factually incorrect, by spades.
Global Warming -- How to Talk to a Skeptic
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
factually incorrect, by spades.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I read the the page of the link you provided and I thought I even repped you for it.(will go back and rep if I haven't)
The way I worded that sentence is wrong yes but let me elaborate a bit.(if I'm still wrong then I would like to know I am enjoying this conversation)
What I suppose I should have said is that we don't see an increase in temperature and co2 that has risen to today's levels this quickly in the record.(I'm still not happy with this but it will do)
The link you provided was talking about ice ages. To say that global warming is not happening quickly because temperature increased faster (though not to the same degree) at the end of the last glacial period is like saying that a heat wave came on slowly and was not a heat wave because the temperature rose faster with the spring thaw.
Name you period and your delta in that period, and then we'll compare the slope with 1950-now (or 1850-now, if you prefer).
UGLI baby
Well-Known Member
If I had a nickel for every time I've said this.....
In order to be consistent, we have to use the same method of estimating temps in all periods of our comparisons.
I need to review the latest figures given by our current investigators. The last I saw, it was I think a 1.48 F temp rise in the 1850-now period, using actual thermometer data on the records. Within this period are about 7 solar cycles, and the period selected began with the cold half of that sunspot cycle and ended with the warm half. We can discuss how that was handled in the statistics. . . . It might have been the 1950-present period, and as I recall there was a very definite sunspot-synced high period in the late 1990s. The present sunspot cycle has been widely described as weak. Some attention has turned to the effects of our waning magnetic field and pending pole reversal. . . expected to be something remarkable.
Most glaciation periods are preceded by a ten to twenty year spike in temps, according to mud/sediment cores and ice cores.
The "ice age alarmists" of 40 years ago had a good case, and our current interglacial period is going further than some have done. Given a cycle length of 100,000 years overall from glacier advance to glacier advance over the past 600,000 years, the sample size is pretty small, N=6 about. The time it takes for the temps to change by 15 F on the margins of those periods is typically less than twenty years.
It's better than 1 C, which would put it close to 2 F.
Which 20-year period? Where's your data?
just dioing a little google work here:
https://www.iceagenow.com/Pravda-Earth_on_the_Brink_of_an_Ice_Age.htm
includes the statement:
https://www.iceagenow.com/Pravda-Earth_on_the_Brink_of_an_Ice_Age.htm
includes the statement:
My error, it's dipped a little since 2011.
Other statements:
Funny, our soft drinks lose carbonation both in and out of the refrigerator when the lid is off, and don't lose carbonation when the lid is on.
Even better,
I'm not trying to defend those statements as they are pretty dumb... but in practical application the colder beer is the more "units" of CO2 it will absorb at a given CO2 pressure. If it is room temp it requires up to 40psi to get a proper level of carb, whereas at 33F I can set it to 12psi and get the same amount of CO2 into solution. It will also absorb CO2 faster the colder it is. "carbing" a beer at a cold temperature to "2.5" units which provides a typical amount of carbonation, then serving that beer at a hotter temp (so let's say 33F at the cold side and 55F at the hot side) will cause the beer to foam excessively as the CO2 rapidly escapes from solution. I've observed this phenomenon hundreds of times in real life. I also added a fan inside my keggorator to keep the temp inside uniform from the bottom to the top and to keep the beer lines chilled and the faucets (taps) cold so that I have less foaming issues. Even then, the first pint is usually foamy and following pints usually have the expected/desired amount of head.
Looking into how much temperature change actually affects dissolution of CO2:
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Mask=10#Solubility
In particular, the factor of interest is exp(d(ln(kH))/d(1/T) ((1/T) - 1/(298.15 K)). Water seems to hold about half as much CO2 at room temperature (1.00406 at 25 C) as it does near the freezing point (2.099227 at 0 C).
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Mask=10#Solubility
In particular, the factor of interest is exp(d(ln(kH))/d(1/T) ((1/T) - 1/(298.15 K)). Water seems to hold about half as much CO2 at room temperature (1.00406 at 25 C) as it does near the freezing point (2.099227 at 0 C).