Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Natural Environment
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Natural Environment How Human History has been impacted by the environment, science, nature, geography, weather, and natural phenomena


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 20th, 2016, 09:29 AM   #551
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,497

Click the image to open in full size.

GRAPH SOURCE:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/page/4/


Please notice the source of the sampling data. Multiple ice core samplings that appear to be in agreement and sea sediment analysis that echo the findings from ice core data.

Does anyone see any patterns ?

Does the ice core record indicate any "standard pattern" (roughly speaking) in the transition from interglacial periods back to glacial periods ?

With the metric of circa 100K intervals, based on ice core data, are sharp spikes rare or not rare based on interglacial exits ?

What does the IPCC say about this GAD (generally accepted data) and the recurrent spikes associated with the glacial exit spikes ?
Cepheus is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 20th, 2016, 09:36 AM   #552
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,497

Click the image to open in full size.

GRAPH SOURCE:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/page/4/


Given the ice core and sea sediment data, does our modern or present spike in temperature seem to be the warmest ever detected ?

What was the cause of the past spikes ?

Were they caused by GHG's (greenhouse gases) under radiative forcing ?

What caused the current warming spike that started nearly ~11K ago in the absence of anthropogenic CO2 levels ?

Last edited by Cepheus; December 20th, 2016 at 09:45 AM.
Cepheus is offline  
Old December 20th, 2016, 09:47 AM   #553

Swagganaut's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2015
From: Germany
Posts: 1,176

So in the end, you are saying that it is coincidence that since Industralization (Btw settled in a mini Ice Age) the temperature is exponentially rising and is expected to be somewhere between 1,5 C and 2-3 C, pessimists even say 7 C until 2100?

Last edited by Swagganaut; December 20th, 2016 at 10:15 AM.
Swagganaut is online now  
Old December 20th, 2016, 09:55 AM   #554
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,497

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swagganaut View Post
Placeholder
I had responded to your last post but I see that you deleted your original comments.

I will respect that and remove my response.

Last edited by Cepheus; December 20th, 2016 at 09:57 AM.
Cepheus is offline  
Old December 20th, 2016, 10:15 AM   #555

Swagganaut's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2015
From: Germany
Posts: 1,176

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cepheus View Post
I had responded to your last post but I see that you deleted your original comments.

I will respect that and remove my response.
I posted a new, shorter one instead, since I am too ignorant on that matter to pull out the large calibers
Swagganaut is online now  
Old December 20th, 2016, 10:50 AM   #556
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,497

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swagganaut View Post
So in the end, you are saying that it is coincidence that since Industralization (Btw settled in a mini Ice Age) the temperature is exponentially rising and is expected to be somewhere between 1,5 C and 2-3 C, pessimists even say 7 C until 2100?
Well, first of all, it is not me saying anything. I'm just reporting the data.

Some of it could be coincidence, some of it may be due to GHG's and radiative forcing. We do not know.

I'm saying that there is too much static in the data to isolate an anthropogenic caused signal.

However, it is a fact that over the last 500K years there have been multiple spikes, similar to the one we are in now. In fact, we can expect the temps to go higher based on previous spikes in the past. This is true even if we shut down every manmade GHG emission source we can find.

More to the technical aspect of GHG's and radiative forcing, the sensitivity of the climate to GHG's is not in sync with the GCM's (climate models). IOW, the temperatures to not rise or fall in any expected patterns that can be modeled with a computer. The IPCC mentions this and has not found a solution to it. There are issues with various GHG sinks, sector analysis and complexities in the system such as cloud cover and stream flow.
Cepheus is offline  
Old January 16th, 2017, 12:16 PM   #557

Lowell2's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: California
Posts: 6,449

https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/upl...ate-Report.pdf
Quote:
Global temperatures have been holding nearly steady for almost two decades (nearly 18 years, according to RSS satellite data). While 2005, 2010, and 2015 were declared the ‘hottest years’ by global warming proponents, a closer examination revealed that the claims were “based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that were within the margin of error in the data.”
Quote:
Even former NASA climatologist James Hansen admitted ‘hottest year’ declarations are “not particularly important.” MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen ridiculed ‘hottest year’ claims in 2015. “The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree.
also see Climate Report to UN: Trump right, UN wrong ? Skeptics Deliver Consensus Busting ?State of the Climate Report? to UN Summit | Climate Depot
Quote:
University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott: “The fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2) is as misguided as it gets.” “It’s scientific nonsense,” Stott added.
Very prominent scientists are bailing out of the so-called “consensus.”
Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: ‘I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side’
Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever, Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’
Green Guru James Lovelock reverses belief in ‘global warming’: Now says ‘I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy’ - Condemns green movement: 'It’s a religion really, It’s totally unscientific'
#
Meanwhile, climate skeptics descend on UN climate summit in Morocco: Skeptics in Morocco on Trump: ‘Expect both international & domestic climate agenda to be reversed. It’s about time!’
No one denies the climate changes (it has since Earth formed). It may be warming (logically, it should be since we are in an "interglacial" period and thus there aren't glaciers covering New York City). How much it is increasing? NOT a consensus. How much change is "human caused"? Definitely NOT a consensus.
Lowell2 is offline  
Old January 16th, 2017, 12:33 PM   #558

Lowell2's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: California
Posts: 6,449

from the 2016 report: (Presented to the UN Climate Summit in Marrakech, Morocco – November 2016
Key climate data highlights

Quote:
Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years, according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming
The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War.
Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.
Despite claims of snow being ‘a thing of the past,’ cold season snowfall has been rising.
Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.
Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.
So-called hottest year claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that are within the margin of error in the data. In other words, global temperatures have essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration.
A 2015 NASA study found Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and ‘not currently contributing to sea level rise.’
In 2016, Arctic sea ice was 22% greater than at the recent low point of 2012. The Arctic sea ice is now in a 10-year ‘pause’ with ‘no significant change in the past decade.
Polar bears are doing fine, with their numbers way up since the 1960s.
Lowell2 is offline  
Old January 17th, 2017, 06:51 AM   #559

Lowell2's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: California
Posts: 6,449

Click the image to open in full size.
Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI
Greenland has gained a record amount of ice this winter (more than 400 billion tons) is two months ahead of average ice growth, and has already gained 80% of the typical amount of winter ice. https://realclimatescience.com/2017/...-inauguration/

Assuming, of course, that it's desirable for Greenland to be mostly ice.
Lowell2 is offline  
Old January 17th, 2017, 06:54 AM   #560

David K's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: California
Posts: 1,128

Thank you for some GOOD news, Lowell!
David K is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Natural Environment

Tags
change, climate, denial, extinction, koch brothers



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Before Climate Change was around... Congo Natural Environment 57 September 26th, 2014 11:27 PM
mpact of climate change on politics Port Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 2 September 22nd, 2014 03:25 PM
Climate Change (% influenced by Man) Congo Natural Environment 713 June 21st, 2013 04:09 PM
climate change c.500 BC ? Widdekind Ancient History 34 March 31st, 2012 03:36 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.