Changes in Atlantic currents

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by tp12

No, it’s simple as you misreading the axis of a graph. That’s it.

Yeah, of course it is

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I'm not asserting anything. I asked you a question. Are they revisions? If not, what are they?

I am not going to play your infantile game.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

If your quoting based on revisions of temperature data, you're quoting revisionist history. It's funny how that works, isn't it?

The vertical scales are different.

Using Tony Heller as a source is ludicrous.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yeah, of course it is

[emoji849]

Yep, it is. You’re a lost cause. Good luck denying climate science

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The vertical scales are different.

Using Tony Heller as a source is ludicrous.

Why? Because he has a differing perspective to you? The site or the man might not meet with your esteemed approval (and, fwiw, I agree with only a subset of his overall views), but the graphs are legit. The earlier stuff is my own work and takes just minutes to hunt down. Anyone can do it. Those that are making these adjustments don't even try to hide it anymore. 0.1 here, 0.1 there. It appears to me homogenisation is the major cause of global warming, not CO2.



And, getting back to the graphs, the "vertical scales" make no difference. The red circles, otoh, do.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by tp12

[emoji849]

Yep, it is. You’re a lost cause. Good luck denying climate science

What exactly do you think I'm denying?

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So who's right and who's wrong?

I presume you are asking why the top graph shows temperature swings of about 6 degrees during the Palaeozoic, while the lower graph shows differences of more like 15 degrees?

well ... I dug out the source of the upper graph ... it comes from A history of the universe website

They have labelled the Y-axis "Temperature difference relative to today".

But they took the graph from Shaviv and Veiser 2003 (GSA Bulletin).

But if you look at their graph you see that the y-axis is labeled "Delta-T"

They don't explain what "Delta-T" is, but they do reference Veizer et al 2000 (Nature) which is where they got the graph from.

They label the Y-axis "Mean Tropical Temperature anomaly". So this is not measuring global climate, but tropical sea water temperature. And for "anomaly" they explain "Because of the detrending, we shall discuss below the relative temperature deviations from the norm, and not the absolute temperatures.". In other words they have subtracted an unquantified long term temperature trend.

Your lower graph seems to have originated on Wikipedia but it is a compilation of several published data sets. Looking at the part of the data that corresponds to your upper graph, it comes from Royer et al 2004 (GSA Today). This paper expands on the previous paper by using ocean pH to apply a correction to the Veizer et al graph, which gives a better correlation to other geological evidence of ancient glaciations.

However, it is still just estimating past tropical sea water temperature, not global climate ... So what did the wikipedia author do to convert it to a global climate scale? He just multiplied by 2 and added a big caveat ... "The anomalies are plotted here expanded by a factor of two, as a very approximate conversion. Multiple confounding factors affect interpretation of samples this old, so panel 1 is best viewed as a qualitative indication of temperature".

All were interesting papers on long term climate changes on the 100 million year timescale in the deep distant past, but with almost nothing to say about the changes happening today on the 100 year scale.

You'll need to take that argument up with the Geological Society of America. It's out of my pay grade.

indeed.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

I presume you are asking why the top graph shows temperature swings of about 6 degrees during the Palaeozoic, while the lower graph shows differences of more like 15 degrees?

well ... I dug out the source of the upper graph ... it comes from A history of the universe website

They have labelled the Y-axis "Temperature difference relative to today".

But they took the graph from Shaviv and Veiser 2003 (GSA Bulletin).

But if you look at their graph you see that the y-axis is labeled "Delta-T"

They don't explain what "Delta-T" is, but they do reference Veizer et al 2000 (Nature) which is where they got the graph from.

They label the Y-axis "Mean Tropical Temperature anomaly". So this is not measuring global climate, but tropical sea water temperature. And for "anomaly" they explain "Because of the detrending, we shall discuss below the relative temperature deviations from the norm, and not the absolute temperatures.". In other words they have subtracted an unquantified long term temperature trend.

Your lower graph seems to have originated on Wikipedia but it is a compilation of several published data sets. Looking at the part of the data that corresponds to your upper graph, it comes from Royer et al 2004 (GSA Today). This paper expands on the previous paper by using ocean pH to apply a correction to the Veizer et al graph, which gives a better correlation to other geological evidence of ancient glaciations.

However, it is still just estimating past tropical sea water temperature, not global climate ... So what did the wikipedia author do to convert it to a global climate scale? He just multiplied by 2 and added a big caveat ... "The anomalies are plotted here expanded by a factor of two, as a very approximate conversion. Multiple confounding factors affect interpretation of samples this old, so panel 1 is best viewed as a qualitative indication of temperature".

All were interesting papers on long term climate changes on the 100 million year timescale in the deep distant past, but with almost nothing to say about the changes happening today on the 100 year scale.

indeed.

Correct, except for the source. Here's the actual reference: https://stephenschneider.stanford.ed...-veizer-03.pdf


The point is that data is as good as any other, but jackdale et al had to argue with it because I am an alleged denier.


And that ends our lesson on how biases work.

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The point is that data is as good as any other.

Did you look at the data? it is not "as good as any other" it is very messy data, the authors had to apply all kinds of statistical analysis to match trends on a 100,000,000 year timescale, the graph you showed runs a 50,000,000 year moving average over the data. To compare this to a dataset with well ordered data points every year or better, and claim the data is just as good is laughable. It probably *IS* the best data available for most of the Mesozoic and Palaeozoic which is what the authors were interested in. But as presented there it is not appropriate for examining the Holocene, for which much better data exists, as shown on your second graph, which is much the same as the graph Jack posted.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

Did you look at the data? it is not "as good as any other" it is very messy data, the authors had to apply all kinds of statistical analysis to match trends on a 100,000,000 year timescale, the graph you showed runs a 50,000,000 year moving average over the data. To compare this to a dataset with well ordered data points every year or better, and claim the data is just as good is laughable. It probably *IS* the best data available for most of the Mesozoic and Palaeozoic which is what the authors were interested in. But as presented there it is not appropriate for examining the Holocene, for which much better data exists, as shown on your second graph, which is much the same as the graph Jack posted.

You might want to Google Stephen Schneider and Stanford U and see where they stood/stand in the CC world keeping in mind this document is available from their domain. Then you'll realise that your now coming across as the grand king of blinkered bias. Do you honestly think any document is going to be a 100% accurate in relation to past global temperatures, even if that past was just a few millenia ago?


To be pedantic, you might also consider that the graph was in response to a counter statement jackdale was making as it related to dinosaurs in Alaska 65 MILLION years ago. This, in fact, makes the graph I provided the most relevant. But nevertheless, as already stated, I specified no opinion as to which graph is most correct.


But do keep trying, Grand King.

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I specified no opinion as to which graph is most correct.

No you didn't. But you did ask which was the most correct. Without judgement I pointed out why the two graphs differed for the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic.

I apologise if I falsely assumed that you thought the Late Cenozoic and Quaternary portion of the second graph could in any way be compared to the first.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

No you didn't. But you did ask which was the most correct. Without judgement I pointed out why the two graphs differed for the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic.

I apologise if I falsely assumed that you thought the Late Cenozoic and Quaternary portion of the second graph could in any way be compared to the first.

Apology accepted. Healthy debate and we all get to learn something every now and again. Late cretaceous dinosaurs in Alaska was a new one for me.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Are these revisions?

I have no idea what you're driving at with those graphs. Other than baiting JD with juvenile non-points. The graphs all indicate significant recent warming and a very, very clear trend.

Given different teams applying different methodologies, and even different graphing styles, is it surprising that the presented absolute values might differ slightly? Yet the trend is crystal clear in all of them.

And, any simplified presentation of air temperature change is incomplete and misleading when it comes to quantifying how much warming has recently occurred; the amount of heat energy that's been absorbed by the oceans and gone into melting ice is staggering.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The point is that data is as good as any other, but jackdale et al had to argue with it because I am an alleged denier.

End the mystery. What do you believe? Human-caused warming, or not? Problem to be addressed, or not?

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Don C L

It seems your bottom graph is demonstrating what is occurring. Relative to the last million years, the recent rise in CO2 and temperature is dramatic. It is not relevant to compare the Earth and its climate from those times when it was dramatically warmer. Life in those times was adapted to those conditions. We are not. The changes in temperature and climate that occurred too quickly for life, no matter when they occurred, cause major die-offs and extinctions. Those concerned about climate change right now are just trying to avoid another one. And we aren't doing too well.

What conditions that might occur from our current climate change trend are we not adapted to? Humans currently live comfortably in very diverse climates, from those living at the equator to those in northern Alaska. Are you really suggesting that we’re in danger of a die off or even becoming extinct?! Unsupported hyperbole like that doesn’t lend credibility to the argument that climate change is an issue that needs our attention.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Scientists who write papers, or do research, that reaches conclusions that are not supported by evidence that can be validated or replicated by their peers will find it hard to get employment with reputable facilities or universities... unless they are looking for employment with a media outlet that is looking for an "expert" to bolster their political opinions.

Don, I do respect science and tend to see as credible most of the peer reviewed conclusions I read.

However, what I have observed in a long life of learning is that academia is populated by individuals positing novel conclusions and attempting to validate them with data. If we lose track of this we, and this is proven by the two camps on most issues, run the risk of believing the science closest to our existing beliefs.

Every time I see someone no longer curious and attached to a theory of what is on topics like this I wince. Almost inevitably these individuals tell me to read the science as if that is the end of the thinking. I find it sad.