 Click to enlarge.
|
Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C. — This stuff keeps coming in and nobody wants to hear it.
From the late 1940s through the early 1970s, a climate research organization called the Weather Science Foundation of Crystal Lake, Illinois, determined that the planet’s warm, cold, wet and dry periods were the result of alternating short-term and long-term climatic cycles. These researchers and scientists also concluded that the Earth’s ever-changing climate likewise has influenced global and regional economies, human and animal migrations, science, religion and the arts as well as shifting forms of government and strength of leadership.Much of this data was based upon thousands of hours of research done by Dr. Raymond H. Wheeler and his associates during the 1930s and 1940s at the University of Kansas. Dr. Wheeler was well-known for his discovery of various climate cycles, including his highly-regarded ‘510-Year Drought Clock’ that he detailed at the end of the ‘Dust Bowl’ era in the late 1930s.During the early 1970s, our planet was in the midst of a colder and drier weather cycle. Inflationary recessions and oil shortages led to rationing and long gas lines at service stations worldwide. The situation at that time was far worse than it is now, at least for the time being.
Found by D. Hoop.
The stuff that was short term and isn’t going to show up on a time scale that will fit on one sheet of paper.
Look up the year without a summer for instance.
#94, Frank,
So does anyone know what the heck “Nomanic Time (Era of Great Migration)” is?
Ya, that is when the party was suddenly dry so several wimin went on a root beer run. No men, just “wimin”, and not a one was PMSing.
Re Mr Fusion:The problem is you are making such fuzzy demands you will definitely not accept anything.
No one is denying there aren’t fluctuations over the past 10,000 years. All of those fluctuations had natural causation. EXCEPT, over the past 150 years in general and the last 50 years to be more specific man is causing much of the same conditions that occurred in the past.
Geez, everyone was denying and or sidestepping that inconvenient truth. It’s my whole point! Okay, I’ll accept ANY chart that IPCC approved that dares to show global temperature over the past 10,000 years right up to within 3 years of this year. I guarantee that any anthropomorphic induced change during the last 150 years will be almost undetectable. You won’t see anything because we have done nothing to change climate as significant as the natural process. That is my point and no one so far has disputed that.
If you can I will man up and apologize like I said before.
J? …where are you? I’ve cooked supper for 5 in the meantime, and you still haven’t show me 1 chart.
Mr. Dvorak,
also pay no attention to this thorough explanation:
http://scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense
Cripes… re #102.. “no one so far has disputed that.” I mean refuted.
Data like this are not acceptable. If there is a decline, it needs to be hidden. Anything that could give fodder to skeptics need to be hidden.
The science must appear to be a concensus of certainty.
Anyone catch that study done in the days following 911 concerning temperature in relation to airborne pollutants?
Just sayin
Jeroen, I happen to agree… I can’t refute that article. The glaring omission is that they AGAIN did not address the fact that climate swings are regular and predictable historically there is nothing to show that we have strayed from that pattern from the perspective that matters… ie. have we caused the regular and predictable pattern to change in any more than the slightest way, and if we correct our mistake will the regular and predictable pattern just cease to exist any more. Unless you are totally without sense, the answer to both questions is no.
I suggest you take a look at what the actual IPCC worries are. They have to do only with the here and now, as pertains to our stupidity in building right on the water.
AND, In your referenced article they actually admit… “a new research paper by Mann and his colleagues seems to confirm that the Medieval Warm Period and the “Little Ice Age” between 1400 and 1700 were both caused by shifts in solar radiance and other natural factors that do not seem to be happening today.” FINALLY! But now it’s “do not seem”??… what happened to 90% sure?
MikeN said “Data like this are not acceptable. If there is a decline, it needs to be hidden.”
Feces smeared on a chalkboard is more likely to disprove global warming than data like this– at to those of us who actually want to figure out what’s going on.
Im starting to wonder if there are ANY IPCC sanctioned graphs that show historical global temperature. If not, Why not?
Who here doesn’t think that would be disingenuous of them?
J. Still waiting… but not for long. One lousy chart that would satisfy your dad’s scrutiny… 5000 or 10000 year timeframe… historical global temperatures… is all I ask…
Otherwise I win the challenge.
From: Obamaforever
To: JimR (Who took my straitjacket?) per #109
Quote:
Otherwise I win the challenge.
End of quote
JimR, you are delusional. Please get help. The only thing you win is a free pass to the nut house.
P.S. Please stay from sharp instruments!!!!
Just to be clear here, I’m not saying that we haven’t pumped a shitload of carbon into the atmosphere, and I’m not saying that it isn’t having a climatic effect. That part is elementary.
What I am saying is that there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that CO2 forcing will alter the macro path (which is illustrated in the chart of this topic, despite religious overtones and layman pandering) to mini ice age or mini warm age… whatever it happens to be. So we might experience maybe 100 years of warm until we get CO2 under control, coastal areas might flood, some areas will experience drought… but also, temperate climates will have a longer growing season, the NW passage will open up saving trillions of tons of CO2 emission… etc. etc.
The acidifying of our oceans is a big problem. But we have done the deed, burned just about all the oil we could find. Best to get to work and fix it instead of pointing fingers and laying blame, or worrying if the other guy is doing enough. But flooding? Climate change?… it’s happening continually… REGARDLESS. Move away from the coastal waters you ostriches.
Well, I gotta say that we are pretty arrogant to think that we have much influence over the Earth. Let’s try to keep it clean and nice, but that doesn’t mean that because I drove to work today that a glacier melted. If people want to give Al Gore some money for his “carbon credits” then let them. Instead of arguing why don’t you just start a carbon credit company and take their money until they can’t afford an Internet connection any more.
Short fuse; More bullying? That’s your MO I guess. You use it to hide intellectual dishonesty. Look at your posts. It’s always someone else who is the focus, never yours. That’s because you want others not to focus on you. You’re superior, you ask the questions, you accuse, you do the bullying.
You ask, “Did I read it?” I ask, “Did you understand it?”
For anyone watching the spectacle, to continue with the cut from where the bully left off, “The value of l is somewhat smaller than the d18O.!3-derived value of
5.0 ka (recent interval), and also the values reported by Sowers et al. (1991) (4.3 ka) and Raynaud et al. (1993) (4}7ka), both of whom analysed Termination II. These differences
might be explained by relatively poor quality of “t (Fig. 4(c)) and some interpolation error. The weighted average value for l of 2.7$1.3 ka, obtained from using d18Omar (recent interval) and d18Oair, might be closest to the true lag time for ice-volume changes following variations in atmospheric CO2 content.”
The point with this little section of a study is to point out the errors and account for them in the formulas. What’s much more interesting is the conclusion:
“On long timescales, variations in Vostok’s CO2 record lag behind those of its air-temperature record…”
Obamaforever… you were a loser well before you posted.
gooddebate said “On long timescales, variations in Vostok’s CO2 record lag behind those of its air-temperature record…”
For anyone left around in this debate, I looked this up and one theory as to why this happens is that global warming is started by changes in the Earth’s orbit, then as the oceans warm, they release CO2, which accelerates the warming.
http://geol.ucsb.edu/faculty/lea/pdfs/Martin%202005%20Paleo.pdf
Check out #73… I was close.
# 5 ScotterOtter said, “Never trust a graph that doesn’t show units on the Y axis.”
The Y axis unit are clearly labeled. I guess you’ve shown how much attention you paid before disregarding the information.
Any graphic sprinkled with exclamation points should be immediately be suspect, no matter which person on a side (or even both sides) of the argument is exclaiming. Someone (or lots of someones) in the discussion are basing their arguments on emotion instead of science.
On global cooling or warming in general: look at the climatic (long term) warming and cooling trends, rather than short term trends.
#113, still nodebate,
“On long timescales, variations in Vostok’s CO2 record lag behind those of its air-temperature record…”
Something I pointed out earlier. The problem is known and accounted for. BUT, because you neither read nor understood your own citation you missed it.
Here, try this reference.
Did you get that. They know the air is not relevant to the actual layer of ice.
But, as someone requested, where is this figure of 800 years lag time come from?
#112, Mister Mustard.
It’s good to see your back. And your side, and top, and the rest of you too. You’ve been missed.