2024: Leas snow than normal

[helmethiker]

The length of human existence is irrelevant. If the **** genus had been around 20 million years would it change anything about what’s happening now? 200 million years? Using only the data that makes your point in the strongest possible way is called intellectual dishonesty.

I didn’t “ignore” anything, I just didn’t respond to anything I didn’t or couldn’t disagree with. I didn’t analyze the ice cores or isotope ratios in sedimentary rock so how could I possibly disagree with his CO2 concentration numbers? My sole point of contention with the original post was the cherry-picking of data.

If you’re going to decide who is and isn’t qualified to do something, why don’t you post your CV that gives you the qualifications to make those statements? Probably because you have no such qualifications. You believe in dogma, not science.

If you want continued human existence, then the length and conditions of past human existence are very much NOT irrelevant.

If you want to live NOT under a dictatorship/royalty, then as best as I can tell your only option is to include everyone, including flat-earthers*, in your civil discourse. As best as I can tell democracy has only come about after 1 armed insurrection, and that time only because the armed insurrection leader said "no" to being king.

Science is political. The funding for experiments, and in some cases the legality of experiments, comes from the government political process. The discussion of results amongst the scientists themselves is also a political process, although in principle not related to government politics.

Science can be done by "ordinary" people. I should ask, but I am pretty sure my brother and his wife were both involved in the experimental discovery of both the top quark and the Higgs boson at Fermi lab and CERN; I know they were involved with at least one. My uncle was the director of SLAC. My father was a nuclear physicist. My mother's father was a physicist. There are a lot of people doing "ordinary" engineering and analysis on all of this.

Science is a way of arguing truth with other people, almost certainly better than duels**. Without science as a way of deciding who was right, who would spend 80 hours a week for 40 years digging in the sand to look at past lives? The process of changing the scientific model is often not smooth. Particle theory of light, after years of the wave theory? Relativity around the speed of light? Quantum mechanics? And I only really know the physics stuff, because physics is my family history.

Who gave us the right to decide truth for ourselves? Some people claim it started with Galileo. Their claim is that Galileo wanted to wrest control of the truth from the priests, and give it to himself. His process was to remove restrictions on who decided truth.

But this started as being about snow. So you want snow? You probably are too puny to cause it to snow where you are. But you probably are not too puny to go and find snow. And you are not too puny to discuss ways that snow might happen in the future where it happened in the past.

*Flat-earth theory is weird; the people who think about such things have known the earth was round at least as far back as Archimedes. Columbus was arguing that the diameter across the equator was substantially shorter than the diameter across the poles.

**Galois was a mathematician, not a scientist, but ...

 

[JoshandBaron]

People should read more abstracts and fewer media interpretations.

 

[MikeC]

Is the guy with the PhD still around? Asking for a friend.

 

[DayTrip]

As I said, going solely by the graph we have a time frame cherry-picked to make a point. Believe it or not, most people are intelligent enough to know when they’re being given cherry-picked data with the intent of making them come to a certain conclusion. Why not graph something like CO2 levels being higher and increasing more rapidly than they have since the great oxygenation event of some 2.4 billion years ago (assuming that’s true), to show the true scale? We know that in the past the earth has been both much warmer and much colder than it is now, so why not graph the relationship between CO2 levels and average global temperature over, say, the last billion years?

They have used ice core samples to establish CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years or so to be between 180ppm and 280 ppm. That certainly predates our "modern" existence and any of the technologies we blame for CO2 emissions, which are now well above that level (about 420 ppm). I think any analysis going back millions or billions of years would have quite a few assumptions made with models and other assumptions that wouldn't make it terribly useful (or I wouldn't trust it at least but I'm no authority on the subject).

NASA had a graph going back about 800,000 years that illustrates the ups and downs of various cycles over the centuries with a very obvious break out well above these fairly regularly occurring cycle highs/lows starting around 1950. There are many similar charts correlating to ice core samples, like this one:

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

They have used ice core samples to establish CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years or so to be between 180ppm and 280 ppm. That certainly predates our "modern" existence and any of the technologies we blame for CO2 emissions, which are now well above that level (about 420 ppm). I think any analysis going back millions or billions of years would have quite a few assumptions made with models and other assumptions that wouldn't make it terribly useful (or I wouldn't trust it at least but I'm no authority on the subject).

NASA had a graph going back about 800,000 years that illustrates the ups and downs of various cycles over the centuries with a very obvious break out well above these fairly regularly occurring cycle highs/lows starting around 1950. There are many similar charts correlating to ice core samples, like this one:

View attachment 7964

The EPICA ice core in Antarctica extends the temperature and CO2 records showing the same sawtooth pattern in the figure above back to about 800,000 years BP and the Russians are drilling a site in Antarctica that could push the record back to over 1,000,000 years BP, which may shed some light on the transition from the 40,000-year to 100,000-year glacial-interglacial cycles. A google search for EPICA ice core should provide a downloadable figure to post here if anyone is so inclined.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

The length of human existence is irrelevant. If the **** genus had been around 20 million years would it change anything about what’s happening now? 200 million years? Using only the data that makes your point in the strongest possible way is called intellectual dishonesty.

I didn’t “ignore” anything, I just didn’t respond to anything I didn’t or couldn’t disagree with. I didn’t analyze the ice cores or isotope ratios in sedimentary rock so how could I possibly disagree with his CO2 concentration numbers? My sole point of contention with the original post was the cherry-picking of data.

If you’re going to decide who is and isn’t qualified to do something, why don’t you post your CV that gives you the qualifications to make those statements? Probably because you have no such qualifications. You believe in dogma, not science.

I do not see any cherry-picking of ice core records posted in this thread, as nearly all ice core records show the anomalous increase in atmospheric CO2 to around 420 ppm over the past few decades. An ice core that does not show the dramatic recent increase in CO2 is one that I helped collect at 17,500 ft in the Indian Himalaya (Nun Kun massif) in 1980 when we did not have the means to preserve the ice for CO2 measurements. Also, because the snow accumulation rate was much higher than we anticipated, that ice core record was relatively short.

If all the other ice core records showed no increase in CO2 above the the 185-285 ppm range, then I would agree with you that the records posted here were cherry-picked.

 

[B the Hiker]

No. "This whole climate argument" is not an argument. The oil and gas industries have lobbied politicians and created propoganda for decades to create denialism of anthropogenic climate change and maintain our dependency on the oil and gas industries. It really is as simple as that.

Agreed, there is no "argument." There is science on one side, and people who don't read newspapers on the other.

 

[dug]

Agreed, there is no "argument." There is science on one side, and people who don't read newspapers on the other.

What does reading the newspaper have to do with anything?

 

[skiguy]

What does reading the newspaper have to do with anything?

Well at least the newspapers use their perceived intellectual elitism to check the spelling on the title of an article reporting global warming before they try to ostracize their audience without actually knowing whom that audience is.

 

[B the Hiker]

"Just one year after 2023 made the record books as the hottest year in Earth’s documented history, climate scientists are all but certain that 2024 will take its title.

According to a new report by the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), a European research group that tracks global temperatures, November 2024 was the second warmest November on record, after November 2023. Both beat out historical temperature averages for the month by large margins. November 2024 was 0.73 degrees Celsius warmer than the average global November air temperature from 1991 to 2020, and it was 1.62 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial November average for 1850 to 1900."


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...j4ZwRHvPvXBnz_K6uQ_aem_MF-phrKJGGzm1vl1UEgYRA

 

[B the Hiker]

Well at least the newspapers use their perceived intellectual elitism to check the spelling on the title of an article reporting global warming before they try to ostracize their audience without actually knowing whom that audience is.

Content free personal attack by an anonymous troll. Just another day in the life of skiguy. Say, troll, how about you tell us your name and give a photo of yourself?

 

[B the Hiker]

What does reading the newspaper have to do with anything?

Can't argue facts if you don't have any. No worries, just keep grunting and making personal attacks. Nothing more powerful in denying science than that.

 

[skiguy]

Content free personal attack by an anonymous troll. Just another day in the life of skiguy. Say, troll, how about you tell us your name and give a photo of yourself?

Playing that card again. Time for you to rock your grey matter a bit. You have been told multiple times from past moderators that having one's personal information as an Avatar is not required for this board. I suppose you expect everyone here to conform to your rules and idealities because essentially in your mind your better and smarter than everyone. Here's an idea. Create your own board with its own rules rather than to continue to think you are an authority on life.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

"Just one year after 2023 made the record books as the hottest year in Earth’s documented history, climate scientists are all but certain that 2024 will take its title.

According to a new report by the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), a European research group that tracks global temperatures, November 2024 was the second warmest November on record, after November 2023. Both beat out historical temperature averages for the month by large margins. November 2024 was 0.73 degrees Celsius warmer than the average global November air temperature from 1991 to 2020, and it was 1.62 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial November average for 1850 to 1900."

View attachment 7965
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...j4ZwRHvPvXBnz_K6uQ_aem_MF-phrKJGGzm1vl1UEgYRA

A record-breaking average global temperature for 2024 is all the more remarkable because the year has been influenced by La Niña rather than by El Niño, so greenhouse gas emissions are now more than offsetting another cyclic natural climate variable besides the orbitally-forced cycles noted earlier.

 

[NH2112]

I do not see any cherry-picking of ice core records posted in this thread, as nearly all ice core records show the anomalous increase in atmospheric CO2 to around 420 ppm over the past few decades. An ice core that does not show the dramatic recent increase in CO2 is one that I helped collect at 17,500 ft in the Indian Himalaya (Nun Kun massif) in 1980 when we did not have the means to preserve the ice for CO2 measurements. Also, because the snow accumulation rate was much higher than we anticipated, that ice core record was relatively short.

If all the other ice core records showed no increase in CO2 above the the 185-285 ppm range, then I would agree with you that the records posted here were cherry-picked.

“Cherry-picking” meaning using a selected set of data, whether or not it’s intended to mislead. It might just be me but I’d probably use records dating back to the Ediacaran to give a nice, long baseline. The period of time that complex life has existed on the planet should be enough to convince anyone without a closed mind. Obviously ice core records don’t go back that far but sedimentary rock records should, and should give the same results no matter where they’re located on the planet, correct? How does their accuracy and resolution compare to ice cores?

 

[NH2112]

If you want continued human existence, then the length and conditions of past human existence are very much NOT irrelevant.

2 million, 20 million, or 200 million years, the point is that CO2 levels only started to rise in the last couple hundred years or so of our existence as a genus. It’s really only what we’ve done in those couple hundred years that’s relevant to our continued existence. Which I doubt is in danger, anyway. We could (probably will) see a large percentage of the human population die off, along with however many other animals and plants, but a new “hot Earth” will still have a human carrying capacity. Much lower than it is now, obviously, but even if 99% of the human race goes “pfffft” that’ll still leave 80M-plus using today’s figures. More than enough to start over, especially with the sum knowledge of humanity intact.

I’m not a nihilist, I’m trying to look at this realistically. It doesn’t seem like there’s anything we can do quickly enough and on the scale necessary to reverse climate change, and even just stabilizing it looks iffy from a funding and mechanical point of view. If the entire global GDP was available beyond what’s needed for an absolute subsistence existence, and the popular & political will to commit it was there, could we start making a change by 2040-2050?

I’m not going to lie, at age 56 I have maybe another 30 years or so (my mother is 85 and physically healthy, AFAIK my father is still alive and he’d be 83) so I’m not too concerned about what it means for ME personally. I don’t have kids but I do have nieces & nephews that I’d like to know will have a good world to live on. But the popular will isn’t there and the political will isn’t there, and what honestly pisses me off the most about it is having less snow to play in for a shorter period of time. Spring, summer, and fall are just things I tolerate until snow and cold get here. Though this winter has bucked the trend of the last 4-5 years, with almost 2 feet of snow in the mountains. Before today’s rain and temps in the 40s, anyway.

 

[dave.m]

Is the guy with the PhD still around? Asking for a friend.

I imagine there are several of us still around. Does your friend have a question?

 

[dug]

Can't argue facts if you don't have any. No worries, just keep grunting and making personal attacks. Nothing more powerful in denying science than that.

Once again...I'm not arguing facts since I don't disagree with you. I just wanted to understand what reading the newspaper has to do with anything.

For a PhD you certainly have reading comprehension issues. Now, THAT was a personal attack ;-)

Apparently, in your world - general attacks = OK. Personal attacks (while making a personal attack) = not OK. Got it....

 

[NHChris]

Here’s another point of view to brighten your day….

The Planet is Fine according to this guy!

And it will shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

 

[skiguy]

I imagine there are several of us still around. Does your friend have a question?

What is your area of expertise? I know it has always been excellent for Nordic related issues. Does your realm of knowledge extend beyond that sphere?