Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="John Roberts" data-source="post: 67479" data-attributes="member: 126">Re: Hurricane SandyA bit over simplified.&nbsp; The simple math for global temperature is take the initial temperature, add the heat coming in from sunlight, then subtract heat lost into outer space. Of course the precise quantification of the energy loss is rather complex (and where the global warming crowd make their bones trying to quantify), and then the solar energy coming in from the sun is not dead constant either but also fluctuates in short and long cycles, with some randomness to keep it interesting. It should be obvious that small fractional fluctuation in the solar input could easily trump human related variables. I am not saying it is or does, just that it could, and has in the past, as the previous ice age(s?) stand testament to.&nbsp; We didn&#039;t make them. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :-)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />&nbsp; &nbsp; This needs to be taken seriously, but it&#039;s not time to poison the kool aid and drink up. Wait until after Dec.... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :-)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" /> and lets see where the magnetic poles end up. JRPS I wrote a long answer to George but deleted that... as complex as the global (average) temperature calculus is, then we have climate, which is even more dynamic and interacts in odd ways as it tries to normalize energy (heat) flows around the globe. We could have even crappier weather with the exact same &quot;average&quot; temperature, while we should expect changes from large scale heating or cooling.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="John Roberts, post: 67479, member: 126"] Re: Hurricane Sandy A bit over simplified. The simple math for global temperature is take the initial temperature, add the heat coming in from sunlight, then subtract heat lost into outer space. Of course the precise quantification of the energy loss is rather complex (and where the global warming crowd make their bones trying to quantify), and then the solar energy coming in from the sun is not dead constant either but also fluctuates in short and long cycles, with some randomness to keep it interesting. It should be obvious that small fractional fluctuation in the solar input could easily trump human related variables. I am not saying it is or does, just that it could, and has in the past, as the previous ice age(s?) stand testament to. We didn't make them. :-) This needs to be taken seriously, but it's not time to poison the kool aid and drink up. Wait until after Dec.... :-) and lets see where the magnetic poles end up. JR PS I wrote a long answer to George but deleted that... as complex as the global (average) temperature calculus is, then we have climate, which is even more dynamic and interacts in odd ways as it tries to normalize energy (heat) flows around the globe. We could have even crappier weather with the exact same "average" temperature, while we should expect changes from large scale heating or cooling. [/QUOTE]

Verification