Sudden rapid warming of the Earth - 5 million years ago

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: superman2012

Mostly because you stick your head in the sand.

Honestly, I was expecting this response earlier. Replying with a personal attack is akin to throwing the racist card. It does nothing to help your argument, nor does it make the other person want to interact with you. Good job. Worst. Argument. Ever.

I'm done here. Have to go stick my head back in the sand! BAHAHAHA!

a reply to: superman2012

Sounds good to me. It's not like we were discussing the science anyways. Just the standard denialists arguments I always hear. I love the peppering of "I don't have a dog in this fight" and the "I believe in climate change" assurances. They were a nice tough, but I've seen all that before too.

Neat they find stuff like this. Climate change has always been around.

Lot of things suggest that when the dinosaurs were around, the poles were more temperate than arctic, and tropical zones were a lot bigger. If any dinosaurs had enough brain to think about it, they were probably wondering about global cooling before that rock hit and made that a moot point.

The current warming trend is still worth keeping an eye on though, whether or not we're responisble or doing stuff that may exacerbate an otherwise natural trend. The shift in precipitation patterns is probably more important than the sea-level stuff, however in terms of oceans themselves it's the chemistry that's going to be more upset by this.

a reply to: Ghost147

Hardly. If you can provide evidence that shows humans are having no affect, then I will change my position immediately.

Why do you believe government sponsored research that tells AGW is real, inflation is non-existent and unemployment is only 5% when you could do a little research yourself which questions the findings. Scientific research papers show Antarctica is gaining ice. Antarctica ice extent was the largest on record, Asia is recording unusual heavy snow levels with Korea set a snow record for the second time in five years. Guangzhou, China had its first snowfall for at least seven decades. Saudi Arabia have seen snow for the first time in 85 years.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Ghost147

Hardly. If you can provide evidence that shows humans are having no affect, then I will change my position immediately.

Why do you believe government sponsored research that tells AGW is real, inflation is non-existent and unemployment is only 5% when you could do a little research yourself which questions the findings. Scientific research papers show Antarctica is gaining ice. Antarctica ice extent was the largest on record, Asia is recording unusual heavy snow levels with Korea set a snow record for the second time in five years. Guangzhou, China had its first snowfall for at least seven decades. Saudi Arabia have seen snow for the first time in 85 years.

That's a bit dated, now isn't it?

Worse, consider that NOAA said "2015 was 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) above the 20th century average." Check out where that would be on this chart.

a reply to: Greven

And that would be a welcome addition except for the fact that all systems that record temperature show a global warming hiatus for over 18 years making a mockery of AGWers and their warming.

Judith Curry says it best....

The greatest changes in the new NOAA surface temperature analysis is to the ocean temperatures since 1998. This seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements – ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend. Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998.

.....

The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.

link

hey, bottom line -- there is nor actual record of ambient temps. & rainfall both going UP.... there in that location

a cross referencing of Arctic Ice core samples might be too expensive to compute IF global temps increased some 5 MYA as the speculation seems to indicate.

so- we are left with the possibility that trees & other water dependent growth was suddenly energized in that particular area ( it has not been proven that global weather patterns/rainfall increased to prod the sudden tree growth)

there might be the fact that 'trees' were normal for millions of years prior to a non-tree landscape which exists in our present day interpretation of the natural fossil record.... the no-tree Era may be the Anomaly instead of a sudden climate-change that caused trees to unexpectedly to grow in an erroneously attribute climate-change era of more heat/water


there is a known and accepted climate cycle which changes from warm-wet to cool-dry & the intermediate changes In between... these cycles are somewhere in the thousands-of-years each..... the people announcing this 'discovery' are really reaching for the brass-ring & recognition...

I say ...

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Greven

And that would be a welcome addition except for the fact that all systems that record temperature show a global warming hiatus for over 18 years making a mockery of AGWers and their warming.

Judith Curry says it best....

The greatest changes in the new NOAA surface temperature analysis is to the ocean temperatures since 1998. This seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements – ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend. Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998.

.....

The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.

link

You want to talk about big changes?

How about we look at UAH?

Here's a comparison of two different versions (6.0 beta 4 and 5.6):
Year M v6.0 (diff) v5.6
1998 1 0.49 (+.02) 0.47
1998 2 0.67 (+.02) 0.65
1998 3 0.48 (+.06) 0.42
1998 4 0.74 (+.08) 0.66
1998 5 0.64 (+.08) 0.56
1998 6 0.56 (+.05) 0.51
1998 7 0.50 (+.06) 0.44
1998 8 0.51 (+.07) 0.44
1998 9 0.44 (+.11) 0.33
1998 10 0.40 (+.11) 0.29
1998 11 0.12 (+.04) 0.08
1998 12 0.24 (+.05) 0.19
avg: 0.48 (+.06) 0.42

Year M v6.0 (diff) v5.6
2015 1 0.27 (-.09) 0.36
2015 2 0.17 (-.13) 0.30
2015 3 0.16 (-.09) 0.25
2015 4 0.08 (-.08) 0.16
2015 5 0.28 (-.04) 0.32
2015 6 0.33 (-.02) 0.35
2015 7 0.18 (-.06) 0.24
2015 8 0.27 (-.05) 0.32
2015 9 0.25 (-.13) 0.38
2015 10 0.42 (-.15) 0.57
2015 11 0.33 (-.14) 0.47
2015 12 0.44 (-.11) 0.55
avg: 0.27 (-.09) 0.36

Oh and he made another one:
Year M v6.0 beta 5
2015 01 +0.30
2015 02 +0.19
2015 03 +0.18
2015 04 +0.09
2015 05 +0.27
2015 06 +0.31
2015 07 +0.16
2015 08 +0.25
2015 09 +0.23
2015 10 +0.41
2015 11 +0.33
2015 12 +0.45
avg: 0.26

Satellite temps are sooo reliable!

a reply to: Greven

Satellites don't record temperatures Greven they measure radiances from the atmosphere so atmospheric temperatures are inferred. They cannot be as accurate as ground based readings that record temperatures directly. Early versions of satellite data showed no warming so algorithms have been continually adjusted in new UAH datasets to show a warming trend to match ground based stations which also have been adjusted to show warming trends. A scientific paper that goes through some of the details of temperatures from satellites is here.

Of cause if no warming is occurring the shrinking Arctic has to be explained. And the answer to that question might be the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) which should show a subsequent rise in ice mass in Antarctica that NASA has Identified. When the AMO reverses, Arctic ice will grow whilst Antarctica looses ice. And the fear mongers will rejoice saying Antarctica is melting, Global Warming is real, pay those taxes.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
I was sent this article from a friend in Australia, which relates to a network of caves in the Nullabor region. A region that has always been very dry and arid, with the exception of a period of time when a rainforest grew in the region.

How could a rainforest grow in a dry and arid region? Climate change was to blame, a period of rapid warming of the Earth which warmed the seas, bringing about more rain to the area. The rains fell allowing plant life to grow and stay around for a couple of million years.

The iconic Nullarbor Plain is a vast expanse of desert straddling South and Western Australia, which receives less than 3cm of rain annually and is nearly entirely devoid of trees.

This inhospitable landscape is generally believed to have evolved in a linear fashion, becoming increasingly more arid in response to a cooling event in the southern hemisphere, which began around 14 million years ago.

But now, scientists at the University of Melbourne say a mysterious period of rapid warming, beginning five million years ago, dramatically altered the landscape of the Nullarbor Plain, bringing substantially more rain and allowing new plant life to flourish.

So a sudden rise in Global temperature around 5 million years ago brought about a change to the landscape in the Nullabor area.

A sudden rise in Global temperature that could not be attributed to Man, and just part of a natural cycle that the Earth experiences.

Still, 'Man Made Global Warming' is an industry now, so maybe we should just ignore the evidence of Earth's natural history and continue to pay our green taxes like good citizens?

www.bbc.co.uk...

Most of you around the world are ignorant on Australia and it's past.
You're surprised by a rainforest millions of years ago where today there is a desert?
Make sure you're sitting down when you read my next sentence because you might feel light headed...

A large part of inland Australia that is today a desolate barren desert that is mostly uninhabitable by humans because of the conditions and it's remoteness, was once a massive ocean millions and millions of years ago.
There's fossils of creatures you've never seen or heard of before as well.

I hope I didn't cause too much anguish with this what for most of you is a mind blowing revelation.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

A sudden rise in Global temperature that could not be attributed to Man, and just part of a natural cycle that the Earth experiences.

Hardly call it natural. More like catastrophic, probably associated with major impactors. Sufficiently large enough, could even be responsible for changing the earths axis, having immense consequences on seasons and climate.

Didn't they say Antarctica has fossils of tropical plants ? How do we account for balmy weather at the Earth's Southern Pole?

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

You forgot to mention this:

"Our study shows that the warming and associated increase in rainfall happened quite abruptly by geological standards, within about 100,000 years.

This period occurred at the beginning of the Pliocene Epoch (5.3 to 2.6 million years ago), which is the last time the Earth's climate was as warm as it's predicted to get 100 years from now.

source

So we have a period of a hundred thousand years of warming, but we can meet those temperatures in a hundred years. If the Nullabour experienced a sudden rapid warming then the next century will warm in the blink of an eye. And guess what wasn't around 100K years ago? the internal combustion engine.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Greven

Satellites don't record temperatures Greven they measure radiances from the atmosphere so atmospheric temperatures are inferred. They cannot be as accurate as ground based readings that record temperatures directly. Early versions of satellite data showed no warming so algorithms have been continually adjusted in new UAH datasets to show a warming trend to match ground based stations which also have been adjusted to show warming trends. A scientific paper that goes through some of the details of temperatures from satellites is here.

Of cause if no warming is occurring the shrinking Arctic has to be explained. And the answer to that question might be the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) which should show a subsequent rise in ice mass in Antarctica that NASA has Identified. When the AMO reverses, Arctic ice will grow whilst Antarctica looses ice. And the fear mongers will rejoice saying Antarctica is melting, Global Warming is real, pay those taxes.

Oh, good, you're learning a little bit. Perhaps this isn't in vain, then.

Recall, however, that you cited Judith Curry, who says this:

The greatest changes in the new NOAA surface temperature analysis is to the ocean temperatures since 1998. This seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements – ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend. Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998.

Yet, you said this just now:

Early versions of satellite data showed no warming so algorithms have been continually adjusted in new UAH datasets to show a warming trend to match ground based stations which also have been adjusted to show warming trends.

Further, if you looked at the data I quoted, you would notice that Dr. Spencer had adjusted 1998 to be warmer while adjusting 2015 to be cooler in his latest algorithm-derived data. That doesn't seem like adjusting it to be warming to me, now does it?

So, which is it: the actual reality that Dr. Spencer is adjusting temperatures to diminish a warming trend, Judith Curry's reality that there is no warming, or your reality that satellite temperatures are being adjusted upward to show a warming trend?

This is basic logic here - why is it sorely lacking in this thread?

Also, you need to read up on the very controversial study that Antarctica is gaining ice. For one thing, you might read that article you cited:

“The new study highlights the difficulties of measuring the small changes in ice height happening in East Antarctica,” said Ben Smith, a glaciologist with the University of Washington in Seattle who was not involved in Zwally’s study.

"Doing altimetry accurately for very large areas is extraordinarily difficult, and there are measurements of snow accumulation that need to be done independently to understand what’s happening in these places,” Smith said.

For another, you might read what the study says:

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

IF the study is correct (it's an outlier, mind you), the gain has been dramatically decreasing. You might also notice the dates, which means the data is a bit old. If that trend continues, it may already have reversed from gain to loss - assuming the study is even right.

Sea level rise is well-measured, and it's still happening. The author himself says this:

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

So, where is that chunk of sea level rise coming from?

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Justoneman
I am an Environmental Scientist and I will attempt to explain the margin of error in plain English, which isn't easy to explain a lot of things in science.

I read scientific journals on my spare time. I appreciate the layman explanation, but I would much rather read the information from the source.

Being a Scientist yourself, you should have no problems citing the information within your post

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
Not sure if anyone has ever asked this question or not...


But could the rate of climate change be a driving evolutionary force behind mankinds evolution? Maybe man will be classified as an extremophile someday in the distant future

Just a thought, and not a super serious one...but hopefully thought provoking at the very least.

A2D

The short answer would be no, it isn't a driving force behind Human evolution. This, of course, doesn't mean that Humans are not evolving, just that the environmental impacts that affect us now are much different than what they were in pre-history.

For instance, if environment is a key factor in natural selection of new mutations, then humans are (for the most part) exempt from natural environments because we live in synthetic homes, heated and cooled by synthetic means, and we where synthetic clothing that all goes to reduce natures affect on our bodies.

So we're not the ones really being affected by any climate changes at the moment. The only way we could would be if specific foods started going extinct and we were forced to eat a bit of a different diet. However, even then we may simply develop nutritional supplements.

What mutations are being selected for now is the environments we've created for ourselves. Feet have changed dramatically from a person who wears constricting footwear to a person (say, in a tribe) that wears little to no footwear. So we are adapting to the environments we're creating for ourselves, more than what the climate is doing.

What's worrisome is how other creatures are going to be able to handle a quick change in climate.

I have cited this information over and over, in thread after thread. Notice how Krazy is not mustering negative comments on my posts, he has been schooled. Yet, he shows up again and again with his anti Natural Climate Change (NCC) myth. You guys are in your spiral toward more government control. Control on even the water a homeowner traps in a barrel. We have to use logic and common sense, which is not so common when people make claims of anti NCC. The evidence presented in this thread has been poo pooed by you NCC deniers.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Krazysh0t


AGW Theory and Hypothesis
Ice core differences not used because it doesn't tow the line.

Scientists are in it for the money and once they proclaim something to be right, they will try to only show what they believe to be true (much like on ATS). If that means discounting evidence that doesn't support them, or that would throw a monkey wrench into their 100% certainty that they are correct, then that will happen sadly.

Ah yes, "the scientists are corrupt, but I refuse to post any data or evidence showing that is the case" argument.

Not corrupt, just fearful of losing jobs or funding. They are people too you know. They have families to look out for.
But, great refutation of my comment.

I'm just tired of debunking these tired talking points instead of actually discussing science. They are just a distraction and do nothing to lead credence to the skeptic camp outside of confirmation bias, smug satisfaction, and back patting.

You should be tired of it since you are haven't debunked them and ignore reality to do so. Geez you need a life. If you spent this much energy thinking of alternatives you could be rich.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
i will throw my opinion in :

anthropomorphic climate changes are dawrfed by historic natural climate changes

chew on that

Yes, that's absolutely correct.

However, no one is claiming that anthropomorphic climate change is far more severe than any natural one, but rather, that Anthropomorphic climate change is actually occurring, and we can prevent it.

The effective results of the maximum anthropomorphic climate change = apples.
Typical effective results of natural, historic climate change = oranges.

EFFECTIVE OUTCOMES is the only value of concern. Man changing the Earths temperature 3 degrees (which is worst case scenario be the climate scientists own models) is nothing compared to the EFFECTIVE OUTCOME of just a couple good sized volcanoes. The math is there.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: superman2012

All science is described in approximations and likelihoods because nothing is 100% proven in science. You are splitting hairs here over a misunderstanding of how science works.

I would love to see the look on your face if your Dr. told you that you "most likely" don't have cancer.

Irrelevant. Stop with the red herrings and fallacies.

Well, my point being you accept it point blank from one scientist, so why not another?

Which scientist would that be? How does his claims stand up to peer review?

Did you really forget the post already!?
Link

Margin of error

The margin of error is a statistic expressing the amount of random sampling error in a survey's results. It asserts a likelihood (not a certainty) that the result from a sample is close to the number one would get if the whole population had been queried. The likelihood of a result being "within the margin of error" is itself a probability, commonly 95%, though other values are sometimes used. The larger the margin of error, the less confidence one should have that the poll's reported results are close to the true figures; that is, the figures for the whole population. Margin of error applies whenever a population is incompletely sampled.

Margin of error is often used in non-survey contexts to indicate observational error in reporting measured quantities. In astronomy, for example, the convention is to report the margin of error as, for example, 4.2421(16) light-years (the distance to Proxima Centauri), with the number in parentheses indicating the expected range of values in the matching digits preceding; in this case, 4.2421(16) is equivalent to 4.2421 ± 0.0016.[1] The latter notation, with the "±", is more commonly seen in most other science and engineering fields.

Easy to conclude this incorrect perception Krazy if you ignore what science does with raw data and the quality control aspect of said data.

a reply to: Justoneman
What's possibly natural about it, I'm curious?

This ain't rocket science:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas; it reradiates infrared energy back to the Earth.
Increasing the amount of infrared energy will warm the Earth.
Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere in vast quantities.
Thus, humans are causing warming.

originally posted by: tkwasny

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
i will throw my opinion in :

anthropomorphic climate changes are dawrfed by historic natural climate changes

chew on that

Yes, that's absolutely correct.

However, no one is claiming that anthropomorphic climate change is far more severe than any natural one, but rather, that Anthropomorphic climate change is actually occurring, and we can prevent it.

The effective results of the maximum anthropomorphic climate change = apples.
Typical effective results of natural, historic climate change = oranges.

EFFECTIVE OUTCOMES is the only value of concern. Man changing the Earths temperature 3 degrees (which is worst case scenario be the climate scientists own models) is nothing compared to the EFFECTIVE OUTCOME of just a couple good sized volcanoes. The math is there.

Yes, or if the Sun changes we have the chance to swing up or down temperature wise as is the most likely situation.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Justoneman
What's possibly natural about it, I'm curious?

This ain't rocket science:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas; it reradiates infrared energy back to the Earth.
Increasing the amount of infrared energy will warm the Earth.
Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere in vast quantities.
Thus, humans are causing warming.

Uh, no it is complicated like rocket science and that is why the forecasts are very hard to pinpoint to the level of a weekly forecast. I work with forecasters, they know.