwei]

Gridlines are better way of visualizing it. The bottom line is that a graph is not digital, It is analog. What you are really trying to describe is resolution. We have plenty of resolution with this graph. Yes, the last 1500 years is a small portion of the graph but we can see from this that temperatures began to rise 20,000 years ago rather sharply, right? Does that make sense to you? And since that time we have had two saw tooth events where temps fell and then rose again, right?

The divisions you made are 20,000 years span. 1,500 is .075 times that size. The upper graph would be fit in a section .075 the size of the divisions you made. You are confused by the similar shapes at the end which are clearly unrelated.

Sure, so what? Are you still arguing that the last 1500 years are not in this graph?

About two pixels of the upper graph are on the end of the lower graph. Too small to see any of the structure that you outlined. So, no in essence the upper graph is visible as the end point tips, and not the circle you outlined.

 

[ding]

Gridlines are better way of visualizing it. The bottom line is that a graph is not digital, It is analog. What you are really trying to describe is resolution. We have plenty of resolution with this graph. Yes, the last 1500 years is a small portion of the graph but we can see from this that temperatures began to rise 20,000 years ago rather sharply, right? Does that make sense to you? And since that time we have had two saw tooth events where temps fell and then rose again, right?

The divisions you made are 20,000 years span. 1,500 is .075 times that size. The upper graph would be fit in a section .075 the size of the divisions you made. You are confused by the similar shapes at the end which are clearly unrelated.

Sure, so what? Are you still arguing that the last 1500 years are not in this graph?

About two pixels of the upper graph are on the end of the lower graph. Too small to see any of the structure that you outlined. So, no in essence the upper graph is visible as the end point tips, and not the circle you outlined.

Look, I agree that if you want to greater resolution that you can't graph 800,000 years. But if you want to compare today's climate with past climate changes that's exactly what you must do. And that is my point, that our current climate is in line with past interglacial cycles and that we can naturally expect to see at ~2C of further warming just from being in an interglacial cycle.

 

[ding]

Gridlines are better way of visualizing it. The bottom line is that a graph is not digital, It is analog. What you are really trying to describe is resolution. We have plenty of resolution with this graph. Yes, the last 1500 years is a small portion of the graph but we can see from this that temperatures began to rise 20,000 years ago rather sharply, right? Does that make sense to you? And since that time we have had two saw tooth events where temps fell and then rose again, right?

The divisions you made are 20,000 years span. 1,500 is .075 times that size. The upper graph would be fit in a section .075 the size of the divisions you made. You are confused by the similar shapes at the end which are clearly unrelated.

Sure, so what? Are you still arguing that the last 1500 years are not in this graph?

About two pixels of the upper graph are on the end of the lower graph. Too small to see any of the structure that you outlined. So, no in essence the upper graph is visible as the end point tips, and not the circle you outlined.

Furthermore, I believe the part I circled in red are the last 1500 years based upon AGT and scale.

 

[Wuwei]

What is today's AGT? Are you arguing that we did not enter an interglacial cycle ~20,000 years ago? Are you arguing that today's AGT is not inline with the past 4 interglacial cycles?

No, I'm not arguing that. I am arguing that you did not read the graphs correctly.

 

[Wuwei]

Furthermore, I believe the part I circled in red are the last 1500 years based upon AGT and scale.

You are really quite wrong. Did you do the arithmetic? It should not be a matter of belief. It's a matter of simple arithmetic.

 

[Wuwei]

Look, I agree that if you want to greater resolution that you can't graph 800,000 years. But if you want to compare today's climate with past climate changes that's exactly what you must do. And that is my point, that our current climate is in line with past interglacial cycles and that we can naturally expect to see at ~2C of further warming just from being in an interglacial cycle.

I'm arguing that the extreme rapid rise of the last hundred years is much much faster than a glacial cycle. And therefore different physical principles could be in operation.

 

[ding]

Look, I agree that if you want to greater resolution that you can't graph 800,000 years. But if you want to compare today's climate with past climate changes that's exactly what you must do. And that is my point, that our current climate is in line with past interglacial cycles and that we can naturally expect to see at ~2C of further warming just from being in an interglacial cycle.

I'm arguing that the extreme rapid rise of the last hundred years is much much faster than a glacial cycle. And therefore different physical principles could be in operation.

Not according to the data NASA presented its not.

 

[Wuwei]

I'm arguing that the extreme rapid rise of the last hundred years is much much faster than a glacial cycle. And therefore different physical principles could be in operation.

Not according to the data NASA presented its not.

Can you tell me the rates of temperature rise at the ends of each graph? All you have to do is take the last sections of each graph where the rise is a reasonable straight line; divide the temperature change by the time span of each line and tell me the slopes you get for each graph. It should be enlightening.

 

[ding]

I'm arguing that the extreme rapid rise of the last hundred years is much much faster than a glacial cycle. And therefore different physical principles could be in operation.

Not according to the data NASA presented its not.

Can you tell me the rates of temperature rise at the ends of each graph? All you have to do is take the last sections of each graph where the rise is a reasonable straight line; divide the temperature change by the time span of each line and tell me the slopes you get for each graph. It should be enlightening.

No. And neither can anyone else, that's why the claim for rate of change of temperature and CO2 is bullshit. You want to talk about lack of resolution, there it is. The best anyone can say is that throughout the geologic record CO2 has lagged temperature change with the exception of cataclysmic geologic events. Unlike today where CO2 is leading temperature increase. But what is still unclear is if that is having an effect on temperature, I say it isn't because the heat capacity of the ocean is huge and that effect takes centuries to be felt, if at all because there are other factors at work that will most likely affect the outcome. Specifically, gulf stream switch off. I believe the increases we are seeing are still the effects of the interglacial cycle.

 

[Wuwei]

No. And neither can anyone else, that's why the claim for rate of change of temperature and CO2 is bullshit. You want to talk about lack of resolution, there it is. The best anyone can say is that throughout the geologic record CO2 has lagged temperature change with the exception of cataclysmic geologic events. Unlike today where CO2 is leading temperature increase. But what is still unclear is if that is having an effect on temperature, I say it isn't because the heat capacity of the ocean is huge and that effect takes centuries to be felt, if at all because there are other factors at work that will most likely affect the outcome.

I take no issue with the above with one exception. I and anyone else can look at each graph and come up with a reasonable estimate of the rate of temperature rise. It's simple pre-calculus: delta temp / delta time. That simple type of reading from a graph has been done by millions of students. It has nothing to do with CO2 or AGW, or anything other than time and temperature. I am quite surprised that you don't think anyone can do that.

 

[ding]

No. And neither can anyone else, that's why the claim for rate of change of temperature and CO2 is bullshit. You want to talk about lack of resolution, there it is. The best anyone can say is that throughout the geologic record CO2 has lagged temperature change with the exception of cataclysmic geologic events. Unlike today where CO2 is leading temperature increase. But what is still unclear is if that is having an effect on temperature, I say it isn't because the heat capacity of the ocean is huge and that effect takes centuries to be felt, if at all because there are other factors at work that will most likely affect the outcome.

I take no issue with the above with one exception. I and anyone else can look at each graph and come up with a reasonable estimate of the rate of temperature rise. It's simple pre-calculus: delta temp / delta time. That simple type of reading from a graph has been done by millions of students. It has nothing to do with CO2 or AGW, or anything other than time and temperature. I am quite surprised that you don't think anyone can do that.

It's not that they can't. It is that the data from past climates does not have the resolution to do so. They can't tell you what it was from year to year or even decade to decade with any precision.

 

[Wuwei]

Let me copy your images here:

Aside from an order of magnitude scale mismatch, here is another reason the circled part can't be the blue part in the upper graph.

In the upper graph the red section is flat and streams to the left off of the base of the blue graph. That section is roughly constant within one degree.

In the lower graph, to the left of the circled part, the graph still drops rapidly and immediately down several degrees. The blue part of the upper graph cannot be the circled part of the lower graph. It simply doesn't fit!

 

[Wuwei]

It's not that they can't. It is that the data from past climates does not have the resolution to do so. They can't tell you what it was from year to year or even decade to decade with any precision.

It doesn't matter what the graphs represent. The slopes are still easily calculable from the data that they do show.

 

[ding]

It's not that they can't. It is that the data from past climates does not have the resolution to do so. They can't tell you what it was from year to year or even decade to decade with any precision.

It doesn't matter what the graphs represent. The slopes are still easily calculable from the data that they do show.

Sure. By inspection I don't see any difference either.

 

[Wuwei]

Sure. By inspection I don't see any difference either.

Exactly. the two slopes have the same "look". But when you look at the far right sections, and at the x and y axis legends, you see the top graph increases about 1 degree in 100 years and the bottom graph (where you circled) increases about 10 degrees in 20,000 years. With that you can calculate the slopes.

If you do the arithmetic the current rise is .01 degrees per year
The glacial rise is about .0005 degrees per year.

That doesn't look the same anymore does it. Are you following this? Have you come across the definition of "slope" in any of your classes? If not you can find a mathematical definition of slope in thefreedictionary.com

 

[ding]

Sure. By inspection I don't see any difference either.

Exactly. the two slopes have the same "look". But when you look at the far right sections, and at the x and y axis legends, you see the top graph increases about 1 degree in 100 years and the bottom graph (where you circled) increases about 10 degrees in 20,000 years. With that you can calculate the slopes.

If you do the arithmetic the current rise is .01 degrees per year
The glacial rise is about .0005 degrees per year.

That doesn't look the same anymore does it. Are you following this? Have you come across the definition of "slope" in any of your classes? If not you can find a mathematical definition of slope in thefreedictionary.com

Yes, I am. I'll look at, but I believe it is how you drew your line that mattered. How far below the AGT are we from the previous four interglacials?