They spike up very quickly after the ice age ends, drop back down, and generally fluctuate a significant amount without any human input at all.
Not according to any the historical temperature graphs that I've seen. The temperature rises rapidly at the end of the ice age and then levels off an eventually begins to fall again.
Except you're wrong: On the timescales of human civilization, climate is virtually static.
Bullshit. Human civilization has been through significant temperature changes with the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, and the Little Ice Age. Both these Warm Periods were at least as warm as we are now, and a lot of analyses show them to be even warmer. Even the pro-AGW Wikipedia articles on these two periods claim an ocean surface temperature as much as a degree warmer than today. The Little Ice Age is part of a pattern of 1-2 degree cooler periods that happen every 1500 years. Of course, warming from all the previous ones was entirely natural, but warming from the LIA, despite being basically the same as the warming from the previous cool periods, is marketed as AGW by the alarmists.
Really? What's different about this change? The fact that we're using direct temperature measurements for the last 145 years, rather than less accurate lower resolution proxies like ice cores, so we can more clearly see year to year changes in the time since 1870? Is that the difference you mean?
2300 feet/year / 365.25 days/year = just less than 6.3 feet/day Divide by 24 hours/day = just over 3 inches/hour. Divide that by 60 minutes/hour, and you get about 0.05 inches/minute.
Gee, it's a good thing Anthropogenic Global Warming is just a Big Leftist Conspiracy, or imagine how bad things would be!
How much evidence is required before denialist clowns will be convinced that Global Warming is a thing, and it is almost certainly Our Fault?
See, this is why global warming is a religion, rather than science. If you don't agree with the entire GW dogmatic scripture, and you question anything at all, then you're straw manned as denying everything at all, being anti-science, etc.etc.etc.
There's the position that you hold, where "AGW IS REAL!!! WE'RE CAUSING EVERY BIT OF IT AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIIIIIIIIIEEE!!1!1!!" Then there's the position you claim everyone who disagrees with you holds, where "AGW ISN'T HAPPENING! THERE IS NO WARMING! CLIMATE DOESN'T CHANGE AT ALL! YOU'RE ALL LIAAAARRRSSS!!!!11!!11"
Your statement makes it quite clear that you think no other position exists. Regardless of your black and white view, there is a whole scale of opinions in between your two extremes. How about: "Yes, the earth is warming slightly. We're probably causing a little bit of it, but there have been continual climate fluctuations for millions of years, without any human cause, so it's entirely likely that this is at least somewhat natural, as well. As a natural process, it will reverse itself with time, just like it has every other time in the past." Or maybe: "Yes, the earth has warmed marginally over the past 50 years. It seems to have paused at the moment, though, so maybe it's going to start cooling by itself within the next couple of decades, so maybe we're not causing it at all." Or even: "Well, there is a bit of warming, but it's not anywhere near as quick as it was at the end of the ice age. We're probably causing most of it, but we're looking at a temperature that's still lower than it was 10,000 years ago, so we're certainly not at a point of no return yet, regardless of what the extremists are shouting."
Regardless of you being an extremist loon, that doesn't mean that everyone who questions you is an extremist loon in the opposite direction.
Interglacial temperatures don't follow a standard deviation normal curve type graph. They spike up very quickly after the ice age ends, drop back down, and generally fluctuate a significant amount without any human input at all. At the beginning of the current interglacial, the global temperature spiked up by at least 4 degrees in just a few hundred years. That's a massively faster increase than the current warming trend that everybody seems to be so worried about. It's also cooler now than it was during that spike, but the alarmists never seem to publicize that fact.
Quick, we need everyone to pile on for why this proves catastrophe is imminent and favored policy changes must be passed. Then the other half can pile in and explain why this means nothing and the next ice age is still coming...
Actually that's only two thirds of the choir, the remaining third are the right wing free market fundamentalists who think climate change is a hoax and even if it isn't it just represents a fresh influx of profitable business opportunities.
You missed an option. The ones who know that climate change happens, it's been happening for millions upon millions of years, it was happening well before man existed on earth, and it will continue regardless of what we do, because it's completely natural for it to happen. In other words, the realists.
The only constant with climate is the fact that it changes.
Are you really criticizing that scientists failed to accurately predict the demise of a 10,000 year old structure to a better precision than ~10 years? You're really that cynical over a change of like 0.1%? If I predicted that apple stock would double in a 2 year span, and in fact it only went up 99.9%, would you really not listen to my next stock prediction?
The age of the structure is irrelevant to the precision of when it will disappear. If they say it will disappear in 5 years, but it really takes 15, it's not inaccurate by.1% because the structure is 10,000 years old. It's inaccurate by 300%, because their 5 year prediction took 15 years to come true. Considering how many of these "sky is falling" predictions have been made over the past few decades, virtually none of which are even close to accurate when the end date of the prediction comes along, I'd say being cynical is quite appropriate.
Stone tablets, translate your data to Aramaic, and carve it into them. Those things will last for thousands of years, and nobody understands Aramaic, so it's safe.
How are software development and computer engineering not included in the IT field? Or are you one of those people who, completely inexplicably, say "IT" when they really mean "System Administration"?
But Slashdot staff are semiliterate poorly educated idiots who couldn't hold a real job if their lives depended on it, so crap this this is what they serve up.
Oh, the irony. Or are you insinuating that you're a/. editor?
The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today. The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today -- 4400 ppm.
While it doesn't say this, and I'm going from memory here, so I could be mistaken, I believe the Ordovician ice age started with CO2 concentrations at about 7000 ppm, and they dropped to 4400 ppm during the course of the ice age. But even if it was only 4400 ppm, that's still 10 times what it is today.
GGP: "There is no chance of another glacial period occurring until CO2 levels drop well below 300 ppm again."
That wasn't my statement. I didn't claim that CO2 was the only thing affecting ice ages. The post I was replying to was the one that did that. Please do try to keep up.
About 12,800 years ago we plunged into the Younger Dryas...... When we came out of the Younger Dryas, temperatures again shot upward, rising 15 degrees in just 40 years.
Well, considering that most professors of geology and such state that various ice cores are quite good proxies for global temperatures, and that they correlate well with other indicators of global temperatures, such as glacier advances and retreats, then I'd say it relates quite well to global temperatures. After all, it's the experts that say that, not just me.
The current rate of change is around 2 orders of magnitude greater than it was coming out of the last ice age.
I keep hearing AGWers saying that, but it's just not supported by evidence. The end of an ice age is marked by a global increase of 10-15 degrees in a matter of a few decades; maybe 100 years, tops. We're warming at no where near this rate, right now. http://www.oarval.org/Foster_20k.jpg
Interestingly at ~0.9C we already see permafrost melting and decaying which could leed to some feedback effect that could ultimatley dwarf our contribution.
For most of the past 10,000 years, the earth has been between 1 and 2.5 degrees warmer than current, yet, somehow, these warmer temperatures haven't caused the death of the planet and all life on it. We're still here. The polar bears are still here. Most of the indigenous tribes on various island nations around the world wouldn't exist if the climate alarmists are correct. In the period since the end of the last ice age, it's only really in the past 6-700 years that we've been as cold as we are right now, and some of these islands have been inhabited for a couple of thousand years. Despite the warmer temperatures, and undoubtedly higher sea levels and such that would have resulted from them, these natives were not wiped out by super hurricanes, super storm surges, super droughts, or what have you.
Slashdot Mirror
They spike up very quickly after the ice age ends, drop back down, and generally fluctuate a significant amount without any human input at all.
Not according to any the historical temperature graphs that I've seen. The temperature rises rapidly at the end of the ice age and then levels off an eventually begins to fall again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene#/media/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
The graph in the page you linked to shows temperature doing exactly what I claimed it does.
Except you're wrong: On the timescales of human civilization, climate is virtually static.
Bullshit. Human civilization has been through significant temperature changes with the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, and the Little Ice Age. Both these Warm Periods were at least as warm as we are now, and a lot of analyses show them to be even warmer. Even the pro-AGW Wikipedia articles on these two periods claim an ocean surface temperature as much as a degree warmer than today. The Little Ice Age is part of a pattern of 1-2 degree cooler periods that happen every 1500 years. Of course, warming from all the previous ones was entirely natural, but warming from the LIA, despite being basically the same as the warming from the previous cool periods, is marketed as AGW by the alarmists.
Really? What's different about this change? The fact that we're using direct temperature measurements for the last 145 years, rather than less accurate lower resolution proxies like ice cores, so we can more clearly see year to year changes in the time since 1870? Is that the difference you mean?
That's because your math sucks.
2300 feet/year / 365.25 days/year
= just less than 6.3 feet/day
Divide by 24 hours/day = just over 3 inches/hour.
Divide that by 60 minutes/hour, and you get about 0.05 inches/minute.
Gee, it's a good thing Anthropogenic Global Warming is just a Big Leftist Conspiracy, or imagine how bad things would be!
How much evidence is required before denialist clowns will be convinced that Global Warming is a thing, and it is almost certainly Our Fault?
See, this is why global warming is a religion, rather than science. If you don't agree with the entire GW dogmatic scripture, and you question anything at all, then you're straw manned as denying everything at all, being anti-science, etc.etc.etc.
There's the position that you hold, where "AGW IS REAL!!! WE'RE CAUSING EVERY BIT OF IT AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIIIIIIIIIEEE!!1!1!!"
Then there's the position you claim everyone who disagrees with you holds, where "AGW ISN'T HAPPENING! THERE IS NO WARMING! CLIMATE DOESN'T CHANGE AT ALL! YOU'RE ALL LIAAAARRRSSS!!!!11!!11"
Your statement makes it quite clear that you think no other position exists. Regardless of your black and white view, there is a whole scale of opinions in between your two extremes.
How about: "Yes, the earth is warming slightly. We're probably causing a little bit of it, but there have been continual climate fluctuations for millions of years, without any human cause, so it's entirely likely that this is at least somewhat natural, as well. As a natural process, it will reverse itself with time, just like it has every other time in the past."
Or maybe: "Yes, the earth has warmed marginally over the past 50 years. It seems to have paused at the moment, though, so maybe it's going to start cooling by itself within the next couple of decades, so maybe we're not causing it at all."
Or even: "Well, there is a bit of warming, but it's not anywhere near as quick as it was at the end of the ice age. We're probably causing most of it, but we're looking at a temperature that's still lower than it was 10,000 years ago, so we're certainly not at a point of no return yet, regardless of what the extremists are shouting."
Regardless of you being an extremist loon, that doesn't mean that everyone who questions you is an extremist loon in the opposite direction.
Interglacial temperatures don't follow a standard deviation normal curve type graph. They spike up very quickly after the ice age ends, drop back down, and generally fluctuate a significant amount without any human input at all. At the beginning of the current interglacial, the global temperature spiked up by at least 4 degrees in just a few hundred years. That's a massively faster increase than the current warming trend that everybody seems to be so worried about. It's also cooler now than it was during that spike, but the alarmists never seem to publicize that fact.
What do you do when they tell you to have faith that the science is wrong?
Forget that. What do you do when the scientists tell you to have faith in the science, because it's "settled?"
Quick, we need everyone to pile on for why this proves catastrophe is imminent and favored policy changes must be passed. Then the other half can pile in and explain why this means nothing and the next ice age is still coming...
Actually that's only two thirds of the choir, the remaining third are the right wing free market fundamentalists who think climate change is a hoax and even if it isn't it just represents a fresh influx of profitable business opportunities.
You missed an option. The ones who know that climate change happens, it's been happening for millions upon millions of years, it was happening well before man existed on earth, and it will continue regardless of what we do, because it's completely natural for it to happen. In other words, the realists.
The only constant with climate is the fact that it changes.
Are you really criticizing that scientists failed to accurately predict the demise of a 10,000 year old structure to a better precision than ~10 years? You're really that cynical over a change of like 0.1%? If I predicted that apple stock would double in a 2 year span, and in fact it only went up 99.9%, would you really not listen to my next stock prediction?
The age of the structure is irrelevant to the precision of when it will disappear. If they say it will disappear in 5 years, but it really takes 15, it's not inaccurate by .1% because the structure is 10,000 years old. It's inaccurate by 300%, because their 5 year prediction took 15 years to come true. Considering how many of these "sky is falling" predictions have been made over the past few decades, virtually none of which are even close to accurate when the end date of the prediction comes along, I'd say being cynical is quite appropriate.
Stone tablets, translate your data to Aramaic, and carve it into them. Those things will last for thousands of years, and nobody understands Aramaic, so it's safe.
How are software development and computer engineering not included in the IT field? Or are you one of those people who, completely inexplicably, say "IT" when they really mean "System Administration"?
Lunatic pulls a gun on you, and you're just going to stand there, rather than trying to get away?
Maturity is about knowing when to stop, and I think we've way beyond reason...
Anybody want a peanut?
"not being what it purports to be" sounds exactly like a signal that's pretending to be a distress signal, but is actually a warning.
Someday Sheldon Cooper is going to dump a bunch of slime out of the ceiling of your lab right onto your boss's head.
Sure, there's a lot of stupidity and lameness. It's April 1st. WTF did you expect? Lighten up.
No satire. Less subtlety than a Nomad. Lame.
FTFY.
But Slashdot staff are semiliterate poorly educated idiots who couldn't hold a real job if their
lives depended on it, so crap this this is what they serve up.
Oh, the irony. Or are you insinuating that you're a /. editor?
thats waterloo region not london. And waterloo prices are still going up.
London prices are still going up, too. Our house is worth about 60-70% more than we paid for it roughly 12 years ago.
traveled
And we can spell.
Oooh. I missed one repeated letter while typing on a netbook minikeyboard, so I must be completely wrong about absolutely everything.
Google is your friend. (Unless you're searching for drugs, bombs, or how to commit jihad, I suppose....)
The late Ordovician Period ice age is the one I'm referring to.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=ice+age+7000+ppm+co2&oq=ice+age+7000+ppm+co2&aqs=chrome..69i57.6084j0j8&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
A choice quote from one of those links:
The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today.
To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today -- 4400 ppm.
While it doesn't say this, and I'm going from memory here, so I could be mistaken, I believe the Ordovician ice age started with CO2 concentrations at about 7000 ppm, and they dropped to 4400 ppm during the course of the ice age. But even if it was only 4400 ppm, that's still 10 times what it is today.
GGP: "There is no chance of another glacial period occurring until CO2 levels drop well below 300 ppm again."
That wasn't my statement. I didn't claim that CO2 was the only thing affecting ice ages. The post I was replying to was the one that did that. Please do try to keep up.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/temperatures-were-warmer-than-today-for-most-of-the-past-10000-years/question-4723358/
Fifteen thousand years ago, temperatures rose 10 to 20 degrees in just one century.........
About 12,800 years ago we plunged into the Younger Dryas...... When we came out of the Younger Dryas, temperatures again
shot upward, rising 15 degrees in just 40 years.
The end of the Younger Dryas cold period warmed by 9F ( 5C) over 30-40 years and as much as 14F (8C) over 40 years.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/
Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., commenting on claims that 2014 was the warmest year on record: 'We have found a significant warm bias. Thus, the reported global average surface temperature anomaly is also too warm.'
Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20–100 years.
Oh...sorry....you just wanted me to post a single already-posted graph. I guess I didn't follow your instructions properly, huh?
Well, considering that most professors of geology and such state that various ice cores are quite good proxies for global temperatures, and that they correlate well with other indicators of global temperatures, such as glacier advances and retreats, then I'd say it relates quite well to global temperatures. After all, it's the experts that say that, not just me.
The current rate of change is around 2 orders of magnitude greater than it was coming out of the last ice age.
I keep hearing AGWers saying that, but it's just not supported by evidence. The end of an ice age is marked by a global increase of 10-15 degrees in a matter of a few decades; maybe 100 years, tops. We're warming at no where near this rate, right now.
http://www.oarval.org/Foster_20k.jpg
Interestingly at ~0.9C we already see permafrost melting and decaying which could leed to some feedback effect that could ultimatley dwarf our contribution.
For most of the past 10,000 years, the earth has been between 1 and 2.5 degrees warmer than current, yet, somehow, these warmer temperatures haven't caused the death of the planet and all life on it. We're still here. The polar bears are still here. Most of the indigenous tribes on various island nations around the world wouldn't exist if the climate alarmists are correct. In the period since the end of the last ice age, it's only really in the past 6-700 years that we've been as cold as we are right now, and some of these islands have been inhabited for a couple of thousand years. Despite the warmer temperatures, and undoubtedly higher sea levels and such that would have resulted from them, these natives were not wiped out by super hurricanes, super storm surges, super droughts, or what have you.