Study: Earth was warmer in Roman, Medieval times

[Bunnykid68]

It's a shame you yourself ignored evidence contrary to your agenda. Reading further into that NASA website:

"The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events."

"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."

"The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual."

All of those temperature changes in the past are nothing more than guesses

 

[Bogan]

All of those temperature changes in the past are nothing more than guesses

Looks like you also did not read the article:

"Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature."

That's the scientific method. Guesses? Better than your assertion that climate change is a hoax...

 

[88GT]

It's a shame you yourself ignored evidence contrary to your agenda. Reading further into that NASA website:

"The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events."

"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."

"The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual."

You might have a point if the temperature rate of change was constant throughout time. 100 years is just 2% of the 5000 year timeframe used as a reference. What was the rate of change for 100 years at the same point in the warming trend? It's possible that rate of change is faster early in the trend cycle. It's bad science to compare a single datum point to the average with the intent of making concrete claims. We don't say the earth is cooling or warming because the actual temperature on any given day is above or below the average. Why would we do it on a larger scale?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Looks like you also did not read the article:

"Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature."

That's the scientific method. Guesses? Better than your assertion that climate change is a hoax...

Like I asked earlier, what kind of thermometers were they using 5-20,000 years ago. All the scientists can do is speculate as to what the temps were. They cannot prove what the temps were.

 

[Bogan]

You might have a point if the temperature rate of change was constant throughout time. 100 years is just 2% of the 5000 year timeframe used as a reference. What was the rate of change for 100 years at the same point in the warming trend? It's possible that rate of change is faster early in the trend cycle. It's bad science to compare a single datum point to the average with the intent of making concrete claims. We don't say the earth is cooling or warming because the actual temperature on any given day is above or below the average. Why would we do it on a larger scale?

Again, read the article and other publications on the issue:

"When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster."

Then look at this graph:


...whch clearly shows the trend not just as a single datum point, but a series of points in the context of the whole trendline.

 

[Bogan]

Like I asked earlier, what kind of thermometers were they using 5-20,000 years ago. All the scientists can do is speculate as to what the temps were. They cannot prove what the temps were.

You think only thermometers can tell temperature? Read up on the topic.

 

[printcraft]

...........The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster.

According to whom?

Sorry. You can only pile horse **** so high before it falls over.

 

[88GT]

Again, read the article and other publications on the issue:

"When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster."

Then look at this graph:
View attachment 24187

...whch clearly shows the trend not just as a single datum point, but a series of points in the context of the whole trendline.

I don't need to read the article. I have a Master's Degree in Environmental Science. You're trying to argue that the rate of change over 5000 years is constant throughout that 5000 years. I'm telling you it's not likely to be the case. And therefore using a 100-year datum point to make any kind of conclusion is ridiculous. I would bet everything I own that any given 100-year time frame witin any given 5000 year warming period had a different rate of warming than any other given 100-year period. I'll even bet that some 100-year periods within that 5000 year period cooled.

I understand what you're trying to say, but it doesn't hold up scientifically. That graph you posted is a trending graph. It doesn't have an actual datum point for every year of the 5000 year period. And it's a trend for averages. Not actual temps.

Here's why your argument doesn't work. For example: it takes an average of 4 days to drive from Indy to California. The average rate then would be total distance/total time. Let's say 60mph for simplicity's sake. But the instantaneous rate at any given point may be more or less than the average. Even more important, the average rate of any given period of time is going to vary. Clear roads with little traffic vs. congestion vs. construction. The average is still the average, but at any given point I was traveling faster or slower than the average. You are arguing that because for a particular hour of that drive I drove at 75mph to reach the next rest stop so I could pee I should have reached California in less than 4 days because my one hour of driving was at a rate faster than the average. It doesn't work that way.

ETA: Predictions aren't data. They are predictions. And they come with a set of assumptions. The argument is always in the assumptions. The assumption in your prediction is that the rate of temperature increase is constant. I suspect that is not the case. Not for the future warming. And not for past warming periods.

 

[308offate]

Didn't they prove that most of the global warming data was forged to gain publicity?

 

[-Jake-]

Thats a very nice looking wave. Almost perfectly cyclical. But it appears something happened 400k years ago. Must have been all of those prehistoric automobiles and coal power plants.

 

[Mackey]

"The predicted rate of warming..."
Back in the 70s they were predicting an Ice Age.

Besides, we don't call it "global waming" anymore. It's "climate change." That way we can blame anything, tornados, hurricanes, hot summers, cold winters, earthquates, on man's activity.

Also, according the "experts" the world has had multiple ice ages (I think there was only one which occurred after a global flood). Change is the norm on this earth! I love how the environmentalists are trying to preserve everything, as if we're going to halt change and keep everything pristine, just the way it is now.
The earth is reserved for fire!
Everyone knows it. Either from God or the sun ... the earth is doomed.

 

[indiucky]

"The predicted rate of warming..."
Back in the 70s they were predicting an Ice Age.

Besides, we don't call it "global waming" anymore. It's "climate change." That way we can blame anything, tornados, hurricanes, hot summers, cold winters, earthquates, on man's activity.

Also, according the "experts" the world has had multiple ice ages (I think there was only one which occurred after a global flood). Change is the norm on this earth! I love how the environmentalists are trying to preserve everything, as if we're going to halt change and keep everything pristine, just the way it is now.
The earth is reserved for fire!
Everyone knows it. Either from God or the sun ... the earth is doomed.

Sometimes it takes a bona fide member of the left to point out how stupid the left is when it comes to the subject of the enviroment...For your viewing pleasure I present you with the late, great, George Carlin....Language warning.....


[video=youtube;EjmtSkl53h4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4[/video]

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

I don't need to read the article. I have a Master's Degree in Environmental Science. You're trying to argue that the rate of change over 5000 years is constant throughout that 5000 years. I'm telling you it's not likely to be the case. And therefore using a 100-year datum point to make any kind of conclusion is ridiculous. I would bet everything I own that any given 100-year time frame witin any given 5000 year warming period had a different rate of warming than any other given 100-year period. I'll even bet that some 100-year periods within that 5000 year period cooled.

I understand what you're trying to say, but it doesn't hold up scientifically. That graph you posted is a trending graph. It doesn't have an actual datum point for every year of the 5000 year period. And it's a trend for averages. Not actual temps.

Here's why your argument doesn't work. For example: it takes an average of 4 days to drive from Indy to California. The average rate then would be total distance/total time. Let's say 60mph for simplicity's sake. But the instantaneous rate at any given point may be more or less than the average. Even more important, the average rate of any given period of time is going to vary. Clear roads with little traffic vs. congestion vs. construction. The average is still the average, but at any given point I was traveling faster or slower than the average. You are arguing that because for a particular hour of that drive I drove at 75mph to reach the next rest stop so I could pee I should have reached California in less than 4 days because my one hour of driving was at a rate faster than the average. It doesn't work that way.

ETA: Predictions aren't data. They are predictions. And they come with a set of assumptions. The argument is always in the assumptions. The assumption in your prediction is that the rate of temperature increase is constant. I suspect that is not the case. Not for the future warming. And not for past warming periods.

Well 88GT it would appear you have settled the argument. I like to see graphs that point to extreme rise that show only the last 1500 years - most of it predicted averages - vs modern day's instantaneously gathered well instrumented datum. I like your analogy of instantaneous telemetry data on a moving vehicle - makes it easy to understand...at least from a data analysis viewpoint. As for the nuts-n-bolts science of why these cycles happen when they happen, I'm not as clear. One thing I am clear on is that temperature predictions/averages from ice bubbles/tree rings, et.al. do not compare to modern instrumented data and therefore do not lend themselves to numerical analysis...at least not of the derivative sort.

 

[jamil]

"The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual."

So in 100 years, if the rate of warming has indeed been 20 times faster, we'll know they're right.

Then look at this graph:
View attachment 24187

...whch clearly shows the trend not just as a single datum point, but a series of points in the context of the whole trendline.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the Green Whore's hockey stick.

Bogan, are you a scientist in a relevant field? Have you taken any graduate level classes on the subject? Have you done any research, not just reading your side's BS, but actual scientific climate research?

If not, then you are in no higher magnitude of understanding than anyone else who hasn't done all that. I've not done that either. So, all you or I can do is form opinions based on our own experiences and what other people tell us. Maybe you devoutly trust scientists. But I've been around long enough to experience enough failed scientific predictions that I feel quite comfortable with skepticism rather than faith. Scientists are people too. People have agendas. The "green" business is booming. Al Gore the Green Whore has profited well from his hockey stick.

AHHHH, it's the end-of-world let's make policies that drastically change people's lives!!

 

[Expat]

I think 88GT may have made him go away.

 

[jamil]

Aw, man. I really wanted him to read the part about him not being a scientist.

 

[Rhoadmar]

I think 88GT may have made him go away.

To be fair, he may be preparing a storm of un biased scientifically proven information from an unbiased source.........................

 

[Expat]

To be fair, he may be preparing a storm of un biased scientifically proven information from an unbiased source.........................

I really LOLed :-)

 

[hooky]

I think 88GT may have made him go away.

3 cheers for 88GT!

SPEA baby!!!!

 

[AtTheMurph]

All anyone needs to know about the warmists is that Green really equals Red.