Increase In Earth's Temperature, What Is The Reason?

[Essay]

This is where I disagree. In talking about such a large and complex system as the Milankovitch cycle , it is just not possible to accurately pin down where we are at present.

 

The Milankovitch cycle acts as an initiator of the process, both warming and cooling, and does not exert a continuous influence over it. There can be large lag times between stimulus and response in such a large elastic system. Some inter-glacial periods have lasted for tens of thousands of years while others have been much shorter. I am highly skeptical of anyone who points to a position on a graph and says “you are here” or “you should be there.”

I agree the glacial cycle of advance and retreat is complex enough that we can’t be certain of our analysis and prediction for the ice behavior.  Each turn of the astronomical cycle is a little different, and the biogeochemical feedbacks here on the receiving end of that astronomical cycle are always changing and evolving too.

I’m amazed that any regularity shows up in the records at all, let alone so much regularity; it almost seems as if the system was intelligently designed, but that is just the way for this sort of “complex” system. 

 

But the Milankovitch cycle itself, unlike the glacial cycle here on the planet, is a fairly simple and robust astronomical cycle.  It is entirely predictable, either going back or forward for millions of years, with the same certainty that we can predict (or postdict) any eclipse or occultation.

 

And the combined effect of the three Milankovitch components can be precisely detailed for any specific location and time here on the planet. 

Specifically, since it correlates most closely with the record of the ice cap’s advances and retreats, the insolation at 65° N latitude during July is calculated and shown in these graphs from above. (Arctic Circle = 66° N)

 

 

Especially now, when there is forcing due to human influence, it is very hard to pinpoint where we would be if there were no anthropogenic involvement; we could be slightly below, at or even slightly above our inter-glacial "normal" or possibly slightly cooling.

These graphs (from above) show us exactly where we are, and where we are headed, in terms of the July insolation at 65° North latitude.  But you’re right, with the ice cycle (in terms of how local feedbacks will either moderate or amplify that totally predictable insolation) it is more as you described, with lag and elasticity; and with more diversity and variability of feedbacks too, so we can’t expect to predict anything about how the ice will behave with as much certainty as we do with the astronomical Milankovitch cycle.

 

However, the paleoclimatological records give us a good picture of how the ice has behaved in the past, which does allow us to examine behavior that now seems unusual.  Anything is possible, but some things are more probable than others.  While climate theory is not based on the trends we observe, the trends we observe are consistent with climate theory.   And, the unusual Holocene trend we observe is consistent with Ruddiman’s perspective.

 

 

Based on the last inter-glacial, (I linked to a paper in my last post) that was much warmer than today and with no anthropogenic inputs, I believe we are still warming according to the natural cycle, with the human influence superposed on top of that.

According to the Milankovitch astronomical prediction (or postdiction) about the Eemian interglacial from 130,000 years ago, the peak of Eemian insolation is noticeably higher than the peak of Holocene insolation, from 11,000 years ago.  That could easily explain why the Eemian became several degrees warmer than the peak temperature of Holocene warmth. 

 

Interestingly, the peak warmth during both of these interglacial periods occurred fairly early in the cycle— following just three to six millennia after the rapid inception of the interglacial.  But you may be right about some additional Milankovitch warming, since a fairly small, new, cycle of increasing insolation will wax and wane over the next three to four millennia.  In a warmer world, with declining polar albedo, that might now have a more significant effect.

 

~  :computerkeys:

[OceanBreeze]

I agree with you 100%. Thanks for the good discussion, I learned a few things.

[fahrquad]

I am just going to buy a big chest freezer and crawl inside. See you in a few million years.

[OceanBreeze]

I think the main is that people in the process of production pollutes the environment.Here is an amusing thing to enjoy with you,you could have a look.

[sPAMlink removed]

Are you selling phone cases or commenting on the science of climate change? If it is the former, that is known as spam. Edited December 13, 2016 by CraigD
Spam link removed

[A-wal]

Great, you deleted the previous post. Now this post doesn't make sense. :)

Edited December 30, 2016 by A-wal

[fahrquad]

Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In the Northern Hemisphere, where most of Earth's land mass is located, the three decades from 1983 to 2012 were likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years, according to the IPCC.

Source UCAR

 

While greenhouse gases are for sure to cause global warming, they alone are not the reason for increase in earth's temperature.

Just curious to know if the increase in earth's temperature is due of excessive mining (of all sorts) and not due to greenhouse gases.

 

Raj

Greenhouse gases are surely a contributing factor for increased insulation, but most accounts of Global Warming fail to take into account increased radiance from the Sun as it ages and the radioactive activity in the core of the planet.  Those factors contribute in some way I cannot quantify without hard data. Anyone who makes a definitive statement on the subject without data is full of b******.

Edited December 29, 2016 by fahrquad

[HydrogenBond]

Part of the confusion, with this topic is, we have only been collecting direct weather and climate data for about 150 years. Before that, the tools were not there and data had to be inferred from affects. There is a big difference between inferring earth's weather and climate from ice core samples and tree rings, compared to using digital weather stations and satellites. The latter allows more detailed observations to be recorded, constantly, in a direct way. The former will infer useful but sparse data, easily subject to cynical doubt. The result is a data illusion can be created using modern tools and good data. 

 

Let me explain this illusion, with an experiment anyone can run. In this experiment I will recruit a dozen high school students with cell phone cameras to photograph the birds in a city park. We will spend a month taking pictures of every bird we see. When the study is done, I will make the bold claim that there are more birds in that city park, today, then at any time in history.

 

Although this claim can't be proven, conclusively, I will nevertheless push the claim by show everyone thousands of cell phone pictures of park birds to back my claim. Since taking this many pictures of birds, was never done before in that park, anyone who denies my claim, will not be able to show as much data to prove their point. They will need to rely on inference and maybe anecdotal evidence from old timers. While I will have a preponderance of the hard data on my side of the scale. Based on this data technicality, my claim, wins the battle, even if not conclusively proven.  It is a data magic trick, created by having the most direct data. 

 

To be scientific, any claim needs to be repeatable. To make it more scientific, I use politics and connection to get funding for a group of biologists, from the local university. They will come, for a price and also take pictures in the park. Since they are experts in the field, they are able to find even the hidden birds and take their pictures. Their well funded data, after all sturdy is done, shows even pictures of even more birds. They might then conclude there are indeed not only more birds than any time in history, but the numbers are increasing over a short time. Nobody else has the data to disprove this, They can only deny. 

 

Manmade climate and temperature change research is very well funded, and is making more data that ever before. The old time inference data, cannot compete in terms of volume and directness. If you increase funding each year, and make better and better tools, more and more data can be generated each year. This is good data and is also the preponderance of all the data; more birds than ever before.

 

 

[OceanBreeze]

Yes, that is very true, and can well be the reason for the infamous "hockey stick" graph.

 

Not only is there more data being collected today, but there have been changes in the way it is collected and processed.

 

You mentioned digital versus analog thermometers. Ocean temperatures are also collected differently; now mostly engine intake temperature rather than the old bucket-over-the side method.

 

Finally, when the CO2 levels in ice cores are compared to today's CO2 direct air measurements, as far as I know, there is no correction taken into account for the diffusion of some of the trapped CO2 out of the ice core samples, which could mean the levels were much higher in the past than the data indicates.

 

As I said earlier in this thread, the earth is definitely warming up, no doubt about it, but how much of it is due to natural cycles, how much is due to man made influence, and how much is due to hype and political interests, is yet to be determined.

 

[HydrogenBond]

The current claims of manmade global climate and heating change, appears to be an artifact of a data illusion. I am not saying the data is wrong, but rather modern data does not properly interface with historical data. The result is the data appears self standing, even if not. 

 

As a social experiment to demonstrate how this illusion works, consider this experiment. I will go to a local high school and recruit a dozen students to come to a public park to photographs the birds, in the park, with their cell phone cameras. We will meet everyday, at different times, for a week, recording the birds.

 

When the data collection is done, I will make the claim that there are more birds in that park than any other time in history. Although this claim can't be proven, I will show everyone all my photos and then ask does anyone has more data that can prove otherwise? The situation is, nobody from the  past ever thought to do this,, or they didn't have the physical capability to so this. Therefore, their data will be lacking and will only be based on inference and anecdotal data. I have the preponderance of the data to support my claim. 

 

We have only been recording scientific weather data for about 150 years, more or less. Weather data before that, has to depend on indirect data, inference, and stories.The modern data is analogous to the students collecting real time photo; direct data. My claim of more birds than any time in history cannot be disproven with the historical data, since it is not direct and will often be anecdotal, making it easy to discredit. 

 

The modern tools of digital weather stations, Doppler radar and satellite data, all hooked to the internet and processed by weather web and TV sites, is the preponderance of hard data. It wins by default, since historical data is weak in comparison. It does not mean the conclusion is correct, it only means you cannot refute that conclusion based on preponderance of data. It sort of wins based on the rules of data.

 

Maybe some can try this bird experiment to see which types of students will accept the claim, based on a data illusion. 

Edited January 1, 2017 by HydrogenBond

[billvon]

The current claims of manmade global climate and heating change, appears to be an artifact of a data illusion. I am not saying the data is wrong, but rather modern data does not properly interface with historical data. The result is the data appears self standing, even if not. 

 

As a social experiment to demonstrate how this illusion works, consider this experiment. I will go to a local high school and recruit a dozen students to come to a public park to photographs the birds, in the park, with their cell phone cameras. We will meet everyday, at different times, for a week, recording the birds.

 

When the data collection is done, I will make the claim that there are more birds in that park than any other time in history. Although this claim can't be proven, I will show everyone all my photos and then ask does anyone has more data that can prove otherwise? The situation is, nobody from the  past ever thought to do this,, or they didn't have the physical capability to so this. Therefore, their data will be lacking and will only be based on inference and anecdotal data. I have the preponderance of the data to support my claim.

If you tried to do that, you'd be laughed out of the room by any scientist worth his salt.

 

So let's say you still wanted to prove that.  You could start by expanding your database.  You could make it your life's work, and collect 50 years worth of photographs, all taken on the same days fro the same angles.  And if the number of birds in the pictures increased through the years, scientists might start taking you a bit more seriously.  You still could not, of course, claim that before that time there were more or less birds.

 

So let's say you wanted to keep working.  You went digging down through the dirt and collecting feathers.  And by analyzing the depth of the dirt, the number of feathers and the degradation rate of the proteins and DNA within those feathers you could come up with a rough estimate of the number of bird feathers 50, 100 and 150 years ago.  Note that this is not the number of birds - it is a proxy for the number of birds, since more feathers mean more birds.

 

You present your feather data.  "How do we know that data is any good?" the first scientist asks.  "Different weather might cause birds to shed feathers at a different rate.  There might be birds with more, or fewer, feathers in the population.  Your data is no good."

 

So back to the drawing board.  You can't go back and prove anything about feathers - but you do have 50 years worth of actual measurements.  You correlate the two data sets (actual and proxy) and find that there is a very strong correlation between feathers in the dirt and birds in the park.  That's a start.  You comb through historical records and find pictures of the park in local papers from 100 years ago.  And the bird counts from those pictures match the proxy data as well.  You also find supporting information - from stories in ancient papers you discover that people have been feeding the birds, and setting up nesting sites, for 200 years, and in other locations, that has caused increases in bird populations.

 

Now you present the feather data with all the supporting data.  And now scientists start to take you more seriously.  They suggest further tests - shell fragments, isotope dating and sample depths.  And you do all that research, and they all support your assertion that the feather (and now shell) proxy data support bird counts; in other words, more shell fragments and more feathers mean more birds, and the number of birds has been increasing for 200 years, and this is because the park provides a good environment for them, and they've been getting fed regularly.

 

At that point you have strong evidence that the number of birds has been increasing.

 

And THAT is the sort of evidence we have for climate change.

[HydrogenBond]

Do it this way. Surf the net, watch TV and listen to the radio for a day, gathering all the local and regional weather reports, anomalies and records, world wide. There will be a lot going, all being recorded with modern technology in real time. Next, go back on the same day, 200 years ago, and do the same thing. You will not be able not find a fraction of this data, world wide. Which of the two data fields gives the impression of more climate change? 

 

You can't bring modern tools back into time to normalize the data from the past; rerecord the past.The past data has to use different tools, based on inference methods. These are more abstract to the majority of people and scientists. Anyone can read a Doppler radar to see where the heavy rain is. But core samples tales more training. These inference methods, although valid, tend to average data into years, and does not allow a log of day by day change, without tremendous outlay of resources. Climate change, from the past would look sparse and average, without a lot of detail. The two methods are not interchangeable, therefore each can appear self standing.  This is why the time frame we are looking at, to support the manmade claims, corresponds to weather technology. This is where modern departs the inference of the past.  

 

Science is not self sufficient when it comes to money.  It depends on government and business. You need to sell projects to get funding, since there are competitive science that also wants the money. Once the money is in someone's hand, they will do a good job. 

 

What is going to happen is, since Trump is not as sympathetic to climate change, as is, funding priorities may change in terms of the effectiveness of the  sales pitches. If more money goes to define the past, this data field will appear to increase, while the real time data field will appear to grow slower. This will make it look like the past had more change and the present is staying about the same, for future sales pitches. 

 

Another way to do this, is to do away wth modern tools and only use inference methods, for both the present and the past. This will normalize the data. If all we had were trees rings to look at, for past and present, we could solve climate change, based on the available data. The data will not reflect as much change as all the modern tools data appears to do. 

Edited January 2, 2017 by HydrogenBond

[billvon]

 

You can't bring modern tools back into time to normalize the data from the past; rerecord the past.The past data has to use different tools, based on inference methods. These are more abstract to the majority of people and scientists. Anyone can read a Doppler radar to see where the heavy rain is. But core samples tales more training. These inference methods, although valid, tend to average data into years, and does not allow a log of day by day change, without tremendous outlay of resources. Climate change, from the past would look sparse and average, without a lot of detail. The two methods are not interchangeable, therefore each can appear self standing.

The two methods are not the same.  However, they reinforce each other; instrumental data can be used (and has been used) to confirm that the other data we have (ice core data, tree ring data, sedimentation rates etc) are accurate.

 

 

Another way to do this, is to do away wth modern tools and only use inference methods, for both the present and the past. This will normalize the data. If all we had were trees rings to look at, for past and present, we could solve climate change, based on the available data.

Sure, you could throw out sets of data.  If you do this, though, some denier somewhere will say "you are intentionally excluding data that will prove me right!"  That's one reason climate studies use all available data.

 

 

The data will not reflect as much change as all the modern tools data appears to do.

Other proxies do indeed show as much change as "modern tools" (i.e. instrumental records) show.   For a good graphic take on this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years#/media/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

 

Note that this goes only through 2004; we've had 9 more record breaking years since then.

[Essay]

As Billvon has already pointed out,  we can ignore HB’s steaming pile of confused rhetoric, because most people recognize that scientists are not idiots and that they don’t use anecdotal evidence, and that they do account for those obvious confounding factors mentioned.  Also, most people know that other scientists are not idiots who wouldn’t miss a chance to further their own careers, either by pointing out those obvious flaws and doing a better job of accounting for those confounding factors, or by proving some other well-supported conclusion.

 

Yes, that is very true, and can well be the reason for the infamous "hockey stick" graph.

 

Not only is there more data being collected today, but there have been changes in the way it is collected and processed.

 

...

 

As I said earlier in this thread, the earth is definitely warming up, no doubt about it,

but how much of it is due to natural cycles, how much is due to man made influence, and how much is due to hype and political interests,

is yet to be determined.

...yet still, "determined" with a high degree of probability, along with fairly high confidence also, by the IPCC.  Do you know of some new information that refutes this determination of high probability and certainty?

***

But regardless of that small point,

 

Michael Mann’s famous hockey-stick graph is usually called “infamous” by outright deniers, or by someone else fooled into believing the world of media hype generated by a campaign working to discredit Mann’s graph.  However, in the world of journalism, and in the world of peer review, and in the world of legalities, Mann’s graph has held up to scrutiny and is still completely valid.

 

Sure, there was a challenge to a small fraction of the hockey stick data, which the media (but not journalism, science, or the law) blew up into some supposed problem or fraud or scandal, but the vast majority of the data in the hockey stick graph was also scrutinized and found to be unchallengeable. 

 

Also, the overall shape of the graph did not change when the challenged data was removed.  This is the way science is supposed to work; well, not the media hype part, but rather the way journalism, peer review, and the law will eventually sort out a best approximation of the overall truth.

 

Plus, also the way science is supposed to work, many other studies have confirmed those same conclusions from the Mann hockey stick graph,

so Mann’s graph should rightly be considered “famous” over the long run, in the big picture of reality.

~

[exchemist]

A slightly pedantic detour but whatever happened to the useful word "notorious"? 

 

It seems absurd to describe a scientific graph as "infamous".  An wicked person or act can be infamous, but a collection of data? Notorious, surely? 

[OceanBreeze]

A slightly pedantic detour but whatever happened to the useful word "notorious"? 

 

It seems absurd to describe a scientific graph as "infamous".  An wicked person or act can be infamous, but a collection of data? Notorious, surely? 

 

Me thinks they are synonyms, No?

 

I think the correct word for the hockey stick is "shocking".

[HydrogenBond]

The two methods are not the same.  However, they reinforce each other; instrumental data can be used (and has been used) to confirm that the other data we have (ice core data, tree ring data, sedimentation rates etc) are accurate.

 

 

Sure, you could throw out sets of data.  If you do this, though, some denier somewhere will say "you are intentionally excluding data that will prove me right!"  That's one reason climate studies use all available data.

 

 

Other proxies do indeed show as much change as "modern tools" (i.e. instrumental records) show.   For a good graphic take on this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years#/media/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

 

Note that this goes only through 2004; we've had 9 more record breaking years since then.

 

The 9 record breaking years is only relative to modern data collection. These records are only relative to the time frame that we have been keeping accurate and direct records. That is how the illusion works. Many people will assume recording breaking means all time, even before records were kept. 

 

It is like saying the world record in the javelin is 104.8 meters. This is the official record since we have been keeping hard records. This does not mean in all of human history, including times when everyone owned a speared or two, to hunt or to fight in war, where the adrenaline is flowing. There is no direct data back from those ancient times to compare the two data sets. The modern records are an official separate branch, that is not perfectly aligned with the past, but begins only in recent times. 

 

I am not saying the modern data is not accurate nor am I saying it was not collected in good faith and with high levels of skill. What I am saying is one cannot compare the two; present and past, side-by-side and get a perfect overlap. The methods and needs of both times were different. One would never make a claim we just saw 9 records based on the past billion years. However, many layman will assume this is what you are saying. That its how the illusion works and why it appeals to the mob; political science. 

 

To be honest, I knew it had to be a trick since it was supported by liberal politicians, who are experts at scams and word games. I will give you another example of the same special data affect. If you call an illegal alien an immigrant, you blur the data distinction between legal immigration; record of entry, and illegal immigration; no record of entry. These are two data sets, being merged, as though they are the one data set. If we say 9 records, and  politics is used to merge the past and present, the mob will think you mean all time. They same people fall for illegal immigrants merged as part of the set call all immigrants, as though one curve fits both. They used the trick too many times and got caught.

 

In fact, if you look at liberal social claims, this data trick is often used. If you questioned president Obama this made you a racists. The data merger is connected to questioning ideas, in a rational way, is one valid data set. The second data set is racism, where all decisions are based on race. These are two sets, each being self standing. The Liberals merged these, so even rational questioning means racism. Same data trick. 

 

A good scientists should understand the basics of data sets and not fall for tricks. 

Edited January 5, 2017 by HydrogenBond

[billvon]

The 9 record breaking years is only relative to modern data collection. These records are only relative to the time frame that we have been keeping accurate and direct records. That is how the illusion works. Many people will assume recording breaking means all time, even before records were kept. 

 

It is like saying the world record in the javelin is 104.8 meters. This is the official record since we have been keeping hard records. This does not mean in all of human history, including times when everyone owned a speared or two, to hunt or to fight in war, where the adrenaline is flowing. There is no direct data back from those ancient times to compare the two data sets. The modern records are an official separate branch, that is not perfectly aligned with the past, but begins only in recent times.

You didn't understand anything I posted, did you.

I am not saying the modern data is not accurate nor am I saying it was not collected in good faith and with high levels of skill. What I am saying is one cannot compare the two; present and past, side-by-side and get a perfect overlap. The methods and needs of both times were different. One would never make a claim we just saw 9 records based on the past billion years. However, many layman will assume this is what you are saying. That its how the illusion works and why it appeals to the mob; political science.

 

Wait a minute.  Is this Wellwisher?  The posting style is very similar - intense hatred for anything liberal, inability to understand basic science and lots of semicolons.