New IPCC report: we left for 1000 years!

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13716
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1525
Contact :

Re: New IPCC report: we left for 1000 years!




by izentrop » 01/10/21, 23:30

ABC2019 wrote:I am more interested in knowing with what precision one can measure the average temperature of the earth 100 years ago!
It's like that : Mrgreen:

It's an obsession with you : Mrgreen: However, there is plenty of literature on this subject.

We have known this with a fairly good precision for at least 400000 years thanks to the air bubbles trapped in the ice cores among other things.
Perhaps going back in the history of climatology will help you, well it helped me ...
The little story goes that it was Claude Lorius, a French scientist, who, watching a piece of ice melted in his whiskey, taken from the depths of the Antarctic ice sheet and observing the sparkling of air bubbles tens of thousands of years old. years, had the intuition that analyzing the chemical composition of such an old air could be of scientific interest and perhaps provide information on the climate of the time when these bubbles were trapped.

But before being able to carry out these analyzes, it was necessary to have “old” ice and therefore take it as deeply as possible, down to the bedrock if possible ...
Paleoclimatology validates Milankovitch's astronomical theory:
Image
The most remarkable result, mentioned above, is to be attributed to an American trio, Hay, Imbry and Shackleton who in 1976 presented the analysis of two cores from the Indian Ocean, covering the whole of the last glacial cycle, in which they had measured several different parameters related to climate, including variations in the 18O / 16O ratio in foraminifers, carbonate contents which reflected the abundance of calcareous shell organisms, and variations in foraminifera populations themselves, some having known affinities for precise temperature intervals. The evolution of these parameters was consistent in accordance with the astronomical theory of Milankovitch, unfortunately deceased for twenty years ...
"The model based on astronomical theory predicts that the cooling that began 6 years ago will continue for another 000 years before the climate warms slightly and then plunges into glacial conditions in about 5 years."

This shows the confidence given to this theory which seemed to settle definitively the question of the causes of glacial-interglacial alternations, at least those of the Quaternary.
Everything is not there, but in the archives of the site, you should find ...

For example Michel Petit answered your question in 2015 https://argonautes.club/peut-on-parler- ... diale.html
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: New IPCC report: we left for 1000 years!




by ABC2019 » 02/10/21, 06:32

izentrop wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:I am more interested in knowing with what precision one can measure the average temperature of the earth 100 years ago!
It's like that : Mrgreen:

It's an obsession with you : Mrgreen: However, there is plenty of literature on this subject.

We have known this with a fairly good precision for at least 400000 years thanks to the air bubbles trapped in the ice cores among other things.

So for you the 18 O / 16 O ratio at the level of Antarctica is sufficient to measure the world temperature to within 0,1 ° C?
For example Michel Petit answered your question in 2015 https://argonautes.club/peut-on-parler- ... diale.html

this article is about modern temperature measurement with thermometers so it has nothing to do with my question.

On the other hand, it poses another problem, if the measurement of 18O / 16O in Antarctica is enough to measure the temperature to within 0,1 ° C, why do we get tired of measuring with thermometers all over the world? and what's the downside of having missing areas pointed out in the article?

Measuring the global average temperature is more difficult, because the distribution of observation stations is not homogeneous and above all because there are none in certain inaccessible areas.
The authors do not all use the same methodology to compensate for this absence, which explains the small variations in the results obtained.



Another question, is that the temperature fluctuates at all time scales, when we speak of "the current temperature", it is measured over what time interval?

Image
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1951
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 687

Re: New IPCC report: we left for 1000 years!




by humus » 02/10/21, 09:28

For those who have passed the doubt about RCA and are interested in solutions, here is a video about a radical collective, buzzword at the moment.
Radical with good reason, given the urgency.
economie-finance / understanding-the-world-we-live-in-t16917-10.html # p469381
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13716
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1525
Contact :

Re: New IPCC report: we left for 1000 years!




by izentrop » 02/10/21, 10:15

ABC2019 wrote:So for you the 18 O / 16 O ratio at the level of Antarctica is sufficient to measure the world temperature to within 0,1 ° C?
For paleoclimatologists, I just trust. I imagine there is a strong correlation. Already on the graph we see a clear difference between temperature, CO2, CH4, even if it is shifted in time.
I imagine that they have scales to connect all these factors, as well as the temperature measured by the thermometer, which is just a measure of the expansion of the materials ...

Whether a scientist is confused by some sort of self-interest or egocentricity, but when 99% of scientists agree with the official version, you just have to line up behind the consensus, that's how it is : Lol:

... or you ask your questions to big names like Valérie Masson Delmotte. : Mrgreen:
1 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: New IPCC report: we left for 1000 years!




by ABC2019 » 02/10/21, 10:33

izentrop wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:So for you the 18 O / 16 O ratio at the level of Antarctica is sufficient to measure the world temperature to within 0,1 ° C?
For paleoclimatologists, I just trust. I imagine there is a strong correlation. Already on the graph we see a clear difference between temperature, CO2, CH4, even if it is shifted in time.

whether this is a correlated proxy, I have no doubt, my question was about the accuracy of the method?

Whether a scientist is confused by some sort of self-interest or egocentricity, but when 99% of scientists agree with the official version, you just have to line up behind the consensus, that's how it is : Lol:

uh ... what 99% are you talking about, okay with what version of what, measured how?

... or you ask your questions to big names like Valérie Masson Delmotte. : Mrgreen:


As far as I can see, that doesn't address the question I was asking, the accuracy of reconstructing the temperatures of the last 100 years, please don't mix it up Izzy ...
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1951
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 687

Re: New IPCC report: we left for 1000 years!




by humus » 14/10/21, 07:41

1 x
humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1951
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 687

Re: New IPCC report: we left for 1000 years!




by humus » 29/10/21, 19:51

0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: New IPCC report: we left for 1000 years!




by ABC2019 » 29/10/21, 21:09

humus wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGlTnDxrZ5Y

Anyone who blames RC for the companies who mined the fossils they've used their whole lives are just big, hypocritical nazes.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14965
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4363

Re: New IPCC report: we left for 1000 years!




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 29/10/21, 21:37

Always shit.
1 x
humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1951
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 687

Re: New IPCC report: we left for 1000 years!




by humus » 30/10/21, 08:37

ABC2019 wrote:
humus wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGlTnDxrZ5Y

Anyone who blames RC for the companies who mined the fossils they've used their whole lives are just big, hypocritical nazes.

Of course, there is no difference between being a user uninformed of the consequences of their actions and a company informed of the consequences, which deliberately deceives the user? : roll:
How do you manage to be rotten like that? Is there no mirror in your house?
1 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 187 guests