Aussies Living Simply

Global Warming – "hotter than 80% of the past 11,300 years".

Home Forums SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES Global warming and climate change Global Warming – "hotter than 80% of the past 11,300 years".

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 142 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #531447
    PeterD
    Member

    Another study looks at the same data and spins it to the other side as a counterpoint.

    Many respectable studies and climatologists indicate that there was a “medieval warm period” around a thousand years ago – and probably also a “roman warm” two thousand years back – during which temperatures were higher than they are today as we can see in the graph of the temperstures above.

    At the time of the Pharaohs the world’s climate was significantly hotter than it now is for thousands of years – and yet the seas don’t appear to have risen, nor did the various other doomsday scenarios foretold by climate alarmists take place at that time.

    The new research, funded by the US government’s National Science Foundation, seeks to pull together various different measures of what the temperature might have been in the distant past. Methods included analyses of ancient pollen, deep ice cores, shells from marine organisms etc. The project was led by Shaun Marcott of Oregon State uni.

    Marcott and his colleagues, published today in leading boffinry mag Science, have this to say:

    Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 years ago).

    Nonetheless, according to those more realistic experts, even if we stop emitting carbon right now – so, perhaps, containing eventual warming to levels like those seen in the pre-Egyptian millennia – we could expect a metre of sea-level rise above present levels by the year 3000 AD.

    And yet the ancient Egyptians, despite having lived through pretty much exactly that scenario, don’t appear to have seen anything like those sort of sea levels. Respectable geologists project that sea levels just a metre above today’s would see the port city of Alexandria become an isolated island or peninsula off the Egyptian coast: but that didn’t happen. The Old Egyptian town of Rhakotis on the site which later became Alexandria was a major urban centre right back to 2600 BC and before. This would hardly have been the case had it been largely inaccessible from the fertile farmland of the Delta (much of whic would have been flooded and useless anyway in that scenario, as is expected in the imminent future by climate change scientists now).

    Marcott et al’s paper can be read by subscribers to Science here:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract

    #531448
    Anonymous
    Guest

    thank you peterD,

    the climate worshippers refuse to accept hard copy history.

    http://www.exploreiceland.is/about_iceland/history_of_iceland/icelandic_vikings/

    now it says in the 8th century that is around years 700 or so. the vikings developed light boats and from that time they settled brittain and importantly discovered greenland(so named to fool any other vikings who might follow and cause harm) and settled iceland. notice there is no string of ‘0’ after any dates, it all occurs within a 4 figure time line ie.,. 6k years)

    in those times they could grow salad greens and graze food animals then the cycle continues(you know what goes ’round – comes ’round, another that is denied by the climate mythology), so now guess what iceland is returned or returning to those viking times of the 700’s, a mere 13 hundred years ago, the Bible is around 6k years old, science is younger than columbus’s time(app’ 1400’s), around 1k years(being generous), don’t want to upset the exclusive club. columbus and the muslims knew the earth was round, the science was in full denial(sages and sears carried over from mythologyism)

    what have we lost in the last 50 years? “common sense” many are led like sheep, called by the science fraternity “sheeple’s”. tertiary education is all about indoctrination without common sense.

    so please remove this retrograde climate tax before living gets anymore expensive.

    we need cast iron fact not speculation based on mathematical theory.

    climate change is about missing habitat, they calim the tax is working with a mathematical graph, but when will we see the change in climate? never i say.

    added in: are the climate people trying to say they have written records of weather/climate for 11300 years ago? aussies records around 200 years USA around 300 years and i would suggest not much more beyond that certainly not 1000 years agao.

    len

    #531449
    Airgead
    Member

    Science folks… not distribes aganst carbon taxes.

    This means you len.

    PeterD – Generally acknowledged that the medieval warm perious was purely Western Europe. Likewise Roman warm. No record of either in global records.

    Weather climate.

    As Disraili said – there are lies, damned lies and Statistics. You can spin numbers any way you want them if you really want to. The overwhelming coinsensus though is that human induced warming is real and serious.

    Cheers

    Dave

    #531450
    Anonymous
    Guest

    thank you peterD,

    the climate worshippers refuse to accept hard copy history.

    http://www.exploreiceland.is/about_iceland/history_of_iceland/icelandic_vikings/

    now it says in the 8th century that is around years 700 or so. the vikings developed light boats and from that time they settled brittain and importantly discovered greenland(so named to fool any other vikings who might follow and cause harm) and settled iceland. notice there is no string of ‘0’ after any dates, it all occurs within a 4 figure time line ie.,. 6k years)

    in those times they could grow salad greens and graze food animals then the cycle continues(you know what goes ’round – comes ’round, another that is denied by the climate mythology), so now guess what iceland is returned or returning to those viking times of the 700’s, a mere 13 hundred years ago, the Bible is around 6k years old, science is younger than columbus’s time(app’ 1400’s), around 1k years(being generous), don’t want to upset the exclusive club. columbus and the muslims knew the earth was round, the science was in full denial(sages and sears carried over from mythologyism)

    what have we lost in the last 50 years? “common sense” many are led like sheep, called by the science fraternity “sheeple’s”. tertiary education is all about indoctrination without common sense.

    so please remove this retrograde climate tax before living gets anymore expensive.

    we need cast iron fact not speculation based on mathematical theory.

    len

    so without fanfare my post not OT was deleted that sounds like domination

    they claim 11300 years of history

    #531451
    Anonymous
    Guest

    well did not i mention teh warm in the viking times? or do you discount that because i don’t use enough ‘0’s?

    the poster claims 11300 years of history, where is it authenticated.

    iceland now into another warming so waht is wrong with my post except maybe it is from me?

    what is wrong that open discussion can’t take place?

    thank you peterD,

    the climate worshippers refuse to accept hard copy history.

    http://www.exploreiceland.is/about_iceland/history_of_iceland/icelandic_vikings/

    now it says in the 8th century that is around years 700 or so. the vikings developed light boats and from that time they settled brittain and importantly discovered greenland(so named to fool any other vikings who might follow and cause harm) and settled iceland. notice there is no string of ‘0’ after any dates, it all occurs within a 4 figure time line ie.,. 6k years)

    in those times they could grow salad greens and graze food animals then the cycle continues(you know what goes ’round – comes ’round, another that is denied by the climate mythology), so now guess what iceland is returned or returning to those viking times of the 700’s, a mere 13 hundred years ago, the Bible is around 6k years old, science is younger than columbus’s time(app’ 1400’s), around 1k years(being generous), don’t want to upset the exclusive club. columbus and the muslims knew the earth was round, the science was in full denial(sages and sears carried over from mythologyism)

    what have we lost in the last 50 years? “common sense” many are led like sheep, called by the science fraternity “sheeple’s”. tertiary education is all about indoctrination without common sense.

    so please remove this retrograde climate tax before living gets anymore expensive.

    we need cast iron fact not speculation based on mathematical theory.

    len

    #531452
    porgey
    Member

    Natural climate change is a fact, what is disputed is how much humans are accelerating/effecting this natural variation.

    Personally I think we are having a big impact and its quite disgraceful. And its not just CO2

    but all the other crap we pump out into the environment.

    So far the great majority of people and all governments have responded poorly to this crisis and as a species we should be ashamed.

    In a little over 200 years our poor treatment and disconnect with our mother earth has been so great that I cant see any hope that human enhanced climate change and environmental degradation wont cause us all a huge problem. Negative karma on a global scale.

    #531453
    Anonymous
    Guest

    ok lets give this a try?

    porgey,

    no gov’ can or ever will take the climate change due to loss of habitat seriously, they build their economies on mass consumerism and mass rape of resources by the mogul upper echalon.

    got ver little to do with the lower socio economic people they have no power and are easily duped, so they are the sheeple, in the bigger picture.

    len

    #531454
    casalenta
    Member

    PeterD post=354480 wrote: Another study looks at the same data and spins it to the other side as a counterpoint.

    It’s easy to ‘spin’ data like that. The ‘line of best fit’ you get depends on the starting and end points you select and the scale of the graph. Actually, you can usually tell which ‘side’ of this supposedly scientific but actually politicised ‘debate’ people are on just by looking at the scale on their graphs.

    It’s also interesting to note headlines, such as the title of this thread: Global Warming – “hotter than 80% of the past 11,300 years”. It would be just as accurate to have the heading: ‘Global Cooling – colder than 20% of the past 11,300 years’ wouldn’t it? That’s the headline they would have had in the 1970s when cooling was the big scare.

    This may seem off-topic but I don’t think it is. People (all of us) are far more influenced by our environment than we realise, and so people around in the 1970s were most likely to be convinced the world was heading for a new glacial period (that was the overwhelming consensus at the time). Now it’s swung the other way, and people throughout have quoted scientific data and shown graphs to back up their arguments. It’s usually an unconscious selection of data – selecting end points and scales or data sets that produce the result you want to see or think you ought to see or expect to be there, or that people tell you should be there, without realising for a moment that that’s what you’re doing.

    An interesting study here http://mindhacks.com/2006/02/06/music-wine-and-will/ showed how strongly people are affected by their environment and – more telling – how strongly adamant that they were not being influenced in any way by it. Global warming (like global cooling in the past) is all over the media all the time. And, just like in the wine experiment, we are all completely adamant that we’re not affected or influenced by this environment in any way. We all convince ourselves we’re sticking to the scientific facts, but we’re all unconsciously selecting the facts that suit our theories.

    A real scientific theory to explain climactic changes would explain all of the changes, and as I’ve said before we don’t have anything that explains all the changes we see or have seen in the past. We can only come up with approximations using computer models that even the scientists who use them admit are flawed and limited.

    #531455
    Airgead
    Member

    casalenta post=354490 wrote:

    A real scientific theory to explain climactic changes would explain all of the changes, and as I’ve said before we don’t have anything that explains all the changes we see or have seen in the past. We can only come up with approximations using computer models that even the scientists who use them admit are flawed and limited.

    I did promise myself I wouldn’t get involved in this one…but…

    It is acknowledged that the models are limited. They are limited in spatial resolution for one thing so they don’t give good figures for local effects. This is however very diferent from saying that they are WRONG.

    They aren’t. The correlation between past climate at a global or regional scale (ie: within the resolution limits of the models) is excellent. You can (and those who run the models do) run them backwards to see the corelation (and check the model).

    You can still gain a lot of useful information from a limited model. My backgaround is control theory. You can model the general open loop response to a blast furnace with just 2 variables. A full model would have thousands and involve very complex fluid dynamics. The 2 variable model is good enough to control it and proiduce steel though. Doesn’t tell you what is happening at all points inside the furnace (low spatial resolution) but it doesn’t need to in order to provide useful information.

    Cheers

    Dave

    #531456
    Bobbee
    Member

    Removed the ‘nice’ thread emoticon.

    #531457
    porgey
    Member

    Airgead post=354492 wrote:

    A real scientific theory to explain climactic changes would explain all of the changes, and as I’ve said before we don’t have anything that explains all the changes we see or have seen in the past. We can only come up with approximations using computer models that even the scientists who use them admit are flawed and limited.

    I did promise myself I wouldn’t get involved in this one…but…

    It is acknowledged that the models are limited. They are limited in spatial resolution for one thing so they don’t give good figures for local effects. This is however very diferent from saying that they are WRONG.

    They aren’t. The correlation between past climate at a global or regional scale (ie: within the resolution limits of the models) is excellent. You can (and those who run the models do) run them backwards to see the corelation (and check the model).

    You can still gain a lot of useful information from a limited model. My backgaround is control theory. You can model the general open loop response to a blast furnace with just 2 variables. A full model would have thousands and involve very complex fluid dynamics. The 2 variable model is good enough to control it and proiduce steel though. Doesn’t tell you what is happening at all points inside the furnace (low spatial resolution) but it doesn’t need to in order to provide useful information.

    Cheers

    Dave

    With complete and utter respect, this is part of the problem. We dont need science and all the theoretical modelling to tell us anything. We just need to stop trashing the planet. We can mince around for the next century debating cause and effect, loop theory, etc but “Rome will still burn” if we keep over consuming and over populating.

    #531458
    PeterD
    Member

    Airgead post=354484 wrote: PeterD – Generally acknowledged that the medieval warm perious was purely Western Europe. Likewise Roman warm. No record of either in global records.

    Weather climate.

    As Disraili said – there are lies, damned lies and Statistics. You can spin numbers any way you want them if you really want to. The overwhelming coinsensus though is that human induced warming is real and serious.

    Cheers

    Dave

    Dave,

    In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “appeal to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: “If many believe so, it is so.”

    The actual dats set of the study has constructed a record of global mean surface temperature for more than the last 11,000 years, using a variety of land- and marine-based proxy data from all around the world and not just localised events data. The point markers including the Roman Warm period were given to make context points in the graph that people can relate to.

    I posted this overall not to say that there is or is not climate change, warming trends, and so on but to allow prople to visualised the data and see how anyone can put blinders on, a scope limit, in the data set to support their own conclusions. If popular opinion was no climatr change I’d be posting in support of it. The truth lies somewhere between the extremes of headlines out their on favour and against on every argument topic under the sun.

    I’d rather people look at both sides and draw their own conclusions rather than be caught up in shock headlines and public opinions.

    #531459
    Airgead
    Member

    porgey post=354495 wrote:

    With complete and utter respect, this is part of the problem. We dont need science and all the theoretical modelling to tell us anything. We just need to stop trashing the planet. We can mince around for the next century debating cause and effect, loop theory, etc but “Rome will still burn” if we keep over consuming and over populating.

    Indeed… knowing about it is one thing. Actually doing enything about it is another.

    Cheers

    Dave

    #531460
    Anonymous
    Guest

    good one porgey,

    yes cut the k-r-a-p, cut to the chase, tell the gov’ and moguls enough already, repair the habitat, and stop calling a heatwave below around 36c. investors withdraw your money from human misery investment, put it where your proverbial mouths are, into repairing habitat.

    cut the myth driven by science and best fit models.

    all this argument for support and counter argument stating the obvious lets knuckle down

    we’re doing our bit and have so for 15 years at least, any reward for our effort NO! none at all just escalating cost of living. and nothing is getting fixed in real terms.

    len

    #531461
    porgey
    Member

    Airgead post=354498 wrote:

    With complete and utter respect, this is part of the problem. We dont need science and all the theoretical modelling to tell us anything. We just need to stop trashing the planet. We can mince around for the next century debating cause and effect, loop theory, etc but “Rome will still burn” if we keep over consuming and over populating.

    Indeed… knowing about it is one thing. Actually doing enything about it is another.

    Cheers

    Dave

    And there lies the problem. The Dickensian “The End of the World is Nigh” springs to mind when thinking of all the things that need to be done.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 142 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.