Earth has been getting hotter for the past 10,000 YEARS, contradicting studies that humans started global warming
A study last year (shown by the blue lines) said that temperatures in the Holocene maximum (8000 9000 years ago) - cooled by 0.5C. But climate models (yellow and black) suggest that the planet should have gradually warmed by about the same amount during that period
Was the Earth in a period of global warming or cooling before the 20th century?
Attempting to answer this question has thrown up a conundrum for scientists, with some studies showing a warming trend, while others suggesting it cooled until humans intervened.
Now a new study hopes to settle the issue by arguing that data points to the fact that Earth's climate has been warming over the past 10,000 years - long before human activity is thought to have changed the climate.
It argues that previous research that showed a cooling trend was wrong because it used contradictory ice core data.
The research was undertaken by University of Wisconsin-Madison's Professor Zhengyu Liu.
When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change requested a figure to show global temperature trends over the last 10,000 years, Professor Liu knew that was going to be a problem.
'We have been building models and there are now robust contradictions', he said. 'Data from observation says global cooling. The physical model says it has to be warming.'
In his latest study, Professor Liu describes a consistent global warming trend over the course of the Holocene, our current geological epoch.
'The question is, "Who is right?"' said Professor Liu. 'Or, maybe none of us is completely right.
The study does not, the authors emphasize, change the evidence of human impact on global climate beginning in the 20th century. This image shows global tempera ture trends from 1950-2013
Full Article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2723861/Earth-getting-hotter-past-10-000-YEARS-contradicting-studies-humans-began-global-warming-trend.html
Tags
Who is online
227 visitors
I like to post both sides of an issue when I can.
I agree with that. The problem is that we are interpreting data, and interpretations can vary. There is no scientific method to study this and so all we have is data.
Human activity has affected many things on earth, from the air that we breath, to the water that we drink. I am sure that it has had an effect on the worlds temps... but whether it is a driving force to an overall trend, I doubt. But then again, just look at what CFC's do and you realize that just a little bit of our mischief can create a big problem.
Disagree RL. The cycles over eons is multi-factorial but a CYCLE is just that recurrence with variations, but, recurrence.
Add Man to the mix and what exacerbates extremes within the "normal" cycles, DO NOT ALLOW THE RETURN TO "NORMAL," rather, exacerbated conditions persist and become the "new normal" with exponential consequences.
What other species died by virtue of its own actions?
Among other things, the fact that there's only been one Industrial Revolution and pollutants not normally occurring in nature as a result.
And,
But never in the era of an industrial revolution.
The point is changes need to be made no matter how small or where or who is making them they need to be made. That has to be better than no effort at all.
How so, RL? I'm interested to hear your ideas.
I'll expand on it AMac . You need to define what you mean by "normal" . If you don't then the only meaningful response is "golly" .
"Normal" -- That which is regularly occurring conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected, predictable.
What is known about geologic time constitutes "normal" Petey. Science inherently defines a problem/asks a question, gathers information, experiments, hypothesizes, tests the hypothesis, sometimes reaches a conclusion and then retests and does further study.
You're playing with words.
Thanks for demonstrating your knowledge of the dictionary but not of mathematics ... No copy/paste job ?
Another non-rebuttal and after I directly answered your question.
And we're back to your "Benghazi"-like broken record re:copy/paste.
Contribute something other than blather.
And, if/when you do, I'll respond.
But not until then.
Your answer did NOT establish what "normal" is in this data .
Apparently you haven't a clue what geologic time data says but that doesn't stop you from spouting off in generalities . How about some specifics ? Too much to ask of a wordaphile ?
You're the expert; you tell me.
You ask nebulous questions then get indignant and insulting when you get your answer to a bullshit question.
So all right, give us the specifics on geologic time.
Educate us.
In the early 90's there was an article in the TPG, (The Professional Geologist), about a study done on three of the various cycles of the earth-- the closeness to the sun, and two others that I can't seem to remember. I can't find my copy of the magazine, either, nor can I look it up. Anyway, they had the next few millennia as the peak of these three cycles.
When humans first came to this hemisphere, sea levels were at least 200' lower than today, based on the fjords of Norway and other information. So, who's to say what it will be like in 10,000 years?
I think that we, as human beings, are having a dramatic impact on our planet's life ecosystems. We're polluting our oceans with both chemical and biological pollutants, we polluting the land and the air. Everything we do, any more, seems to be detrimental to the environment or some life form in some way.
It makes sense to stop polluting as much as we can, for ourselves, if not for the other animals on this planet. Otherwise, the earth has a way of making things "right"...
Here's my suggestion . If you use a word , know what it means & be prepared to explain it in your own words , not with a copy paste . YOU used the term "normal" and then went into a song & dance to cover up your ignorance . You think I'm insulting ? Try this : You're ignorant but that doesn't stop you from acting like you know what you're talking about . You don't . STFU ...
Geologic Time.
Here's a neat video about what happened in geologic time...
4.8 billion years. What is normal? Pick a spot, any spot, an follow it through the continental drift of the past 550 million years and imagine the climate changes that the dot went through. Some of these changes would be because the land was sinking and rising-- creating inland seas that were there one moment and not the next...
In general, I guess "normal" is a temperate climate that allowed life to thrive and evolve. We all know that life can exist under extreme conditions-- like bacteria in the superheated volcanic vents in the ocean. But, at least so far, the bacteria hasn't evolved into sentient beings that we know of. And they surely don't pollute anything out of economic greed. Neither did the dinosaurs, but they were wiped out anyway, thanks to an asteroid hit. The end of the Permian and the beginning of the Mesozoic, was marked by a huge period of orogeny, (mountain building), volcanic activity and climate fluctuations... Possibly triggered by an asteroid hit. And, of course, the continents colliding didn't help much. (BOOM!)
This appears to be the first time in the earth's history that one particular species is willfully destroying what it can of the planet.
Strange, isn't it?
They're called "citations."
And you haven't given, in your own words, what geologic time says about climate cycles prior to and since the start of the so-called Industrial Revolution.
Your a baiting, bluff machine; a foist-master of "gotcha" faux inquiries about which you provide no subsequent substantive filler. You are the "Man-Behind-the-Curtain" sending folks after the broom of the witch -- only to say "not so fast, not so fast" after they deliver because YOU have nothing to deliver.
Other than that, I think you're a great guy, Petey.
As for "STFU"
OK. Do not address me further.
Use a word and be prepared to face the aftermath . But all you do is go on the attack . So I repeat : STFU .
Or be prepared to deal with this observation : There is no "normal" .
Yep, sure does!
I had read that some species were dying out-- due to climate change that was happening faster than they could adapt to. But then, we still have dinosaurs around. We call them turtles, alligators, crocodiles, and birds...
I've not heard, or read 600' lower, but then, I haven't really been keeping up that much, either. My focus has been more on where is the clean, reliable, supply of groundwater.
If humans walked from Tasmania to Australia, maybe it was a period of time in the southern hemisphere where they could more easily get to Australia... I mean, it wouldn't take that much difference in sea level to make it a LOT easier to get across by walking. It may have taken several generations, but then, why wouldn't they?
Have you seen the video above? It's hard to pick out the blob that ends up being Australia, but it eventually sort of shows it, just before flashing back to the western hemisphere.
We need to have something that would focus on the time when man was up and running around...
The title seems to be at odds with its conclusion
If one believes that there are CLIMATE CYCLES, then one must necessarily believes that "CYCLES" and the term "NORMAL" are inseparable. Any phenomenon that occurs in "cycles" is a phenomenon defined by
Such series/cycles are thus predictable in terms of time frame and characteristics OR THEY COULD NOT BE CHARACTERIZED AS "CYCLES."
When there is a significant, observable, calculable alteration or departure from either a cycle's time frame and/or its characteristics, THAT IS NECESSARILY A DEPARTURE FROM WHAT HAS BEEN DETERMINED (SCIENTIFICALLY) TO BE "NORMAL."
However scientists have determined and described and chronicled GEOLOGIC TIME and the events therein -- events like CLIMATE CYCLES -- scientists can also determine anomalies with regard to those events -- ANOMALIES LIKE THE ONE REFERRED TO AS "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE/GLOBAL WARMING."
Since the beginning of the so-called "Industrial Revolution" and up to the present, there have been demonstrable atmospheric and environmental changes that depart from what had previously been deemed (generically) as "NORMAL."
As the protocol of "science" requires, any "scientific conclusions" must be tested and retested to assure their accuracy and integrity. Still, to outright deny empirical data in order to satisfy A POLITICAL AGENDA, IS A FOOL'S ERRAND -- particularly if that data implies a serious threat.
This comment is a word to the wise (or the not-so-wise) who accuse those with whom they disagree as "playing with words" AS THEY THEMSELVES DO SO
BY PLAYING WITH WORDS.
They express a disdain for the posting of citations to back contentions they don't like, they attack the messenger without viably attacking the message.
They mock, they insult
and get insulted when called on it.
Other than that, they're helping to keep NT active and vibrant.
Every cloud has a silver lining
Or is it the other way around?
Seems like an example of slap-fighting. Either man up and duke it our or stop.....this is embarrassing.
The time wasted in attacking the individual would be much better invested in attacking the issue, and who knows maybe in doing so a solution may be found.
I'll go with Dowser's comment on the ground water, the drying up of the water table. I think that is much more important.
The other problem we can solve with raising taxes, flying around spreading the word, becoming billionaires and playing golf.
Holy crap ! Finally you took a position . It's too bad you won't go into more details ... probably because you don't have them .
You're the one with no details; your whole schtick is to attack. And then sit in judgement by way of a nebulous critique that implies you have some sort of expertise upon which you judge the rest of us.
You are all blather and no substance.
I didn't need to explain "normal" in the context of this discussion it's rhetorical. But I gave you the time, effort and respect to do so only to get your usual talking down and empty can of alleged knowledge.
Give us the "details" you allude to have rather than challenge others to present them so you can subsequently poo-poo them without adding a single fact.
And yet, how hard and often you try, Robert G.
Gang bang with the deniers and talk shit while accusing others of doing so.
Only the more intelligent among us will feel insulted
With reason.
Oh, sorry not only a rationale, but also
REASON
Sorry; my bad. Better late than never.
I explained my use of the term to mean recurring, predictable phenomena (always subject to change via the impact of other phenomena).
Interesting that a denier will challenge the use of the terms "NORMAL/CYCLICAL" while at the same time making the argument that "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE/WARMING" is "NORMAL" and "CYCLICAL" and not currently being accelerated/exacerbated by the activities of man.
At least they had an excuse.
Vulcanism and erosion among other normal geological factors and other than mining operations that lop off the tops of mountains and logging, that strips mountains of their ability to retain soil, man has relatively little effect over eons.
But destroying the atmosphere, in terms of the current biosphere, is potentially forever.
Yup, it's been getting warmer, and, we are making it worse. The changes will be very interesting to watch.
Poor Al Gore. He and Joseph McCarthy both have done us a great disservice.
Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truthturned the republican far right into nitwits who came to reject anything based on science and empirical observation. And all because a democrat liberal said it out loud.
McCarthy's campaign against communism in the U.S. served to create an atmosphere in which no one believed that that the Soviet Union could or would do such a thing. They could and were but Joe didn't get it anywhere close to right.
The public reacted stupidly in both cases.
Bullshit ! You call this a discussion ... but you are in 100 % personal attack mode . Get on topic and off of me asshole .
Review the tape, Petey. You cast the first stone and keep on tossing.
Check who called who which expletives.
I repudiate those deserving of it using their own words and/or with specific references and explanations as to why they deserve repudiation. I did not call you an "asshole," nor did I request that you "STFU."
Not that the shoes don't well, you know.
Attack mode still . Clearly you don't know the science but you do know how to cover up your ignorance ... by going on the attack . Personal attacks only expose your ignorance . As of now your ignorance is bare-ass naked .
Address the issue and stop making this personal. Final warning.
Disagree. All cycles by definition are phenomena characterized by periodicity the durations are significant to varying degrees but their predictability within their given durations are what make them "cycles" and constitute their norms.
Temperature while varying over long and short intervals of specified time, is itself a constant phenomenon and the variables it undergoes are known to a great extent to science (geologists, meteorologists, paleo-biologists).
Precession, the wobbling of the earth on its axis is a regular cycle the periodicity of which is about 26,000 years. It has a lot to do with "climate changes" latitudinally -- but compared to the "period" we call "The Industrial Revolution" and the relatively high degree (pun intended) of warming within that period, it's gradual to say the least. Quite different from what we empirically see now.
That is a great thought Robert G -- we are the greatest and most consequential "conflict-of-interests" of all time.
And we are now having a first class and classy debate.
Lately it has stopped getting warmer . And CO2 emissions are not the cause of warming .
The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earths surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cyclesa series of La Nia events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillationcaused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean.
Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon.
Yearly surface temperatures since 1880 compared to the twentieth-century (1901-2000) average (dashed line at zero). Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly. Data courtesy of NOAAs National Climatic Data Center.
The pause in global warming observed since 2000 followed a period of rapid acceleration in the late 20th century. Starting in the mid-1970s, global temperatures rose 0.5 C over a period of 25 years. Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earths global mean surface temperature has been close to zero. Yet despite the halt in acceleration, each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earths surface than any preceding decade since 1850.
Surface temperature each decade since 1880 compard to the twentieth-century (1901-2000) average (dashed line at zero). Each of the last three decades was the warmest on record at the time, and each was warmer than the last. Data courtesy of NOAAs National Climatic Data Center.
The long-term trendchange over the course of a century or moreis what defines global warming, not the change from year to year or even decade to decade. Rising emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution explain most of the overall warming trend over the past century, and the rate of emissions has not slowed significantly in the recent past. So what else has been going on in the climate system over the past decade that could account for the pause in Earths surface warming trend?
During the last decade, a longer than usual solar minimum cycle, several volcanic eruptions, and relatively low amounts of water vapor in the stratosphere may have helped cool the atmosphere temporarily. But recent research suggests that the Earths natural climate variabilitynatural, short-term fluctuations in the climate system that occur on a year-to-year basis or longermay have played the most pivotal role of all by transferring excess heat from the Earths surface into the deep ocean.
Climatologists have demonstrated a remarkable inability to predict the climate . Don't hold you breath waiting on that "prediction" or we will have to call you Mr. Blue :
Here is a link to the report from the University of Wisconsin-Madison:
Climate conundrum: Conflicting indicators on what preceded human-driven warming
It's title is somewhat different than the Daily Mail.
For more from the study itself, go here:
The Holocene temperature conundrum
Again, titled differently.
If you have questions about geologic or climatological norms, these are good starting places:
geologic norm The condition resulting from normal erosion of the land, undisturbed by the activity of man and his agents.
Glossary of Geology Fifth Edition p.266
Climate Data and Data Related Products
I posted a link to a SETI podcast in the Climate group a while back. In that podcast, one of the scientists said that probably 50% of currently published work is incorrect, because of many factors. So no matter which side of the debate you choose, 50% of your data is going to be incorrect. That is not to say that it can't be corrected and we can't come to a final conclusion, but your data may be just as bad as the person you attack.
If you wish to attack someone because of their bad science, check your own 'facts' first.
Thanks for the additional links Steve, and your final point is right on the money.
Yes.
In fact, in online discussions on controversial topics-- one might almost say that these insults and personal attacks are...NORMAL!
(GD&R)
Well said flameaway!!!