Controlling the weather (1 Viewer)

[CJ_London]

surprisingly difficult to find the current global average temperature - nearly all links I found compare with temperatures 100 years or so ago (pre industry) as a percentage or degree change

However I did find this site

What Is Earth's Average Temperature?

It's a hot topic.

www.space.com

states the average surface temperature on Earth is approximately 59 degrees Fahrenheit, 15 degrees centigrade

So currently we are within the natural state - and the implication is the pre industrial temperature was just below the natural state

 

[ColinEssex]

Oh, Col, if ONLY you realized the supreme irony of your statement...

Most Yanks here don't get irony - well done.
Col

 

[Steve R.]

AB said:
without climate change or politics what should the earth's temperature be?

ChatGPT said:​

Without external factors like climate change or political considerations, Earth's average surface temperature is primarily regulated by natural processes such as solar radiation, the atmosphere's composition, and the planet's ability to reflect and absorb heat (albedo). In its natural state, Earth's global average surface temperature would be around 14°C to 15°C (57°F to 59°F).

This balance is achieved through the greenhouse effect, where gases like water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane trap heat, keeping the planet warm enough to support life. Without the natural greenhouse effect, Earth's temperature would be much colder, around -18°C (0°F) on average.

The response above does not provide a real answer. This response merely states states that based on the albedo the expected temperature would be around 14°C to 15°C (57°F to 59°F). That does not actually address the question of what the correct temperature would be for humans or even the environment as a whole. Furthermore, the answer does not provide a difference between the current Earth temperature and the temperature based on albedo effect. (Another factor that needs to be considered; what is the time span for the ChatGPT response? One year or 300 years? It is important, if one speaks of human caused global warming, that we get an average temperature of the Earth before the industrial revolution and subsequent population explosion. Did claimed global warming take-off after about 1800?)

One can make the assertion that a temperature from 14°C to 15°C (57°F to 59°F) is the "correct" temperature should that be the current temperature. But that temperature has changed (up and down) over billions of years and life has adapted to those changes. So, if one respects the evolution of natural processes there is no "correct" temperature for the Earth.

@AccessBlaster: Now that we know what the "natural" temperature of the Earth is based on ChatGPT, the next question can be asked: What is the Earth's current average temperature? (Two questions. Post industrialization and as a separate question prior to industrialization (1800).)

Should ChatGPT give a different temperature range, one can make the subjective assertion that if that temperature is higher than 14°C to 15°C then those wanting to reduce the Earth's temperature for the sole benefit of humans may have a case. They still may not have a case in terms of other animals and plants as they may prefer a warmer climate.

Should ChatGPT provide a temperature range below 14°C to 15°C, then there is no basis for "fighting" global warming.

 

[RogerCooper]

The thing about the ice cores is we have only around 300,000 years worth of history because prior to that, the planet had no polar ice caps. We were in a warm period as far as climate goes.

This is a false statement. Ice cores go back only about 300,000 years, because the ice flows out under pressure. The Antarctic ice sheet started forming between 60 MYA and 45 MYA. When dinosaurs roamed the Earth, things were much warmer than today and sea levels were higher. About 2.6 MYA, things became much colder.

The reasons for the cooling that has characterized the Age of Mammals involves both decreasing carbon dioxide levels and the land-locking of the poles.

 

[RogerCooper]

Are you disputing the fact that our ice samples go no further than 300,000 years?

I am disputing your statement that there were no icecaps prior to 300,000 years. There is ice core data going back to 720,000 years ago but the ice caps were there long before. No ice caps would imply large amounts of what is now land having been under water something which would be easily detectable by finding marine sediments on land.

If go back to the Mesozoic, Antarctica had forests not icecaps and much of North America was underwater (that was only partially due to higher sea levels).

 

[Isaac]

I have read enough about the rise and fall of numerous methods of dating land layers and fossils to doubt all of those high numbers' accuracy.
Dating methods have risen and fallen (meaning been used and trusted, then debunked) too much. Relying on all of that is foolish

 

[RogerCooper]

I have read enough about the rise and fall of numerous methods of dating land layers and fossils to doubt all of those high numbers' accuracy.
Dating methods have risen and fallen (meaning been used and trusted, then debunked) too much. Relying on all of that is foolish

Please be specific. Which methods and what numbers are you doubting? The basic geological time scale has been well-established since the work of Arthur Holmes in 1912. The dating of geological time is established by multiple methods giving consistent results.

If you are claiming that Antarctica only became covered by ice 300,000 years ago, that counts as an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Isaac]

I obviously don't remember every detail I've ever read, but the gist of them is that various dating methods have been disproven or fallen out of favor among the community, carbon dating being one

There is a museum in Texas that records every time they find stuff in layers of soil that is "impossible" per evolutionary theory, and those "impossibilities" are frequent, and all recorded there. Museum of the Bible, I think it's called, or something along those lines. They have tried hard to cover up that evidence, but it remains

And I'm not claiming that - I'm claiming you don't know for sure and if you think that you do, it requires extraordinary evidence.

 

[moke123]

Are you disputing the fact that our ice samples go no further than 300,000 years?

Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland, and the longest ice cores extend to 3km in depth. The oldest continuous ice core records to date extend 123,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica. Ice cores contain information about past temperature, and about many other aspects of the environment. Crucially, the ice encloses small bubbles of air that contain a sample of the atmosphere – from these it is possible to measure directly the past concentration of atmospheric gases, including the major greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

 

[RogerCooper]

I obviously don't remember every detail I've ever read, but the gist of them is that various dating methods have been disproven or fallen out of favor among the community, carbon dating being one

There is a museum in Texas that records every time they find stuff in layers of soil that is "impossible" per evolutionary theory, and those "impossibilities" are frequent, and all recorded there. Museum of the Bible, I think it's called, or something along those lines. They have tried hard to cover up that evidence, but it remains

And I'm not claiming that - I'm claiming you don't know for sure and if you think that you do, it requires extraordinary evidence.

Carbon dating has gone through a number of revisions, but has not been disproven or fallen out of favor. It is still remains the standard method of dating for organics up to 50,000 years old. It needs to be used carefully as samples can have dates distorted by various types of contamination.

It is true to say they I have not personally inspected rocks under a microscope to date them. But I can tell you from personal knowledge that there is no sign the Eastern Coastal plain was substantially under water in geologically recent times, as the maritime deposits would be obvious. The actual case is the reverse, as land deposits can be found off-shore. Long Island Sound was once a river valley.

Pat's original claim that Antarctica was ice-free 300,000 years ago is simply wrong. As for the Museum of the Bible, I doubt that have an exhibit about contradictions and errors in the Bible.

 

[ColinEssex]

I can't find the article I was quoting from.

Maybe it was fantasy or maybe a dream. Transcribed the 8 as a 3? Possible, they are close on a keyboard.
Col

 

[Isaac]

Carbon dating has gone through a number of revisions, but has not been disproven or fallen out of favor. It is still remains the standard method of dating for organics up to 50,000 years old. It needs to be used carefully as samples can have dates distorted by various types of contamination.

It is true to say they I have not personally inspected rocks under a microscope to date them. But I can tell you from personal knowledge that there is no sign the Eastern Coastal plain was substantially under water in geologically recent times, as the maritime deposits would be obvious. The actual case is the reverse, as land deposits can be found off-shore. Long Island Sound was once a river valley.

Pat's original claim that Antarctica was ice-free 300,000 years ago is simply wrong. As for the Museum of the Bible, I doubt that have an exhibit about contradictions and errors in the Bible.

revisions, i like that lol
sounds like a done deal to me

 

[moke123]

One of the most widely used is potassium–argon dating (K–Ar dating). Potassium-40 is a radioactive isotope of potassium that decays into argon-40. The half-life of potassium-40 is 1.3 billion years, far longer than that of carbon-14, allowing much older samples to be dated.

 

[RogerCooper]

revisions, i like that lol
sounds like a done deal to me

Do you think that scientists perfect a technique immediately? Does your code always run perfectly the first time and never need revisions?

 

[RogerCooper]

Why is your inclination to always attack me (and others)? Can't you ever be positive or simply quiet? God forbid you make an actual contribution to the conversation. To explain how an 8 becomes a 3, is easy when you make hand written notes rather than typing them and then transcribe them days latter.

You nit-pick details because you personally have no substance and you cannot actually address the logic of the analysis which is - the models are looking at an instant in time and making an assumption on way too little data. Anyone who has ever taken a class in statistics will tell you that they can make the chart show anything they want by adjusting the sample.

It is easier to disprove an egregiously wrong statement fact than to go through the entire line of analysis.

Pat, as you are clearly an intelligent person, why do you make such wrong statements? Your attack on the concept of a "normal" temperature of the Earth is weakened, not strengthened with factually wrong statements such as the Antarctic icecap is only 300,000 years old.

You have a tendency to mix truthful, debatable and clearly wrong statements in your discussions. As long as it can be used to attack a Democrat it doesn't seem to matter to you whether it is true or false. You stated that "Crime in New York is highest it has ever been" when the huge decline in crime from its 1990 peak is well-known. If you had stated the DA Bragg's prosecution of Trump lacks a proper legal basis, you would have been on solid ground. There was no need to make stuff up to attack Bragg.

The truth does matter. Good decision making requires facts. Crime was brought down in NYC, by consistent policies of denormalizing crime and catching criminals, not by long prison sentences. Dealing with Global Warming requires realistic thinking about the costs of decarbonization, adaption and geoengineering.

I do this because so others will understand things better and because standing up for truth matters (and is fun). You have some valid points, why don't you just make those points.

 

[ColinEssex]

Why is your inclination to always attack me (and others)? Can't you ever be positive or simply quiet? God forbid you make an actual contribution to the conversation.

My dear, I dont 'attack' you per se, I merely point out some of the idiosyncrasies in some of your posts. On occasions, you say one thing in one post then change it in another post, it can be confusing, so I may ask clarification, that's when you start accusing me of 'attacking' you.
I have never 'attacked' you personally like your vicious verbal spoutings in your PM's to me. Maybe I should post one here to remind you. However, I think there may be mitigating circumstances to excuse your comments to me. For example, gender, cultural differences, language differences etc. Its well known that comments accepted as normal in the UK may provoke a reaction in some more sensitive foreigners. That's just normal.
If you want me to 'attack' you, then I will do so, but I don't do it because I don't use the filthy language that you seem to use in your PM's.
BTW, the word 'later' only has one 't'.
Col

 

[Isaac]

Do you think that scientists perfect a technique immediately? Does your code always run perfectly the first time and never need revisions?

Exactly.
Your attitude toward the current science, as if completely ossified and worthy of complete trust, actually isn't rational given what we know about how the dating methods have been corrected dozens of times and will continue to be corrected dozens more.

 

[moke123]

The south of Spain is very dry. Farmers have started growing crops under gauze to better control evaporation and sunlight. You can see these fields from space. Your first thought will be that you are seeing snow but what you are seeing is covered fields. Acres of them, miles of them. The practice has grown to the point where it seems to affect the ambient humidity.

Guess Spain isn't dry anymore.

Spain Searches For Bodies After Unprecedented Flooding Claims At Least 158 Lives

The death toll is expected to rise as officials continue to remove bodies from vehicles and an unknown number of people still missing.

www.huffpost.com

this was the most powerful flash flood event in recent memory. Scientists link it to climate change, which is also behind increasingly high temperatures and droughts in Spain and the heating up of the Mediterranean Sea.

 

[Steve R.]

Guess Spain isn't dry anymore.

Once again you ignore that those who are attempting to "control" climate change are themselves causing the climate/weather to change. Blaming a flood in Spain on so-called "climate change" is a pointless statement as climate and weather are always changing. As you can see below, you can do some simple research to find past weather events that had tragic repercussions before so-called climate change became a woke political "truth".

1900 Galveston Hurricane ‑ Path, Deaths & Name

On September 8, 1900, a Category 4 hurricane ripped through Galveston, Texas, killing an estimated 6,000 to 8,000 people. The hurricane remains the worst weather‑related disaster in U.S. history in terms of loss of life.

www.history.com

 

[Isaac]

Guess Spain isn't dry anymore.

Spain Searches For Bodies After Unprecedented Flooding Claims At Least 158 Lives

The death toll is expected to rise as officials continue to remove bodies from vehicles and an unknown number of people still missing.

www.huffpost.com

Yes, Spain IS dry. Your own quoted text alludes to the drought in Spain which you apparently missed. Yes, it's still dry.

Flash flooding is made worse by drought, not an indicator of long term rainfall. Flash flooding is common in Arizona, one of the driest parts of the US.