What happenned 1000 years ago in a small section of the planet has nothing to do with the huge changes today all over the planet.
And we do not have to worry about scientists, it is very obvious to those of us who grew up on the land to see with our own eyes.
Have put up very many clear examples over time on this thread, but noco you choose to ignore them so could not be bothered anymore.
Well that is your opinion my friend ...What happened 1000 years ago has everything to do with what happened to the planet...as what happened 500 years ago in the mini ice age which will happen again......As what happened in the dinosaur era...was it extreme temperatures...extreme cold?......was it drought or was it flood which was the result of climate change?...That never gets mentioned on this thread.
How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
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.
See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.
Photograph of a section of an ice core, with bubbles.
Graph of temperature anomalies from the EPICA ice core, Antarctica.
Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center. NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)
Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” 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.
Graph of multi-proxy global temperature reconstruction and instrumental records.
Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)
Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. 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. This rate of change is extremely unusual.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
Yes noco is right, there have been ice ages and periods hotter than today, but they have occured over long periods of time. The rate of warming today is the concern.
Really Logique ? I don't know where that graph was created but it certainly doesn't reflect the temperatures on Planet Earth.
If it was somehow accurate then clearly global temperatures have fallen in the past 18 years and there has only been maximum of .4 C increase in global temperatures since 1880.
And of course that graph says that temperatures in the late 1930's were in fact higher than current temperatures.
If this was in fact the case, yep the whole global warming issue is overblown and off tack.
But you know it wouldn't quite matter what the graphs say if in fact we wern't seeing the physical evidence of steep warming. In particular the rapid melting of Arctic and Antarctica ice.
But it's a lie Logique. A fabrication. I reckon it's a Monkcton/Heartland piece.
The actual figures on global warming are represented by the following graph.
View attachment 66686 (From NASA website
This is in fact a few years old. Currently the world is running at 1.3C over normal. That graph is showing around .7C in 2012. The last few years have been exceptionally warm.
I don't see why someone needs formal scientific qualifications to look at that chart and conclude that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is clearly not linear. To see what the chart says only requires a high school level of understanding, not a masters degree. Understanding the reasons requires a deeper understanding certainly but the chart itself seems pretty clear.
I'll likewise say that you don't need a degree or other professional qualifications in finance to look at a chart of the ASX200 and conclude that it has gone up since the lows of early 2009 but has thus far never returned to the peak value seen in late 2007. I'm pretty sure that even those who have never invested in anything more complex than bank deposits and a superannuation fund could look at the chart and see that.
Back to the chart itself, what I do find interesting is the question of where the CO2 is actually going. Emissions have gone up massively compared to 40 years ago but the rate of increase in atmospheric concentration hasn't accelerated to anywhere near the same extent.
My concern there is that if we simply cut CO2 emissions by, say, 30% then that's not going to result in a 30% slower rate of increase in atmospheric concentration as it doesn't seem to be a linear relationship. That being so, to have any real impact we may need to cut far more drastically and even then the concentration keeps rising albeit more slowly.
The above all assumes that the chart posted is in fact accurate. I won't claim to know if it is accurate or not, I'm just commenting based on the assumption that it's right.
Agree, is why I have continually referred noco to "The Sixth Extinction" which very clearly spells out what you refer to as the varying speed of the time periods. Whats happening now is fast and accellerating.
...
Spot on!! The problem is that the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time, so annual emissions are cumulative.
...
Wow..now it is evident you have all accepted the history of Climate change, (Global WARMING) or what ever the theme is today, but the new theory of the day is that it is accelerating faster than before.....Now I wonder who came up with that new ingenious manipulated theory?...No don't tell me, It is all those expert scientist with their peer reviewed theories approved by the UN.....Mumma mia!!!!!!!!!!!!.
So what do you all think happened to the dinosaurs?...Any ideas from the brains trust?
Wow..now it is evident you have all accepted the history of Climate change, (Global WARMING) or what ever the theme is today, but the new theory of the day is that it is accelerating faster than before.....Now I wonder who came up with that new ingenious manipulated theory?...No don't tell me, It is all those expert scientist with their peer reviewed theories approved by the UN.....Mumma mia!!!!!!!!!!!!.
So what do you all think happened to the dinosaurs?...Any ideas from the brains trust?
Aren't you overlooking the fact that CO2 is being recycled by natural process and that the atmosphere is simply a conduit where CO2 travels from emission to reception?
Aren't you overlooking the fact that CO2 is being recycled by natural process and that the atmosphere is simply a conduit where CO2 travels from emission to reception?
Hence co2 levels may not necessarily be as cumulative as one supposes.
We are emerging from the post-Pleistocene Ice Age. The world should be warming. Although it hasn't in the last 18 years and 9 months.
CO2 was going up at a certain rate 40 (or 30 or 20) years ago. We've since massively increased the amount of CO2 that we're emitting but that hasn't been matched by an acceleration of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Some increase in the rate of increase yes, but not a linear relationship.
So there's definitely a lot of complexity here. No question about that.
My thought is that we're seeing a combination of both natural and man-made processes, some of which we are completely unaware even exist, and that's making it hard to see what's really going on.
I do agree strongly that the rate of warming seen in recent times, at least based on some data sources, is alarming and that is so regardless of the cause. Even if it's purely natural, such a rapid change is cause for concern.
We are emerging from the post-Pleistocene Ice Age. The world should be warming. Although it hasn't in the last 18 years and 9 months.
But it's still no reason to vote Greens.
Don't shoot the messenger Bas and SirR. And my apologies for trolling you today!
View attachment 66687
CO2 was going up at a certain rate 40 (or 30 or 20) years ago. We've since massively increased the amount of CO2 that we're emitting but that hasn't been matched by an acceleration of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Some increase in the rate of increase yes, but not a linear relationship.
So there's definitely a lot of complexity here. No question about that.
My thought is that we're seeing a combination of both natural and man-made processes, some of which we are completely unaware even exist, and that's making it hard to see what's really going on.
I do agree strongly that the rate of warming seen in recent times, at least based on some data sources, is alarming and that is so regardless of the cause. Even if it's purely natural, such a rapid change is cause for concern.
With the world's "lung" being eaten away daily through deforestation; with CO2 being absorbed into the ocean and hence reduces its oxygen level (among other things)... this circle of life doesn't spin so well anymore.
Was watching the Jimmy Dorres show where some American politician, on hearing some sceptic who said CO2 is not a big deal, tell the guy to go put a bag around his head to see if it's a big deal.
I find myself wondering why the zeal to prosecute the case, but I am pleased to see other people have the same gut feel that I have. The worrying aspect for me is the absurdity of allowing political prostitutes to own the logical and moral sections of your own brain:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-of-climate-change-is-all-about-the-politics/
Politics and the hip pocket nerve. People like Turnbull and Abbott know global warming is taking place but they just want to win elections so they run scare campaigns based on simplistic "great big tax on everything" slogans and ignore the advice from people on their own side in the business area and then spend billions anyway on "Direct Action" which would be unnecessary if CC was not happening.
Pretty disgusting really.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?