Hotter, weirder: How climate has changed Earth

a reply to: Greven

Thanks for that, Greven. Some still want to deny it and attribute it to Earth's natural cycles. It is true that Earth goes thru cycles, I believe this cycle is being accelerated by man's excessive co2 output.

a reply to: mbkennel

According to the reigning ideology in climate science, most of the slight warming of the earth over the past century is due to anthropogenic (man-made) emissions of greenhouse gases, and unless drastic steps are taken to curb these emissions the present century will see worldwide catastrophes - increased droughts, floods, storms, hurricanes, agricultural disasters, and disease.

This alarmist message is constantly repeated by mainstream scientific publications, environmentalist organizations, and the world media. The UK’s chief scientist Sir David King has said that global warming is so serious that Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century!

Although it is frequently claimed that the science behind global warming is ‘settled’ and that ‘consensus’ prevails, this is far from the truth.

The earth has been alternately warming and cooling for billions of years, and many scientists argue that present climate change is in no way unusual and could be caused mainly by natural processes. It is true that the late 20th century was warmer than the earth has been for some 400 years, but 400 years ago a large part of the earth was in the grip of the Little Ice Age - from which we are still emerging.

Climate reconstructions for the past thousand years reveal a fairly coherent picture of major climatic episodes: Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, and Recent Warming, but the amplitude of the temperature variations in different reconstructions varies significantly - a sign that the science is still very uncertain.

"Many researchers believe that about a thousand years ago, during the Medieval Warm Period, much of the earth was substantially warmer than today."



So you would rather believe the people making $22 Billion a Year for pushing the Climate Change agenda?

only a year later and another Yolanda type super typhoon to hit almost the same spot
fml
tropic.ssec.wisc.edu...

originally posted by: Doc Holiday
I wish someone could post a timeline of temps from all the planets in out solar system...and quit yelling that the sky is falling..

We don't even have accurate data on our own planet, let alone the solar system. But your point is well taken.

originally posted by: Quantum_Squirrel

Actually, they didn't. While the Met Office seems keen on saying "since records began in 1914" to describe any kind of record-busting weather (such as 2007's "wettest summer"), it has records that go back much further.
The England and Wales Precipitation series, which measures rainfall and snow, goes back to 1766, and the Central England Temperature series, which covers the temperature from the south Midlands to Lancashire, is the longest-running record in the world, dating from 1659.

lets go on the best case that records of some sort began in 1659, we have only 355 years worth of weather data for earth and only 100 yrs of modern data recording methods.

the Earth is 4.5bn years old so out of a total of Earths weather we know a fraction of a percentage and that's being generous, how can we possibly link these things with such limited information, it could just be a natural cycle

its just my opinion of course

Q

My thoughts exactly. 355 years out of 4.5 billion is not even a speck therefore this data is misleading.

It is used to sensationalise the weather and justify/promote the climate change/global warming agenda. The climate has been changing since the earth was formed and will continue to do so whether we are here or not.

It's not like the weathermen get it right every time either.

And if man didn't insist on building next to tidal rivers, on flood plains, low lying coastal areas etc. then there would be less impact (both economically and socially).

In fact, since the last winter floods here in the UK we have been busy building defences which is great for those who were affected, but we have also been busy building new houses next to (guess what) tidal rivers, on flood plains etc.

We do not learn our lessons. Why not avoid these areas and prevent the misery when the floods come.

originally posted by: Deveron
a reply to: mbkennel

According to the reigning ideology in climate science, most of the slight warming of the earth over the past century is due to anthropogenic (man-made) emissions of greenhouse gases, and unless drastic steps are taken to curb these emissions the present century will see worldwide catastrophes - increased droughts, floods, storms, hurricanes, agricultural disasters, and disease.

Correct.

This alarmist message is constantly repeated by mainstream scientific publications, environmentalist organizations, and the world media. The UK’s chief scientist Sir David King has said that global warming is so serious that Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century!

Spitzbergen and Yukon Territories will be OK too. The estimate above is probably too severe.

However in 200-300 years, it could be quite bad, where bad is on the order of something near the disruption of global nuclear war, though it will be much less sudden.

Scientists don't publish the figures of what their projections look like past 2100. In private, they are very frightened, though the uncertainty of the physical reactions then is less well known and predictions diverge.

Although it is frequently claimed
that the science behind global warming is ‘settled’ and that ‘consensus’ prevails, this is far from the truth.

Yes it is the truth depending on what you mean by "the science". I am first hand acquainted with scientists who work with others in this field. There are many questions whose answers are not yet well known, some which are known partially and some which are known securely. The primacy of human greenhouse emissions as the major driver of recent climate change in the last category, as is the understanding that the size of this effect will increase dramatically from current period in the next 200 years.

The earth has been alternately warming and cooling for billions of years, and many scientists argue that present climate change is in no way unusual and could be caused mainly by natural processes.

In the professional scientific literature, where people who seriously work on this for decades, this is not the case. There are many analyses which show climate consistent with increased greenhouse forcing from humans and inconsistent without it.

No widely accepted alternative explanation, with mechanistic evidence and observational data, has been demonstrated or is known to exist.

It is true that the late 20th century was warmer than the earth has been for some 400 years, but 400 years ago a large part of the earth was in the grip of the Little Ice Age - from which we are still emerging.

Climate reconstructions for the past thousand years reveal a fairly coherent picture of major climatic episodes: Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, and Recent Warming, but the amplitude of the temperature variations in different reconstructions varies significantly - a sign that the science is still very uncertain.

Whichi "science' do you mean by that? What was happening 2000 years ago? Or now? There is obviously more uncertainty in paleoclimate than current climate.

In any case, no reconstruction is necessary, direct observation of today and knowing interactions suffices.

Remember, that this is NOT a paleoclimate problem and we do not infer climate changes from correlations, but from fundamental physics. Comparison: The ozone hole is slowly getting better thanks to international regulation of chemical emissions. The theory and observation for the ozone hole was strong enough, in the absence of paleoclimate data, to prompt action. And it is working, and the theory was correct. Chemistry experiments and geophysical measurements were enough. You didn't need to know about ozone hole in 1250 BC.

"Many researchers believe that about a thousand years ago, during the Medieval Warm Period, much of the earth was substantially warmer than today."

www.skepticalscience.com...

In any case, the real danger is not from anthropogenic warming today (which is nearly trivial) but the much larger shift of what is to come as a result of increasing (and at a more rapid clip) greenhouse gases and increasing ocean heat content and acidification.

In any case, natural mechanisms of climate change do nothing to counteract climate change from increasing greenhouse effect---any more than natural lung cancer precludes a diagnosis of being shot in the chest.

All of physics is always at work, all of the time.

So you would rather believe the people making $22 Billion a Year for pushing the Climate Change agenda?

Where is the $22 billion a year?

Remember the underlying physics and study for global warming started in the 1960's and was taken seriously by scientists from the beginning because it agrees with facts of physics. This was so even before global measurements were available which clearly showed significantly increased temperatures.

originally posted by: YarlanZey

It is used to sensationalise the weather and justify/promote the climate change/global warming agenda. The climate has been changing since the earth was formed and will continue to do so whether we are here or not.

True. And so what?

If we accelerate that process dramatically, now, shouldn't we stop doing that?

There have been natural forest fires since forests and lightning were a thing.

That doesn't justify arson of inhabitable cities and productive agricultural fields.

It's not like the weathermen get it right every time either.

Because weather prediction is not like climate prediction because what one is attempting to predict is different.
Can a physician predict accurately where any specific blood cell will go in the body? No, not for long (that's like weather).
Can a physician predict accurately the effect on blood pressure when certain physical and chemical stimuli are engaged? Yes. That's like climate.