Think outside the (electronics) box. For ancient climate, there's other indicators. One interesting one is average springtime temperatures determined by blooming date of flowering plants.
Just as most or all electronic components are temperature-sensitive, so are all the processes of nature. Many such leave traces behind. Ocean ooze, gas bubbles trapped in ice, isotopic fluctuations...
There was a major earthquake near Seattle, before any literate population was present. Oral tradition and tsunami records and carbon-dated plants all agreed, and we know the time to within an hour, 9pm Jan 26, 1700 AD (on modern calendar). There were no quartz clocks involved, just an understanding that lots of disparate data all connected, and the will to gather and interpret the traces left behind.
I think it's more likely YOU who resides there... a know-it-all who ignores data? ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
It's what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.
The transition form the last ice age to the current interglacial may have s tarted some 18,000 years ago, but the current interglacial has been largely stable for the past 10,000 years - though there have areas of limited regi onal warming and cooling since then largely driven by ocean currents moving around - like the El Nino/La Nina alternation, but slower and on a larger scale.
formatting link
To claim that the climate has been warming for the past 18,000 years is eit her disingenuous or a deliberate misrepresentation.
,
t
It's not a refutation, it's critique of Happer's arguments, which are quite as inadequate as yours.
The point about anthropogenic global warming is that there is a great deal of scientific evidence that it is going on. The atmospheric CO2 level has b een monitored since 1958 (search on Keeling Curve or Mauna Loa Observatory) and the Greenland and Antarctic ice core data took the global history back about a million years, through several ice age and interglacials. There ar e limited areas of undisturbed (and worm-free) lake and ocean sediment that take it back quite a bit further.
formatting link
Getting your head around this sort of evidence takes time. Niether you, nor John Larkin have bothered to spend that time. You seem to believe whatever the Koch brothers want you to believe - and they have a considerable comme rcial interest in deferring effective action against anthropogenic global w arming as long as possible.
John Larkin is more a hopelessly gullible sucker who will beleive anything he sees on a denialist web site - which is to say what the Koch brothers (a nd a bunch of people with similar commercial interests) want him to beleive .
Without a cited example of real malfeasance - and I don't know of any - you are actually quoting a standard denialist claim as if it were a fact.
Joseph Fourier seems to have been the first to do that back in 1824.
It took a while before we knew enough about the interaction between radiati on and gas molecules to work out why the surface of the earth was warmer th an a black body's should have been.
You won't make any money out of reading about the discovery of global warmi ng
o know the exact nature of the signal and the exact nature of the noise. Y ou need to know the magnitude and statistical distribution of the random no ise.
build as prototypes. We start with the specified characteristics of the dozen or so components, build a simulation and then build one in real life. How often do the two results agree? Often they don't. That's when the learning process begins. We start to add in the unspecified parasitic cha racteristics of the components and the connections, adjusting the model unt il it agrees with the observed performance in the lab. Only then can you s ay that you have an accurate model. And your model is going to have limite d ability to accurately predict operation in regions outside of what we tes ted.
anding of their usefulness and their limitations.
Politicians do that all the time. Reagan's enthusiasm for the Laffer Curve was actually a bit worse than that, since it was known to be a gross (and m isleading) over-simpliication at the time.
John Larkin has never heard of experimental psychology.
formatting link
Theraputic psychology is a different field, and subject to the usual proble ms you get when the medically qualified try to do what they think is "scien ce".
There's a simialr problem in economics where a lot of pseudo-academics work hard on telling rich people what the rich people want to hear, so that the y can get an endowed professorship at a famous university. There are econom ic studies that are rigourous and useful, but John Larkin doesn't know abou t any of them.
Astronomy and geology? Rigorous observation serves the same purpose, but Jo hn Larkin doesn't know enough to realsie this - thoughb he does get told fr om time to time.
the
Not that John Larkin will be able to cite an example of either situation.
Geology was sceptical about "continental drift" from the time Wegner first proposed it in 1912 until the late 1950's when plate tectonics provided a p lausible rationalisation.
A hurricane depends on having a decent area of sea water more than 3 degree s away from the equator that is above 26.5 Celcius down to about 50 metres.
The presence of such an area doesn't guarantee a huricane, but you can't ha ve hurricane without enoughb hot water - and the larger and warmer the area , the bigger the hurricane can get.
Blizzards and heat waves don't depend that kind of specific mechanism, and John Larkin doesn't know enough to realise that he should have made a disti nction.
And there's an example of nature injecting large quantities of a greenhouse gas - almost certainly methane - into the atmopshere over a thousand years or so.
formatting link
It did happen some 55.5 millions years ago, so all the evidence we have is geological, but there's quite a lot of it. Methane in the atmosphere gets c onverted to CO2 quite rapildy (decades rather than centuries) so we do have a rather good example of what will happen if we keep on burning fossil car bon and dumping the CO2 generated into the atmsophere.
I don't know either, I'd have to read some papers or something. I assume the error bars are way bigger than 0.1 deg. It's like astronomy the further back in time you go the bigger the uncertainty.
George H.
I wasn't aware they had Keithleys when Raquel Welch
It's not so much that Larkin lives in back water as that he refuses to find out out about the subject he pontificates about. A condition that Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson more or less duplicates.
They've still got to get them published in peer-reviewed journals, so the b old and scary predictions do have to be evidence-based.
Science is part of the entertainment industry, but you do have to entertain your audience with an expert selection of verifiable facts.
Except that there's a much bigger finacial incentive to publish data that t he denialist will like and can use, and there are some papers in the peer-r eviewed literature that have tried to do that. They are all turned out to b e falsifiable - mostly embarrassingly quickly - but you can still find them on denialist web-sites without any reference to the refutations and demoli tions.
A paper that really did revise current climate science orthodoxy would be v ery well received, but too many people have been looking for one for a whil e now. This isn't like proving Fermat's last theorem - the basic ideas aren 't all that complicated.
The deuterium content of particular layers Arctic and Antartic ice cores does tell you about the temperature of the whole planet at the time the particular section of the ice core you are looking was laid down.
I thought that everybody knew that ...
The delusion is all yours, based on an unfortunate ignorance.
You were taken to museums as a child, and watched particular films when you got older and had certain hormonal motivations.
If you want to comment on anthropogenic global warming, you need to do enough background reading to avoid looking like a twit.
Seriously? Can't everyone measure the freezing/ boiling point of water to ~1 deg. and correct for elevation/ pressure effects? (I've never tried to measure the boiling point, so I'm 1/2 talking out of my ass.) If you really cared I'm pretty sure the data is available.
Now, we can and have seen them covered in various ways.
Movie t*ts?
Earliest one I know of:
The Forbidden Planet 1956
Then, we see Omar Sharif's hiney and pretty much all of Julie Newmar's long naked cattyness in:
MacKenna's Gold 1969
Then, also in 1969 Terry Southern entertained us with Ringo Star and Peter Sellers in "The Magic Christian". In THAT movie, Miss Welch played "The Preistess of The Whip".
Raquel appeared in a room full of naked women, but she was herself dressed (and cracking a whip).
So, did she get naked in a movie with a caveman and I missed it or what?
John Larkin beleives everything that Anthony Watts has to say on the subject, and Anthony Watts has a bee in his bonnet about Stevenson boxes.
formatting link
Of course you don't. Anthony Watts has told you not to.
Averge global temperature is hard to measure, but the deuterium content of water that condenses onto the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets lets you do it.
Temperature at any particular place is easy to measure - unless you want accuracy better than a millidegree or so, or the temperature you want to measure is a long way from room temperature.
Sure, if you don't have any instrumentation spread over the entire surface of the earth or satellite views.
But we do have those things, and the estimates of tomorrow's weather while not perfect, are a WHOLE lot better than "the same as today."
For another oversimplified analogy to weather vs climate predictability, su ppose you put a pot of water on the stove. While it would be tough to predi ct what the temperature would be in a minute or two (weather), it would be a pretty safe bet to predict that the water would be boiling in 30 minutes (climate).
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.