Reply With Quote
In other words, if you slow down from 100 mph to 80 mph, that doesn't mean you are suddenly travelling backwards???
Seems like a dumb question, but an apparently important one to ask.
Does everyone here understand the difference between a change in acceleration versus a change in direction?
In other words, if you slow down from 100 mph to 80 mph, that doesn't mean you are suddenly travelling backwards???
Seems like a dumb question, but an apparently important one to ask.
Then why ignore that the trend they show is the same trend shown in the other temperature records? Instead he goes to ing tree rings? Makes no sense to me.
I can almost hear WC's mental gears grinding...
Slowing down from 100 mph to 80 mph means you are accelerating in the negative direction, tbh.
If you slowed down from some speed to almost zero, without taking your foot of the accelerator, I'd say there's something else going on with the car.
Darrin?
Also
http://www.wsl.ch/info/mitarbeitende...PlanCh2008.pdfAn anomalous reduction in forest growth indices and temperature sensitivity has been detected in tree-ring width and density
records from many cir polar northern la ude sites since around the middle 20th century. This phenomenon, also known as the
“divergence problem”, is expressed as an offset between warmer instrumental temperatures and their underestimation in
reconstruction models based on tree rings. The divergence problem has potentially significant implications for large-scale patterns
of forest growth, the development of paleoclimatic reconstructions based on tree-ring records from northern forests, and the global
carbon cycle. Herein we review the current literature published on the divergence problem to date, and assess its possible causes
and implications. The causes, however, are not well understood and are difficult to test due to the existence of a number of
covarying environmental factors that may potentially impact recent tree growth. These possible causes include temperature-induced
drought stress, nonlinear thresholds or time-dependent responses to recent warming, delayed snowmelt and related changes in
seasonality, and differential growth/climate relationships inferred for maximum, minimum and mean temperatures. Another
possible cause of the divergence described briefly herein is ‘global dimming’, a phenomenon that has appeared, in recent decades,
to decrease the amount of solar radiation available for photosynthesis and plant growth on a large scale. It is theorized that the
dimming phenomenon should have a relatively greater impact on tree growth at higher northern la udes, consistent with what has
been observed from the tree-ring record. Additional potential causes include “end effects” and other methodological issues that can
emerge in standardization and chronology development, and biases in instrumental target data and its modeling. Although limited
evidence suggests that the divergence may be anthropogenic in nature and restricted to the recent decades of the 20th century, more
research is needed to confirm these observations.
Its a very difficult concept to get, but imagine that rising temps are affecting tree growth. Its a wonder scientist don't use proxies in place of actual instruments designed to measure.
rising temps are certainly permitting beetle to increase their infestion and destruction of white pines.
"who give about trees?" --- right-wing denier
I think this part was pretty important
The causes, however, are not well understood and are difficult to test due to the existence of a number of covarying environmental factors that may potentially impact recent tree growth.
http://news.yahoo.com/sticking-mann-...171407752.html"The worst-case scenarios may be unlikely, but they're not negligibly unlikely, and we have to take measures to hedge against the possibility that the changes will be at the upper end of the distribution," Mann said. "So we could be having that worthy discussion about real uncertainty, and how it translates into risk assessment and vulnerability, but instead we're still stuck — at least in the public discourse — in this silly debate about the reality of the problem."
"silly debate about the reality of the problem"
Kock Bros and similar s bags obtain the fogging, confusion, and ignorance they pay for.
Exactly why the position in your posted op ed was piss poor.
No the stuff that you are posting are not showing a slowdown to zero. They are showing a slowdown of acceleration. velocity != acceleration. Using the graphs YOU posted, acceleration over the last 10 years is near zero (not negative, 0). However we are still travelling at an above average velocity.
Try to keep the metaphors and YOUR posted graphs straight.
BTW, thank you scott, I thought that your metaphor would bring some clarity...apparently I was wrong.
To be fair, the acceleration is what matters in this debate. The slope of the graph is the important factor not how much we have warmed to date.
Dude, just stop.
Count yourself fortunate. Apparently you have the time to sift through 4 pages of drivel.
So you wouldn't say that you're decelerating? Do share with us what you think is going on in such an instance.
Yes, you are decelerating, but not for lack of hitting the gas.
By the way, I didn't start the terrible car analogies, someone else did.
My point is, CO2 has been increasing at an almost steady rate for the past 50 years (Keeling curve). If CO2 is what "fuels" temperature increases, why is the car slowing down?
Is heating and CO2 concentration a linear relationship? Just musing here, I don't really know. Perhaps you've encountered a hill which gets steeper as you move along it? Provided that you have zero acceleration (as a linear Keeling curve implies), methinks your car would slow down no?
I doubt it's linear, but should be at least correlated, if one causes the other. I wouldn't expect to find thirty year periods (e.g. mid 1940's to mid 1970's) where CO2 is steadily increasing while temperature is going down.
What's the hill in your scenario?
This.....
The non-linear nature of the CO2-Temp relationship. If the Keeling Curve is truly linear, then you'll necessarily see a reduced automobile velocity (your warming slowdown).
That doesn't preclude the hypothesis that CO2 drives heating though. It doesn't mean that heating isn't occurring either. It only speaks to pace.
You're saying the slowdown is an expected outcome?
Yes, only if we consider the CO2-Temp relationship in a vacuum though. Unfortunately, we don't have a vacuum here.
Translation: I don't know enough to say if it's expected or unexpected.
As far as i know the probability that a particular electron will absorb a photon is proportional to the fine structure constant. Now obviously the structure of the valence s s and their interactions play a role as would the kinetics of the particles but i would not be so sure that its not linear especially on a guess from someone like Darrin.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
