The Weather Channel Mess

[forrestkc]

I am sorry, but that is pure conjecture without even a shred of scientific basis for it.

No, that is geology 101. Glacial rebound.

I am sorry, but you are comparing apples to oranges here. Glacial rebound occurred at the end of the last great ice age. When up to 50% or more of the continents were weighed down by a sheet of ice over a mile thick. That is not comparable to today's climate and today's glaciation.

A good article on this is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

[nebula]

This is why the difference in Global Temperatures in the weather we have now, and the climate of the last great ice age when a sheet of ice over a mile thick was over the entire northern half of the U.S., is only a drop of about 5 degrees average Global Temps.

Sorry, but at the moment I do not have time to read the article, but in short - how can we know what the average global temps were before "recorded history"

So the ice sheets show this? Or what is it they are using?

(I may have heard of this before, but at the moment I am not recalling it.)

[forrestkc]

These statements are totally false. The poles recieve LESS sunlight than the equator does due to the angle of sunlight. Goodness. T his is like grade school level science and you can't even get it right.

You are mixing two different issues. Of course the polls get less sunlight due to the axis of the earth. That is not what I was referring too. If you take average temperature readings across a spherical surface to determine the average temperature for that spherical surface across all points, then you will have a much greater area to take measurements from at the equator of that sphere than you will at its poles. Thus, a temperature rise at the equator, where the greatest surface area exists on the sphere has a far greater impact on the over all average than a temperature increase at the polls where the surface area is much, much, smaller.

[Pizzaguy]

These statements are totally false. The poles recieve LESS sunlight than the equator does due to the angle of sunlight. Goodness. T his is like grade school level science and you can't even get it right.

Ya beat me to it.

[Pizzaguy]

You are mixing two different issues. Of course the polls get less sunlight due to the axis of the earth. That is not what I was referring too. If you take average temperature readings across a spherical surface to determine the average temperature for that spherical surface across all points, then you will have a much greater area to take measurements from at the equator of that sphere than you will at its poles. Thus, a temperature rise at the equator, where the greatest surface area exists on the sphere has a far greater impact on the over all average than a temperature increase at the polls where the surface area is much, much, smaller.

I think you are trying to back away from you own statement.

Again, did you or did you not tell us that the Arctic regions have warmed 12 times more than at the equator?

[forrestkc]

Sorry, but at the moment I do not have time to read the article, but in short - how can we know what the average global temps were before "recorded history"

So the ice sheets show this? Or what is it they are using?

(I may have heard of this before, but at the moment I am not recalling it.)

Well, yes, Glacial Cores are a paleo-climate proxy in that we can reconstruct past atmospheric composition, precipitation trends, volcanic activity, and temperatures from up to ago 750,000 years from them. However, there are many other proxies as well such as tree rings, fossil pollen, ocean sediments, and coral. A good article on this is here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/primer_proxy.html

[forrestkc]

[

I think you are trying to back away from you own statement.

Again, did you or did you not tell us that the Arctic regions have warmed 12 times more than at the equator?

I am not trying to back away from my statement as it is supported by science and observation.

This was my exact statement:

"One last point. For every 1 degree increase in Global Average Temps, the average temperatures at the polls increases by up to 12 degrees."

That does not mean that the polls will warm to 12 times the temps of the equator. Instead, it means that the polls will warm up to 12 times the rate that average global temps warm.

[forrestkc]

Wait. You actually expect us to take seriously the claim that a block of ICE can be dated accurately to 750,000 years?!?

I expect you to take science seriously actually. There is an excellent article here on ice cores: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

Basically, reading glacial ice cores is like counting tree rings.

You've yet to offer any evidence of this claim, other than a fallacious argument about the surface area of the equator region.

It was not a fallacious argument, instead it was basic mathematics. The surface area around the middle of a sphere is exponentially greater than the surface area at its polls. Thus, the area over which one would measure temps at the middle of a sphere would be far greater than at its polls. Thus, when determining average global temps, temperature readings over the equatorial areas have a far greater impact on observed global temps than temperatures at the polls.

You can find a good demonstration of this observed phenomena here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

[nebula]

It was not a fallacious argument, instead it was basic mathematics. The surface area around the middle of a sphere is exponentially greater than the surface area at its polls. Thus, the area over which one would measure temps at the middle of a sphere would be far greater than at its polls. Thus, when determining average global temps, temperature readings over the equatorial areas have a far greater impact on observed global temps than temperatures at the polls.

Let me guess . . .

Translation: Calculus!

[forrestkc]

If the scientists didn't bias the measurements of area you would see otherwise. 1000 square miles is still 1000 square miles regardless of where you measure it. What you are doing is rigged because you maybe say, "aha, the land area within 5 degrees latitude of the equator is more than the land area within 5 degrees latitude of the poles," then you twist that fact to rig a statistic, but if you take 1000 square miles of area near the equator and compare it to 1000 square miles of area near the poles, they will have an EQUAL impact of the global temperature average.

That is a flawed method of measurement though. If temps were averaged they way you are claiming they should be averaged, then temp readings at the polls would be weighted at the expense of the mid latitudes, and the over all global increase would be inflated.

I am not sure how to put this, but this is what I don't understand. Why would you be so arrogant as to think that you know more about this issue that scientists with decades of study know about it?