Is Current Global Warming Unprecedented?

And we've experienced:

1. volcanic eruptions

2. small changes in the earth's orbit

3.changes in solar activity

4. changes in ocean currents (circulation)

5. earthquakes/tsunamis

6. hurricanes

7. asteroid collisions

etc. etc. etc. in the last 20,000, 10,000, 5,000, 2,000...1,000...500...100...and 50 years that have had absolutely NO EFFECT whatsoever on freezing and warming and freezing and warming and freezing. But you superior minds are sure it is farting cattle, missing forest and gasoline motors that have caused this whole damned thing....yeah right.

 

True, but volcanic eruptions cause the climate to cool. So they can't be responsible for the current warmth.

True, but Earth's orbit can be computed for thousands of years into the past and future, so we know that orbital forcing is actually cooling the planet right now. So that's not causing the current warmth.

True, but solar activity has been declining, on average, since the mid 20th century, as the planet has warmed. So that can't be causing the current warmth.

True, but ocean cycles don't create heat, they just move it around between the surface and the depths. So if ocean cycles are causing warmth at the surface, they must also be causing cooling at the depths. And we know from actual observation that the depths are warming too. So it can't be ocean cycles.

They don't cause climate change.

They don't cause climate change.

It takes a really, really big asteroid strike to cause climate change, and there has not been one large enough to cause climate change in historical times.

Not true. Ice ages and interglacial periods, for example, are triggered by orbital forcing.

Yes we are. Because we have evidence. Which you don't.

 

Alien beings, eh? Visitors from other intergalactic worlds.

 

Nope. Just basic physics. CO2 is transparent in visible light, and absorbs in infrared.

 

Back to the, he said it's so therefore it is evidence. LOL silliness.

You have nothing, no evidence of anything. You're still showing the silliness of the alarmists.

 

Those who claim the so called "Medieval warm period" was global should look at the data - precious little data from the southern hemisphere shows the warming occurring at the same time as there was warming in and around Europe and Greenland

- - - Updated - - -

No what you cannot find is papers showing that the warming was happening globally AT THE SAME TIME

 

Funny that it is physics that has been verified and used by the Airforce

 

more misinformation from the pulpit of the first church of St Gore ?

you been preaching that same scripture since I have been on this site and I have been posting links showing you are not telling the truth. Seems as if you would learn by now


http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/291/5508/1497

http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/dec/14dec2011a4.html

I have a couple of hundred of various papers bookmarked Bower, pick an area. Central America, S America, Australia ? Oh and you are lucky if you can get a 100 - 200 year resolution on most of the proxy data so only a idiot would expect for everything to line up precisely. This isn't instrument data which can be "adjusted" to fit

 

Even your hero, Dr. Roy, thinks you're just plain nuts, jc. (h/t to Jackdog for this link).

 

Nice, but silly. Not sure your point. There is nothing wrong with physics, what's wrong is when the scientist don't use it correctly. See, that's my point and been my point. they may all talk physics on forcing, but they know they're wrong with what they think they know and refuse to adjust. that's silly. At least the engineers and mechanics make adjustments so that planes actually do fly. Ever hear of test pilots?

 

No evidence, I'm just a person who expects to see evidence. I'll tell old Roy that. Prove it. See if you can't explain the years of no warming with increased CO2, then you have a missing piece of data. Find it, prove why the temperatures, didn't increase when the CO2 did. That's all I'm asking for. You have it?

 

It's been explained many times already that short term cyclical forcings like PDO and solar intensity can temporarily mask long term linear forcings like CO2. That's what happened from 1940 to 1970 when global warming also "paused". Being cyclical, these forcings will eventually reverse and add to global warming while CO2 continues to rise. What do you think will happen to global mean surface temperatures then?

 

Sorry, but that's a cop out to prove a position and not to prove a theory. Not accepted by me! I know you think I'm nobody, but I am not alone in that thought. There is also evidence when temperatures were warm and the CO2 was low.

Edit: Sorry I didn't answer your question. My answer, the natural law of climate will continue, and again, the trend is warming in cyclical periods. I expect that to continue. I have seen nothing else to disagree with that assessment.

 

The hockey stick used Briffa tree ring data that varies widely from other temperature records like the Greenland ice cores that show warmer temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period. Using tree ring data has been called into question since it varies widely just by region.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet the level of CO2 forcing is by no means anything proven in global climate change.

 

actually I can find hundreds of individual papers that show that the warming was occurring globally during the MWP is John Cook's site saying differently. I assume you got this from Cook's site since it is the only source I ever see you quote

 

New studies show warming sometimes widely different and sometimes in sync between the hemispheres with the Northern Hemisphere varying more. The computer models do not take this into account very well since it is not well understood at this time.

 

treed ring data varies not only by region but even within the same region it can be affected by many other factors. rainfall, disease, insect damage. Ever hear of the most influential single tree in the world YADO61?

This was startling enough, as McIntyre demonstrated in an explosive series of posts on his Climate Audit blog, because it showed that the CRU studies were based on cherry-picking hundreds of Siberian samples only to leave those that showed the picture that was wanted. Other studies based on similar data had clearly shown the Medieval Warm Period as hotter than today. Indeed only the evidence from one tree, YADO61, seemed to show a "hockey stick" pattern, and it was this, in light of the extraordinary reverence given to the CRU's studies, which led McIntyre to dub it "the most influential tree in the world".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...s-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html

 

At last count there were 22,130 posts in the environment and conservation category. Almost every one of them seem to address this issue. So far none that I have actually read have settled this issue one way or the other.

Praise the lord...Al Gore.

 

You don't have to listen to me. You can read the papers yourself.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00548.1
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140121_Temperature2013.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6044/866.abstract
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/zonalT.gif

Of course there is because temperature is affected by factors other than CO2. Nobody disputes this. But in the last 100 years every significant factor except CO2 has been trending toward cooling, not warming.

The natural pattern for the last million years has been long (~100,000 year) glacial periods punctuated by brief (~10,000 year) interglacials. We're currently about 8,000 years into the current interglacial and temperatures have been steadily declining all that time. It was the knowledge of this natural cycle and apparent cooling during the 1940's that lead some to believe that the next ice age was eminent. The fact that temperatures continue to increase when the natural cycle says we should be cooling should cause you to question your assessment.

 

That, in no way, can be said with any certainty.

 

Of course. Sulfate aerosols (anthropogenic cooling effect) took off like a rocket after WWII, peaked in the mid 1970s, then declined. So for the period 1945-1973, the warming effect of CO2 was masked by the cooling effect of sulfates. Since then, sulfates have remained steady or declined somewhat, leaving CO2 as the dominant change in forcing.

Santer, B. D., et al. "Structure of the atmosphere." Nature 382 (1996): 4.
Stott, Peter A., et al. "External control of 20th century temperature by natural and anthropogenic forcings." Science 290.5499 (2000): 2133-2137.
Smith, Steven J., et al. "Anthropogenic sulfur dioxide emissions: 1850–2005." Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11.3 (2011): 1101-1116.

 

Let me ask something, how many degrees do you feel the temperature increases based on CO2 and CO2 alone? Do you have that as an experiment? And if you do have an experiment to show, is it controlled? And I don't want to see the one with the candle at the end of the tube with the CO2 shown blocking the flame from the camera. What a silly experiment. Proves nothing. I have the mythbuster youtube experiment which shows an increase in 1 degree C increase between a chamber with no CO2 and the chamber with 300PPM CO2 added. Methane the same as the CO2. With that all they showed me is at 300PPM there is a difference of 1 degree C with CO2 over no CO2. You concur?

With that data I could conclude that at 600PPM of CO2 it would be 2 degree C difference. However, as I watched the video, I don't think that would be the case. But, this is the experiment I wish to see. I asked on the mythbuster web page for that experiment. I'm waiting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

 

wow so much wrong in just one post -

first off you have no idea of all the significant factors that affect the planets warming and cooling. No one does.That is just one of the reasons the attempts at climate modeling are so wildly inaccurate

secondly the last glacial ended about 14500 years ago and partway through the warming transition there was a near glacial event called the Younger Dryas which ended 11,500 years ago.

 

True, and well known.

Completely false.

 

Did you read this one?