Lol
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...-google-event/
During the last ice age, temperatures were below normal for 1,200,000 months in a row. The odds of this happening randomly are 2 raised to the 1200000 power, or some phenomenally large number.
Thank you climate experts for opening up a whole new world of junk statistics.
It used to be warmer here; and the Earth supported much more life than it does now:
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/13/sc...ted=all&src=pm
Ostensibly, all of the hydrocarbons that we are now releasing USED to be free in the air (before being buried, and turning to oil/gas). All that C02 = warmer Earth = great herds of dinosaurs roaming the North Pole because of all the plants there were to eat!
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...of-us-history/
We are bombarded with statistics comparing the number of record lows to record highs, the number of record highs, etc. So I decided to look at what the actual numbers are in the USHCN database.
The graph below shows the number of daily record highs set per year for all USHCN stations (through 2011) which have records going back at least to 1930. The results are astonishing. 1934 and 1936 both set nearly five times as many record daily highs as 2011 did. It appears that the entire period from 1910 until 1960 was hotter than recent decades.
There have been 372,989 correctly recorded daily high temperature records in the US since 1895. 84% of them were set when CO2 was below 350ppm.
I wonder how warm it was back when Greenland was green?
Darrin posts two contradictory statistical analysis and calls them both interesting when they agree with him but ignores them completely when they're either corrected or the flaws are pointed out.
Who's surprised?
You're not asking the right question. Can life flourish with much higher temps? Absolutely. Can the current life on Earth flourish through a geologically quick change in climate? Probably not. The issue is not one of whether or not life will be around in a much warmer world but one on what the costs (both ecological and economical) of a changing the climate anthropologically are.
Also, Dinosaurs didn't rely on agriculture. Your initial post in this thread pointed to an increase in agricultural production but the best information we have does not support that idea at all.
101, at least you're not arguing against CO2 actually causing climate change.
Interesting article
Rings in fossilised pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought - and the earth has been slowly COOLING for 2,000 years.
Measurements stretching back to 138BC prove that the Earth is slowly cooling due to changes in the distance between the Earth and the sun.
The finding may force scientists to rethink current theories of the impact of global warming.
It is the first time that researchers have been able to accurately measure trends in global temperature over the last two millennia.
Over that time, the world has been getting cooler - and previous estimates, used as the basis for current climate science, are wrong.
Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.
‘This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant,’ says Esper, ‘however, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C.
'Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia.’
The finding was based on semi-fossilised tree rings found in Finnish lapland.
Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Ins ute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC.
In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling.
‘We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low,’ says Esper. ‘Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods.’
The annual growth rings in trees are the most important witnesses over the past 1,000 to 2,000 years as they indicate how warm and cool past climate conditions were.
Researchers from Germany, Finland, Scotland, and Switzerland examined tree-ring density profiles in trees from Finnish Lapland. In this cold environment, trees often collapse into one of the numerous lakes, where they remain well preserved for thousands of years.
The density measurements correlate closely with the summer temperatures in this area on the edge of the Nordic taiga; the researchers were thus able to create a temperature reconstruction of unprecedented quality.
The reconstruction provides a high-resolution representation of temperature patterns in the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, but also shows the cold phases that occurred during the Migration Period and the later Little Ice Age.
In addition to the cold and warm phases, the new climate curve also exhibits a phenomenon that was not expected in this form.
For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz20LD9x4HD
What they don't say is that the current short term warming we see may be nothing more than a normal Bond Event.
I am not a denier of AGW - I'm a proponent.
Agriculture = Plants
I read the study a few days ago (posted on another forum and comented on through RealClimate) and it is interesting but the authors make some really poor leaps, IMO. The main one being that at high la udes you see greater change in incoming solar energy through orbital change than you do at other places at the globe. You can't simply extrapolate the energy change at high la udes to the rest of the world and thats what they are doing to get that really high figure of energy change.
Agriculture is not merely plants. We can't grow plants everywhere and changes in climate that change these zones will facilitate changes in our infrastructure that supports it.
I'll give you an example. If changes in precipitation patterns make it more expensive to grow crops in the California central valley due to water issues then all of a sudden food in the United States gets much more expensive. If the optimal area to grow grain in the United States shifts further north then it wastes infrastructure in place further south and necessitates building new infrastructure.
Even if for every piece of land that was no inhospitable due to climate change you got a new piece of land that was now attractive, it would still be at quite a large economic cost and there would be lag as we adapted which would further the cost. And honestly, indications are that a 1:1 switch is a pipe dream.
Quite honestly, I don't look at climate change from an economic perspective very often and when I do its a very shallow analysis like the above because thats not my interest and not my strong suit but nothing I read indicates its going to be a smooth transition that we'll enjoy.
Why do you guys fear change?
The earth's climate will change with or without us. If we want to mitigate AGW, the quickest way is to stop Asia from releasing all the soot they do. Until then, everything else is just a SWAG.
The argument is not whether CO2 contributes to climate change, but, whether CO2 is THE cause.
These AGW alarmists seem to never keep that strait, do they?
Pretty sure that the IPCC has not said CO2 is the only cause. Pretty sure that you don't know what the argument is considering how you contradicted yourself in this very thread.
Except that the IPCC AR4 attributes 1.66 watts/m^2 of the 1.6 watts/m^2 of warming during their reviewed time frame as from CO2.
My contention is that CO2 warming is not nearly that strong. I believe Darrin's contention is the same.
Well, its a shame your contention isn't back up by the appropriate math.
I think it's a shame that you are pursuing such a politicized field.
The policy is politicized but the science is not. Scientists can typically do math.
1 in 16 million
LOL....1 in 16 million
They politicize the climate math too.
LOL!
I walked right into that one.
Oh and Masters or the NCDC said 1 in 1.6 million, not 16. Still wrong, but not nearly as much as some of the stuff that was posted after.
I actually really respect the first blogger you posted because she went back and fixed her post when it became obvious to her it was wrong. The 2nd blogger is a hack who didn't bother to revise anything when its obvious that his analysis is severely flawed.
I don't see what is flawed about the 2nd analysis. He simply used a 13-month moving window and counted how many months in that span ranked in the top third of the historical record. He did conclude that it is a rare event, but nowhere near lotto odds.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
