Weird Winter Weather Puzzles Scientists

[Wayne SW/MO]

From the National Academy of Scientist.

"Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years examined what tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" can tell us about the planet's temperature record, and in particular how much confidence could be placed in a graph that became known as the "hockey stick," which depicted a steep rise in temperatures after a 1,000-year period in the last few decades of the 20th century. The committee that wrote the report found sufficient evidence to say with a high level of confidence that the last decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years. It said less confidence could be placed in reconstructions of temperatures prior to 1600, although proxy data does indicate that many locations are warmer now than they were between A.D. 900 and 1600. Proxy data for periods prior to A.D. 900 are sparse, the report notes."

I suppose I'm the only one that also see's the irony in the drive to make more electric cars, given the fact that the two biggest polluters are cars and the production of electricity?????

Probably a perfect example of going from the frying pan to the fire.

[snagged in outlet 3]

I saw this guy on Nova right after the Hockey Stick Graph was put out there by Gore, and he said they were interpreting the graph backwards. That heat in the atmosphere was driving the rise in CO2. If you look closely at that graph it does look like that might be the case.

SIO3

[flytyer57]

Flytier57, if you think I'm ignorant for not falling in step to one drummer, maybe you should share where you get your information. I haven't seen any links from you, only "me too" so far.

I need a lot more real proof, something that is probably impossible, to convince me that my children and especially my grandchildren should fall back into harder times because of a theory that is full of holes.

I'm not your research assistant and I'm not your mommy. Do your own homework. It's out there if you are really interested.

[jdmidwest]

Maybe it's just semantics, but to me private citizens like Gore earning money from investing in green technology has a different connotation than politicians, in a position of authority, being given money by the energy sector to support their point of view.

According to Wiki, his environmental views were considered key to the party's success as far back as 1976 as a freshman in Congress. His views probably made him a little money in the 24 years of public life.

[jdmidwest]

JD, if you have citations you feel refute climate change, I'd be delighted to discuss them. We may be stuck with the effect of politics in this debate, but logic and math and hard data don't answer to politics. An honest person still has a chance of getting this right.

Once again, my views have nothing to do with politics. I think it is an arrogant position to claim man is changing the world's climate to the point that it is now. While mankind's effect on the environment may run areas of the world and affect somethings in the environment, changing the climate is a bigger ball of wax.

For the ones that say the glaciers are melting in Alaska, they have been doing that for thousands of years.

For the ones that say the global temperature is rising, it is. One good round of volcanic eruption our cool solar cycle may make it go back down. It is not because of cow farts.

I live in an area that was once a volcanic mountain range, then a shallow ocean, now it is 600 feet above sea level and dry. Was that sea caused by dinosaur farts?

Climate changes occur whether man is burning gas in a car, pumping crap in the air from a factory, or not even around at all.

What we should worry about is clean air, clean water, protection of forests and the land. Those are caused by man and can be controlled by not polluting and sound management of our resources. We will never control the climate globally or cause its change in mass scale, Earth does that. And we are just a blip on that time scale.

[Tim Smith]

From the National Academy of Scientistce.Fixed that for you."Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years examined what tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" can tell us about the planet's temperature record, and in particular how much confidence could be placed in a graph that became known as the "hockey stick," which depicted a steep rise in temperatures after a 1,000-year period in the last few decades of the 20th century. The committee that wrote the report found sufficient evidence to say with a high level of confidence that the last decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years. It said less confidence could be placed in reconstructions of temperatures prior to 1600, although proxy data does indicate that many locations are warmer now than they were between A.D. 900 and 1600. Proxy data for periods prior to A.D. 900 are sparse, the report notes."

Now that you've found the National Academy of Science, take the next step and actually read their document.

For instance, the graph of the variability you're citing above can be found here on page 15.

How you find that graph reassuing for your position is hard to fathom. Not only was the first decade of the 21st century the warmer than the last decade of the 20th (which was itself the warmest in the last 400 years), the rate of increase is completely beyond anything we've ever seen before.

Yes, it has been warm in the past before. Yes, temperatures go up and down. But we're in a position now to understand why these things are happening and if current trends continue over the next 100 years, we're going to have some problems big enough that we would all be better off dealing with them now.

But fine. Let's just wait for the disasters to mount up. I can just post those instead of data since no one's going to actually read the science anyway.

I'm in a good mood anyway. I saw jaguar prints all over the place this morning.

[eric1978]

And we know this how? 100 years isn't even a drop in time. How do they pick a particular hundred year period, 10K years ago? They're still constantly reviving information on humans and dinosaurs, but we know temperature trends?

Yes, we do. Temperature data can be extrapolated from ice-core samples up to 800,000 years ago, and longer-term but less detailed temperature data can be extrapolated from sediment-core samples in the hundreds of millions of years.

But we don't really need to go back that far to see that something drastic is happening now. Just look at the second graph that shows temperature data for the last 2,000 years. Is that not a glaringly obvious anomaly going on in the last 50-75 years of the graph? It is to me.

Then look at the third graph, which shows CO2 levels. Is there any doubt that because of the industrial revolution we've hugely increased the amount of CO2 in the last 100 years to beyond natural levels? Is there any doubt that CO2 emissions can and do have an effect on global temperature?

This data tells only one story, and I don't understand how anyone can come to any conclusion other than human pollution is &%*$#!@ up this planet.

[Tim Smith]

Once again, my views have nothing to do with politics.

Yet this below is more or less a poltical statement lacking data to back it up.

I think it is an arrogant position to claim man is changing the world's climate to the point that it is now.

Do you know how much CO2 man puts into the atmosphere relative to other sources? That's a figure that's easily known since we know how much fossil fuel we produce and sell.

For the ones that say the glaciers are melting in Alaska, they have been doing that for thousands of years.

It's not just glaciers in Alaska that are melting. On average, glaciers all over the world are retreating. In places like Bolivia and Kilamanjaro, that retreat is about to eliminate those glaciers altogether.

For the ones that say the global temperature is rising, it is. One good round of volcanic eruption our cool solar cycle may make it go back down.

We are not due for a solar minimum for another 10,000 years. That's a long time to wait. Our current rate of change is causing us problems NOW.

Volcanos cool the earth for a few months or years at a time, not over climate cycles.

I live in an area that was once a volcanic mountain range, then a shallow ocean, now it is 600 feet above sea level and dry. Was that sea caused by dinosaur farts?

Many things affect the climate. Human beings now number over 6 billion and have much more leverage to be a player.

What we should worry about is clean air, clean water, protection of forests and the land. Those are caused by man and can be controlled by not polluting and sound management of our resources. We will never control the climate globally or cause its change in mass scale, Earth does that. And we are just a blip on that time scale.

We mostly agree here, but we differ in the amount of influence human activity can have in the modern era. The National Academy of Science has just renamed our geologic epoch the "Anthropocene" due to the huge influence we have had geologically and environmentally. Check out the amount of carbon we are pulling directly out of the ground and adding to the air. We are a significant part of that budget.

I will also put it to you that our duration as a species, i.e. our "blipishness" will have a lot to do with whether or not we can make moral informed choices and take cooperative constructive action.

For now, I will take heart that so many people at least agree on the need to take care of the environment. This pattern will play out over the years and unless someone dismantles the ability of scientists to measure the patterns, popular opinion will eventually come around.

In the meantime, I just got 120 fresh new mangrove propagules to plant. Life is good.

[Tim Smith]

...and for the record the more this discussion leans on graphs and citations and the less it devolves into name calling, the better I'm going to like it.

Thank you for those graphs and links, Wayne and Eric.

[jdmidwest]

Yet this below is more or less a poltical statement lacking data to back it up.

I am not a political figure, so my personal opinion and take on the matter could not be confused as being political. It is a statement. Most seem to want to confuse science with politics and there is no comparison.

Global warming started at the end of the last Ice Age, did we cause that?