What's new
By:

Global Warming -- How to Talk to a Skeptic

babe said:
There are plenty of examples of much faster increases in temp, and decreases in temp, across the entire past we know anything about. factually wrong. I gave a link above you must not have read. . . . .
Click to expand...

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.
 
One Brow said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
babe said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's better than 1 C, which would put it close to 2 F.

babe said:
The time it takes for the temps to change by 15 F on the margins of those periods is typically less than twenty years.
Click to expand...

Which 20-year period? Where's your data?
 
babe said:
just dioing a little google work here:

https://www.iceagenow.com/Pravda-Earth_on_the_Brink_of_an_Ice_Age.htm

includes the statement:
Click to expand...

Other statements:

That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ‘fizz’, which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content.
Click to expand...

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,

(If CO2 causes warming, shouldn’t we be able to heat our soft
drinks simply by pumping CO2 into them?)
Click to expand...
 
One Brow said:
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,
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gameface said:
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.
Click to expand...

If a drink goes flat in the fridge, and you drink it while it is still cold, it's still flat. It has to warm to bring out the bubbles, as you noted.
 
One Brow said:
I read the link, and you are interpreting the graph wrongly. Temperature and CO2 have never climbed as quickly as they have these past 150 years.
Click to expand...

So here is a statement from the first link, which you are referring to here. . . .

On a shorter time scale, global temperatures fluctuate often and rapidly. Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.
Click to expand...

My notion of ice ages being immediately preceded by spikes in temps goes back to my reading in the late 1970s, which was primarily peer-reviewed publications on the subject. . . .

I am leaving now for a 36-hr excursion to my ranch, which is experiencing sub-zero temps tonight, and the third year in a row of substantial snowfall that is covering the forage available to my cows. In 1996 I looked at some tree rings in the forest on the mountains above that spot, and prognositcated that our previous 100 years have been drier than any comparable time over the past 400 years, and warmer as well. Our "Little Ice Age" ended with the advent of the industrial age, 1850 or so, and it has always seemed to me a bit of moronicity to ignore that fact in discussing the past 160 years. The long-term cycles have us on a triple dip right now. . . . and I predict the next ten years will be comparable to the decade of 1840, with a decrease in the ppm CO2 to boot.

right now, I'm off to roll out the hay.
 
One Brow said:
If a drink goes flat in the fridge, and you drink it while it is still cold, it's still flat. It has to warm to bring out the bubbles, as you noted.
Click to expand...

Right.

Honestly, I just wanted to talk. My post didn't really have a point.
 
I wasn't done with this when I took off to save my cows on the range. I know it's at least partly an "inversion" phenonemon, but it got down to -28 F, with highs of zero. Global warming has raised that to lows of -1 and highs of 20 today. . . one of those very short-term and very local sudden "spikes" in temps, and by next week it'll be an ice age all over. well, actually, the ring around the moon tonight says it'll snow again i n about three to five days. The last snow hasn't melted yet, at all. So, I'm heading back to take care of my animals. . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top