My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[modest]

UNKNOWN ERA? What educated person believes The Roman Empire was an 'unknown era'. Further, my citations included a broad based summary specifically directed at this "unknown era" but you, apparently, failed to notice any of them. My skepticism that 500 AD included the Roman era specifically implies I DO have ideas of both, and that 500 AD does not match them. You, however, inferred I had no idea. You really need to study Vhen Diagrams.

 

I think you mean Venn diagram. But, yes, it is possible to limit the "Roman warm period" by assuming it is entirely included in the Roman empire even if a person had no idea when the Roman warm period occurred.

 

We can further limit this warm period with:

 

-Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data -- Moberg et al., 2005

 

This is the data that's often pointed to by AGW skeptics who disagree with the "hockey stick" graph of Michael Mann. I suppose you could read about that here. Something you'll find agreeable :hihi:

 

In any case, the "Roman warm period" doesn't seem to be a northern hemisphere event in the common era. The "Roman empire", as you say, began in 27 BC. So, unless the roman warm period was 27 years long, I don't think it happened during the Roman empire. If we extend our search to the Roman republic then this gives us another 500 years or so to work with prior to the common era.

 

It seems likely to me that we'll find it there. I'll see what I can find. It might take me awhile, I'm very busy this week...

 

~modest

[Darrell Potter]

Hate to add to your confusion, but if you look at the rural temperature data and not include the urban heat sinks (cities) the warmest recent times were 1930-40s. The plane:eek_big:t has been cooling off from then with only a sight upward trend peaking in 98. Read "The Little Ice Age" and "The Long Hot Summer" by Fagen, then decide if you would like it warmer or cool back into the LIA.

[freeztar]

Hate to add to your confusion, but if you look at the rural temperature data and not include the urban heat sinks (cities) the warmest recent times were 1930-40s.The plane:eek_big:t has been cooling off from then with only a sight upward trend peaking in 98.

 

Please provide a source for this data.

 

Read "The Little Ice Age" and "The Long Hot Summer" by Fagen, then decide if you would like it warmer or cool back into the LIA.

 

Nobody in their right mind wants an ice age. This idea is often espoused by those that are AGW deniers. It's a silly proclamation though. It's like asking, do you want your steak raw or burnt. Neither is good and everyone who cooks knows that a steak is best when it is slow cooked. :eek2:

[Boof-head]

I think it's interesting that "nobody wants an ice-age"; I also think it's interesting that there are a lot of people who "don't want a warm age".

 

I wonder want the planet wants? Should we ask it to order something more comfortable for everyone?

[freeztar]

I think it's interesting that "nobody wants an ice-age"; I also think it's interesting that there are a lot of people who "don't want a warm age".

 

Why is it interesting that nobody wants an ice age?

 

There's nothing wrong with warm, as long as it doesn't get too warm. Unfortunately, the Earth's climate has a positive feedback effect when warming occurs.

 

I wonder want the planet wants? Should we ask it to order something more comfortable for everyone?

 

Planets do just fine at either extreme. Look at Venus and Neptune for example.

Planetary inhabitants on the other hand are a lot more fickle. :eek2:

[lemit]

Nicely put, Freeztar. I don't know why the discussion of global climate change has become so childish. It is that tone that has kept me from commenting for several months.

 

I hope things will improve enough that eventually I'll feel like asking some possibly dumb questions.

 

--lemit

[Boof-head]

There's nothing wrong with warm, as long as it doesn't get too warm.

I see. Indeed, the state of "too warm" is not one that we should order up, you would say? Most other mammals would probably agree.

Look at Venus and Neptune for example.

Neptune has frozen gases on it. I think that might be a bit too cold for mammals,,,

 

It's interesting to think about an ice age; we don't want one, despite the planet deciding it's going to have one anyway.

Like it has repeatedly over, say tha last few mil years.:::)

 

P.S. I can't be sure that the planet is all that concerned about whether we believe we're changing its mind about the onset of its next glaciation... (maybe it's just me though)

[Eclipse Now]

Evidence?

[REASON]

It's interesting to think about an ice age; we don't want one, despite the planet deciding it's going to have one anyway.

Like it has repeatedly over, say tha last few mil years.:::)

 

P.S. I can't be sure that the planet is all that concerned about whether we believe we're changing its mind about the onset of its next glaciation... (maybe it's just me though)

 

I'm continually confounded by these notions that ours, or any other planet for that matter, is capable of making decisions.

 

Planets don't think! They do not make decisions, and do not become concerned. They have no mind of their own.

 

They are simply a product of the forces of nature, as are we.

 

We, as human beings, are the ones capable of making decisions and becoming concerned. Considering this is the only inhabitable environment we are capable of existing in, we should be concerned about making wise decisions with regard to the way we treat this planet - Don't ya think?

[Michaelangelica]

I'm continually confounded by these notions that ours, or any other planet for that matter, is capable of making decisions.

 

Planets don't think! They do not make decisions, and do not become concerned. They have no mind of their own.

 

They are simply a product of the forces of nature, as are we.

 

We, as human beings, are the ones capable of making decisions and becoming concerned. Considering this is the only inhabitable environment we are capable of existing in, we should be concerned about making wise decisions with regard to the way we treat this planet - Don't ya think?

It depends on whether you give any credence/belief to the Gaia Hypothesis or not.

 

. . .

 

Interesting article on weather

Many of us are blissfully unaware that almost the whole of human history -from the hunters and gatherers to the rise of towns and cities, the development of science and medicine -the whole of our great human pageant- has taken place within an atypical period of fair weather

Coming of Age in the Holocene -A Galaxy Insight

[Boof-head]

I'm continually confounded by these notions that ours, or any other planet for that matter, is capable of making decisions.

 

Well, it isn't really all that confounding: the planet we're on will decide what to do about the rising levels of CO2, it doesn't have to even think about it (it doesn't have a capacity to "think" the way we do).

 

Like the ozone layer, say. That was a decision made by atmospheric chemistry - it decided to catalytically destroy a lot of the ozone with the CFCs we gave it, remember?

[pamela]

posted by Boof

Well, it isn't really all that confounding: the planet we're on will decide what to do about the rising levels of CO2, it doesn't have to even think about it (it doesn't have a capacity to "think" the way we do).

 

Like the ozone layer, say. That was a decision made by atmospheric chemistry - it decided to catalytically destroy a lot of the ozone with the CFCs we gave it, remember

Cause and effect should not be confused with the ability to reason or make a choice

[Boof-head]

Cause and effect should not be confused with the ability to reason or make a choice

Are you saying when we thinking humans make a choice, we shouldn't "confuse" it with cause or effect?

 

Somehow, I can't decide what to effect, in terms of what might have caused you to say this (??)

[pamela]

posted by Boof

Are you saying when we thinking humans make a choice, we shouldn't "confuse" it with cause or effect?

 

Somehow, I can't decide what to effect, in terms of what might have caused you to say this (??)

You were giving the human attribute of reasoning to the planet and atmospheric chemistry, which cannot make a decision only have a reaction from the cause

[Boof-head]

You were giving the human attribute of reasoning to the planet and atmospheric chemistry, which cannot make a decision only have a reaction from the cause

I was?

Are you sure that isn't what you did instead?

 

A decision might in general be something attributed to a conscious observer.

However, the sun decides to 'rise' every day, because the earth is rotating on its axis - it decides to do this, or in science-speak: "the earth's rotation determines the apparent path of the sun through the sky".

 

You have to accept that "determination" = "decision"; if a planet can rotate and determine an apparent path for a distant object, it can decide to rotate too. This is not an abuse of language, unless "determine" is too.

 

Perhaps if I point out that consciousness is not generally attributed to inanimate bodies; then as you say, chemistry is an effect, with a cause (except we decide this is the caes, don't we, us conscious, thinking observers). Chemistry determined ozone depletion, not conscious observers - we just observed what the atmosphere 'did' with the CFCs we added (consciously). The chemistry didn't have a conscious choice to make, it had a determined one.

[freeztar]

I was?

 

Yep.

Are you sure that isn't what you did instead?

Nope, don't think so.

A decision might in general be something attributed to a conscious observer.

However, the sun decides to 'rise' every day, because the earth is rotating on its axis - it decides to do this.

 

Nope, the sun has no say in the matter.

You have to accept that "determination" = "decision"; if a planet can rotate and determine an apparent path for a distant object, it can decide to rotate too. This is not an abuse of language, unless "determine" is too.

Semantics can be tricky, but regardless, nobody here has to accept such a proclamation, especially since it is one that is generally viewed as unacceptable.

 

Perhaps if I point out that consciousness is not generally attributed to inanimate bodies; then as you say, chemistry is an effect, with a cause (except we decide this is the caes, don't we, us conscious, thinking observers). Chemistry determined ozone depletion, not conscious observers - we just observed what the atmosphere 'did' with the CFCs we added (consciously). The chemistry didn't have a conscious choice to make, it had a determined one.

 

It seems you are describing cause and effect here, just as Pamela was trying to point out.

 

In any case, this thread is (or at least was) about uncertainty with anthropogenic global warming. For questions related to an Earth that thinks and feels, we need another thread (Philosophy Forum). In fact, this whole thread is a bit of a mess as it has become a catchall for any discussion involving climate science, AGW, etc.

 

I propose that this thread is closed and further discussion related to any topic in this thread is instigated with new threads. Many of us are interested in this subject, but it dilutes the content when the content of this thread is so diverse and inhomogeneous.

 

If any thread participants/observers object to the idea of closing this thread and breaking future posts into much more specific and relevant threads, speak now.

[Boof-head]

the sun has no say in the matter.

Why would the sun have anything to say? It can't think, you know (yes you do know this, but why do you?).

So saying "the sun has no say" is just assuming the negative of: "the sun can have a say".

nobody here has to accept such a proclamation, especially since it is one that is generally viewed as unacceptable.

Of course not; but nonetheless the sun has a determined orbit; we know it does because "we" figured this out. You don't actually have to "accept" anything. Ask yourself why we question what we think we know?

The sun doesn't question, or cogitate, it just does whatever is determined, by it's mass and energy.

consciousness is not generally attributed to inanimate bodies;

For questions related to an Earth that thinks and feels, we need another thread (Philosophy Forum).

Who said the earth thinks or feels? I said the earth determines what happens to stuff like CFCs in the troposphere, and CO2. Therefore the earth is the decider, not us - we just "inadvertently" but consciously put it there.

 

You're confusing the meaning of "determine" as it applies to humans who think, with determination by systems that don't. That's ok, a lot of people misinterpret meaning. it happens all the time. I am not implying that the earth thinks, other than the way a chemical reaction "thinks" about determining a product from some reactants.

 

Obviously it isn't thinking like we do. but regardless it determines an output, it "decides" this. This is absolutely not incorrect, your semantic grasp of it is incorrect. OK?