Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since forever. What you eat is what you are- what you put in, is what you put out. Common sense tells you if you are raping the seas, blowing up stuff, polluting the natural flow of waters and and smoking like a chimenea into the atmosphere- something’s gotta give ! Action= reaction. I saw those slabs of ice I. Nebraska floating down Main Street and 2/3 earthquakes in the Fl panhandle this week. Now we talk about vortex and bomb cyclones. Almost all hurricanes are 4 or 5 now- not to speak of the hell fire on earth. Extreme weather is here to stay.
LOL
Vortex and bomb cyclones are wintertime activities and have probably always been around. We just recently stamped a name on them to make the weatherman seem more important than he really is. And if you want to cite hurricanes as your evidence, than tell my why, after we had two powerful storms in 2005 (Katrina and Rita).....that the next 12 years were BELOW AVERAGE for hurricane activity. It would seem to me that we would have had more Katrinas and Ritas during that time, not less.
24 times in the last 100,000 years, the temperature has fluctuated wildly by as much as 20°F in a matter of years, or decades.
That is an irrefutable scientific fact.
Over the same period, there have been about 80 minor fluctuations of temperatures, 4°F to 6°F, in a matter of years or decades.
So, what we're seeing is neither unprecedented nor abnormal.
The tiny change in temperature over the last 140 years pales in comparison to much larger changes that happened over several years or several decades in the past.
Based on the scientific facts, any claim that a 1.4°F temperature change over 140 years is "alarming" or "unprecedented" or "abnormal" can only be characterized as propaganda and disinformation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mtnluver8956
it's a sad time in history when ignorance in science is praised.
Here's some science, but you will ignore it, because it contradicts your belief system...
The new results from the NEEM ice core drilling project in northwest Greenland, led by the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen show that the climate in Greenland was around 8 degrees C warmer than today during the last interglacial period, the Eemian period, 130,000 to 115,000 thousand years ago.
Given that CO2 levels peaked at 287 ppm CO2 during the Eemian Period, provide proof temperatures won't get that high during this Inter-Glacial Period.
You claim to be a climate scientist, so it shouldn't be difficult for you to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrie22
sorta...California has had much worse droughts that lasted a lot longer...
That's not really relevant.
Average temperatures during Inter-Glacials range from 66.2°F to 73.7°F and not the current 58.4°F.
During the last Inter-Glacial Period, temperatures in Greenland were 14.4°F warmer, temperatures in the east Siberian Arctic were 22.5°F warmer and Baffin Island was 7.2°F to 9.0°F warmer.
If you drilled core soil samples in California, in theory, you should be able to reconstruct the climate during the last Inter-Glacial.
I'm not so confident you can get data from Inter-Glacials before the Eemian Period, except maybe the immediate prior one.
That would give you an idea of what the climate in California is like during an Inter-Glacial, instead of the fantasy view by science deniers who think temperatures should never rise above 58.4°F.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Actually evidence of climate warming today only needs observation..
And yet it's still colder than seven of the previous eight Inter-Glacial Periods.
If temperatures in Greenland rise another 14.0°F, the only scientific conclusion you can draw is that it is still 0.4°F colder than it was during the previous Inter-Glacial Period.
24 times in the last 100,000 years, the temperature has fluctuated wildly by as much as 20°F in a matter of years, or decades.
That is an irrefutable scientific fact.
Over the same period, there have been about 80 minor fluctuations of temperatures, 4°F to 6°F, in a matter of years or decades.
So, what we're seeing is neither unprecedented nor abnormal.
The tiny change in temperature over the last 140 years pales in comparison to much larger changes that happened over several years or several decades in the past.
Based on the scientific facts, any claim that a 1.4°F temperature change over 140 years is "alarming" or "unprecedented" or "abnormal" can only be characterized as propaganda and disinformation.
Here's some science, but you will ignore it, because it contradicts your belief system...
The new results from the NEEM ice core drilling project in northwest Greenland, led by the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen show that the climate in Greenland was around 8 degrees C warmer than today during the last interglacial period, the Eemian period, 130,000 to 115,000 thousand years ago.
Given that CO2 levels peaked at 287 ppm CO2 during the Eemian Period, provide proof temperatures won't get that high during this Inter-Glacial Period.
You claim to be a climate scientist, so it shouldn't be difficult for you to do.
That's not really relevant.
Average temperatures during Inter-Glacials range from 66.2°F to 73.7°F and not the current 58.4°F.
During the last Inter-Glacial Period, temperatures in Greenland were 14.4°F warmer, temperatures in the east Siberian Arctic were 22.5°F warmer and Baffin Island was 7.2°F to 9.0°F warmer.
If you drilled core soil samples in California, in theory, you should be able to reconstruct the climate during the last Inter-Glacial.
I'm not so confident you can get data from Inter-Glacials before the Eemian Period, except maybe the immediate prior one.
That would give you an idea of what the climate in California is like during an Inter-Glacial, instead of the fantasy view by science deniers who think temperatures should never rise above 58.4°F.
And yet it's still colder than seven of the previous eight Inter-Glacial Periods.
If temperatures in Greenland rise another 14.0°F, the only scientific conclusion you can draw is that it is still 0.4°F colder than it was during the previous Inter-Glacial Period.
Any other claims are scientifically false.
I will bite here. You are using data from a era with no cars nor factories. You are also negating the facts and the meaning of "anthropogenic" You are assuming a earth is now the same as that era. Earth has a 7.7B population today and gas powered auto's and factories. Earth has functions to filter and mitigate CO2 on a natural cycle, but humans are overpowering these functions and they are dying. For example, coral mitigated the levels of carbon in the ocean, but this process has been overwhelmed and 70% of the worlds coral are now damaged due to coral bleaching. You keep your anecdote's, i will keep my facts and science.
03-17-2019, 05:46 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Here's some science, but you will ignore it, because it contradicts your belief system...
The new results from the NEEM ice core drilling project in northwest Greenland, led by the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen show that the climate in Greenland was around 8 degrees C warmer than today during the last interglacial period, the Eemian period, 130,000 to 115,000 thousand years ago.
Given that CO2 levels peaked at 287 ppm CO2 during the Eemian Period, provide proof temperatures won't get that high during this Inter-Glacial Period.
Interesting you highlighted the part I told you you missed when you first posted this in the other thread - '...the climate in Greenland...'
Again here is the response I posted in that thread.
You forgot part of your highlight:
...the climate in Greenland was around 8 degrees C warmer than today during the last interglacial period...
Then you act like the AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPT of 58.4 today is so much colder than the average Global temp of Eemian when it is the LOCAL temp of Greenland during the Eemian.
The average Global temp of that period was 1-2C higher.
Furthermore, from your paper what happened to the thickness of the Greenland Ice Sheet as a result of this warming?
Between 128,000 and 122,000 years ago, the thickness of the northwest Greenland ice sheet decreased by around 400 metres, reaching surface elevations 122,000 years ago of 130 metres lower than the present. Extensive surface melt occurred at the NEEM site during the Eemian, a phenomenon witnessed when melt layers formed again at NEEM during the exceptional heat of July 2012. With additional warming, surface melt might become more common in the future.
You think that is where we might be headed?
So to answer your question: Why is it so damn cold during this Inter-Glacial? It really is not so much colder BUT even if it was as I noted earlier in the videos, that you don't watch of course, CO2 precedes tempts. And since CO2 has gone up (by approx. 100ppm) rapidly in a relatively short time you would think that the rise in tempt of 1-2C will follow.
Some 125,000 years ago, during the last brief warm period between ice ages, Earth was flooded, with sea levels 6 to 9 meters higher than they are today. Temperatures during this time, called the Eemian, were barely higher than in today's greenhouse-warmed world. Scientists have now identified the source of all that water: a collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Glaciologists worry about the present-day stability of this formidable ice mass. Its base lies below sea level, at risk of being undermined by warming ocean waters, and glaciers fringing it are retreating fast. The discovery, teased out of a sediment core and reported at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in Washington, D.C., provides evidence that the ice sheet disappeared in the recent geological past under climate conditions similar to today's. The Eemian is not a perfect analog, as its sea levels were likely driven by slight changes in Earth's orbit and spin axis. But the work, if it holds up, could suggest the recent melt at the ice sheet is the start of a similar collapse, rather than a short-term variation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I heard everything now.
