 Click to enlarge.
|
Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C. — This stuff keeps coming in and nobody wants to hear it.
From the late 1940s through the early 1970s, a climate research organization called the Weather Science Foundation of Crystal Lake, Illinois, determined that the planet’s warm, cold, wet and dry periods were the result of alternating short-term and long-term climatic cycles. These researchers and scientists also concluded that the Earth’s ever-changing climate likewise has influenced global and regional economies, human and animal migrations, science, religion and the arts as well as shifting forms of government and strength of leadership.Much of this data was based upon thousands of hours of research done by Dr. Raymond H. Wheeler and his associates during the 1930s and 1940s at the University of Kansas. Dr. Wheeler was well-known for his discovery of various climate cycles, including his highly-regarded ‘510-Year Drought Clock’ that he detailed at the end of the ‘Dust Bowl’ era in the late 1930s.During the early 1970s, our planet was in the midst of a colder and drier weather cycle. Inflationary recessions and oil shortages led to rationing and long gas lines at service stations worldwide. The situation at that time was far worse than it is now, at least for the time being.
Found by D. Hoop.
#57 JimR
And then I look at the chart….. LOL Perhaps you should have done the same!! ROTFLMAO!!
#47 The best you can do is call me names? “Can you tell us…” That’s the kind of language you use when you’re setting someone up to deride them. Since you’re not going to offer any proof I’ll just rehash our earlier exchange from a thread that has dropped off the current list.
From Fusion post begin–>
cut from gooddebate–
To have a convincing argument though, you’d have to find at least one piece of evidence that that shows that higher CO2 means higher temperatures.
end cut–
Ice cores.
Ice cores provide evidence for variation in greenhouse gas concentrations over the past 800,000 years. Both CO2 and CH4 vary between glacial and interglacial phases, and concentrations of these gases correlate strongly with temperature.
This is accepted science. If you want to challenge it YOU provide the evidence.
Fusion post end –>
my post begin –>
First, the preliminary ice core data used to support the idea but there is better data now. Closer study of the ice core data now shows that CO2 follows temperature by an average of 800 years. This implies that temperature precedes rising CO2 or said another way, CO2 lags behind temperature.
Second, if CO2 was the primary driver of rising temperatures then we would have to explain why the greenhouse effect doesn’t keep going as CO2 rises. The theory is that the greenhouse gas warming process should gain momentum and runaway. But something else stops this process from continuing. That means that there is something more powerful than CO2 but none of the models account for this.
According to the ice core data, climate change (yes, the climate changes) can’t be explained by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
end–>
Next.
J, re: “Yep called my dad, Googled and responded in 10 minutes. Pretty good huh? It helps that my dad already knew about this idiotic chart.”
Okay J, ask your dad to direct you a chart that shows to his satisfaction, worldwide temperature data for the last 10,000 or so years. say, no more than 50,000 so w can see if it relates.
Find any charts to back up your case yet Jimmy? The ones you presented don’t
Where’s the point on the chart where Jesus tamed and rode his first dinosaur?
#64 honeyman
Thank you for framing this chart for what it is. LOL
The reason we haven’t heard this distortion before is that the “climate team” that wrote it consists of a guy who writes a weekly column for the Coeur d’alene Press and another guy who is with a shopper in Spokane.
Also it’s hard to click through to the weekly climate column in the Coeur d’alene Press when the lead story is so compelling. Local girl/global warming expert Sarah Pallen is returning to Northern Idaho for a book signing! She originally returned to finish her college education in Idaho after leaving the University of Hawaii. As her father explained, Asians and non-whites made her feel uncomfortable.
#63, it’s not the chart I originally wanted, but it certainly supports my point, unless you are blind to historical temperature swings.
See my post #62. I’m waiting.
#5 ScotterOtter
“Never trust a graph that doesn’t show units on the Y axis.”
Clearly, the y-axis is 1/(log[# of pirates])
Ramen
It shouldn’t take you more than 10 minutes J.
Yep the chart has religious notes on it. It doesn’t make any difference to me. I’m an atheist J.
#67 JimR
The chart you posted does not support you claim. Line up the ice ages!!!!! You can see a big problem starting with the second one. Notice how the two charts are not at all similar???
Jimmy I won’t bother my dad any more about this because I don’t need to. Anyone using the data you have provided can see that YOU ARE WRONG!!!!
Re: my chart in post # 59,
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/1Myr.jpg
These charts range from 1 million to 150 years.
Source:
Barry Saltzman, Dynamical Paleoclimatology: Generalized Theory of Global Climate Change, Academic Press, New York, 2002, fig. 3-4.
gooddebate said “Closer study of the ice core data now shows that CO2 follows temperature by an average of 800 years.”
I keep hearing this, but I never see a link to the study. If you google it, you just find ranting sites… much like this one.I would like to see the original study.
Even if it’s true, it doesn’t necessarily disprove that CO2 is the culprit now. It’s been said that CO2 is actually a weak greenhouse compared to water vapor and methane. And scientist say that there are feedback loops. So in the past warming might have been kicked off by another event with rising CO2 following (more forest fires?) as a feedback loop. Remember, humans and burning fossil fuel is fairly new to the planet.
But, also remember, I am possibly doing the exact same thing I’m accusing the makers of the chart are doing… making assumptions about crap I don’t know about. I am a global warming believer that concedes the possibility that it may not be our fault. How many deniers out there believe there’s a chance that CO2 is causing it?
JimR,
Please, give it up. You must either be embarrassed by what you are attempting to post or don’t realize what you did.
None of those charts have any source for their data, they don’t give any perspective (explanation), and they don’t have any reference (scaling).
Per your first chart, do you even know what a Viezer d018 isotope is?
J, I suspected as much. You are a lier. Not only that but my additional charts are on different timelines. The charts clearly show huge swings in temperature occurring naturally. You have not proven otherwise.
All talk, and LOL’s… no substance. I suggest you bother your dad just this once or… look like an ass. I’m sure he’ll want to disprove me.
Cripes… that should be liar… not lier. geesh.
Mr. Fusion, It’s as if you don’t want to know the truth.
As for a source, see post #71. If you look at my ORIGINAL premise, I am saying there are natural temperature fluctuations are regular intervals through the last 100, and more years dwarfing any man made changes. I have made my point unless you can claim that the charts I posted don’t huge swings in temperature in the past 10,000 years.
Do they or don’t they? Simple question.
#75 JimR
Jimmy your charts don’t match no matter if it is from post #57 or #59.
#61, nodebate,
First, the preliminary ice core data used to support the idea but there is better data now.
Ok, what? A denier’s say so?
#75 JimR
“The charts clearly show huge swings in temperature occurring naturally. You have not proven otherwise.”
I never stated they didn’t. It is the accuracy of those plot points dumbass!!
From: Obamaforever
To: JimR per #72
If you believe that the chart in question is in any way scientific please send a check for $129 to Harris and Mann for their “daily service”.
I am thinking ‘a fool and his money is soon parted’!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
J, the points don’t match because a charts plot will smooth off bumps or add them depending on the scale. The charts clearly show huge fluctuations and that is my original point and what you have been denying all along.
So here’s my final challenge to prove you FOS or not.
Get your dad, to give you a link to a cited and approved historical chart showing the last 10,000 years of global temperature… and if it doesn’t show regular fluctuation far exceeding any change in the past 150 years, I will not post on climate change again, and I will even apologize to everyone right here on this thread, especially you.
And it will be sincere. Will that satisfy you as well Mr Fusion?
#71, JimR,
Your charts say nothing about their time frame. To put it simply, they don’t have any scaling. There is just no way to correlate these charts with other time frames.
Are they correct? Who knows, I surely wouldn’t count on them. And NO, not by a long shot would I ever contemplate using them.
Are they sourced? No. Your claim doesn’t mean they are. The job of the writer is NOT to tell the reader “go google the answer”. When you are presenting evidence then it is up to you, the writer, to cite where they got the information.
The exceptions to that rule are accepted facts such as when Jesus rode his first triceratops (19 AD).
😉
#82 JimR
Jimmy Jimmy Jimmy. No you see I have already accounted for the fact the the charts are different scales. If you take point data from both charts you do not see the same measurements.
“The charts clearly show huge fluctuations and that is my original point and what you have been denying all along.”
I am not going to let you get away with that bullshit!!! You said “the underlying data” That means they used the same data to create the chart. That does not include a general up and down flow. Using your nonsenseical logic I could use a see saw for data and get a chart that goes up and down. The chart at the top of this article does not match data points AT ALL!!! Not even if you scale it!
All that matters is the accuracy of the data points which would be determined from the “underlying data”. The accuracy of that chart is not even close to the real record.
J, Mr. Fusion… here yougo. The first chart I wanted to show.
http://tinyurl.com/yd2se62
it shows the real source. The oil co. was just linking to it., but that wasn’t my concern at the time.
JimR
Look at your chart from post #57. Scale it to the ice ages. The chart at the top of this article show the second one as colder than the first. The real data from YOUR post #57 shows the second one to be warmer. So how in the fuck can you say that this stupid chart is based on the same “underlying data”?
So… J, do you think my post #82 is fair? I will extend the offer to anyone who will post such a chart. There must be a lot of them since the IPCC is so interested in historical data to prove their points.
J, I’m actually sorry for some confusion. I see now that you were looking for that specific chart redrawn with the same data, and I was looking for a similar chart with the same fluctuations.. implying the data was similar or the same. Regardless, it’s a moot point. The rest of my argument in post #36 requires that those temperature swings be regular and dwarfing of the current swing.
Also, I do NOT RECOMMEND that anyone else challenge the thread. I can’t keep up. 🙂
From: Obamaforever
To: Johnny (aka John C. Dvorak) per #45
Quote:
#25..oh ok. So this oscillation is bogus, never happens. Everything is new and just started when Al Gore first noticed it. Sounds right. I’ll never post anything like this again.
End of quote.
Johnny, if I thought you were being truthful about not posting anymore half-assed charts I would give money to your blog. I am thinking you will be posting more stupid charts so my money is safe.
#82, JimR,
… and if it doesn’t show regular fluctuation far exceeding any change in the past 150 years, I will not post on climate change again, and I will even apologize to everyone right here on this thread, especially you.
The problem is you are making such fuzzy demands you will definitely not accept anything.
No one is denying there aren’t fluctuations over the past 10,000 years. All of those fluctuations had natural causation. EXCEPT, over the past 150 years in general and the last 50 years to be more specific man is causing much of the same conditions that occurred in the past.
Carbon that took tens of millions of years to be sequestered are being released over a few short years. You do the math.
From: Obamaforever
To: JimR and all anti-Climate Change Retards
JimR and Retards, please direct me to a chart created by a pro-Climate Change climatologist that looks like the chart in question. I am talking about the sine wave shape of the chart.