Page 52 of 94 FirstFirst ... 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 ... LastLast
Results 1,276 to 1,300 of 2341
  1. #1276
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,862
    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    Look man, you have reservations about politics, don't transfer them to science. Just because people you don't like believe this shit doesn't make it false.

    As a lifelong democrat I share some of your concerns but not your doubts about the science. Compartmentalize. Figure out what goes with what. Science is not political, it speaks for itself, and you are misunderstanding it.
    but but but Fox News said it was fake news....

  2. #1277
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick View Post
    https://web.archive.org/web/20190417...sAZChPfmctah5w

    This is what the actual author of the study referenced says about this:

    “As the lead author of the paper published in Science Advances on which this article is based on, I would like to state that it is a misrepresentation of the findings published in Willeit et al (2019)*. Our paper does not in any way disprove the human origin of current climate change. On the contrary, our model, which is able to reproduce the last 3 million years of natural climate variability, clearly shows that the rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution can not be explained by natural climate processes.”

    So yeah Climatechangedispatch is out as a legitimate source. So what do you have?

    0


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    You aren't following me. Perhaps climatechangedispatch lacks reliability, but the only link I provided from them in this thread is legitimate: https://climatechangedispatch.com/97...-97-consensus/ It is merely a conglomeration of links to studies, articles and blogs about the "97% consensus." I could just post the links on my own like I did in response to WMD, but I preferred to use that link to show just how many places have debunked the "97% consensus."

  3. #1278
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,190
    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    If you guys are successful it might cause me to rethink my personal ban on talking about politics and (disputed) science on the internet, which is in place because no matter how hard you try nobody ever changes their mind. The ban has been quite relaxing, so I'm not sure who i'm rooting for here.
    Ron's mind cannot be changed. I still bet he is paid by one of the Koch Brothers organizations. Anyone who thinks they can change his mind is as crazy as he is.

    I post for everyone else reading the thread and I appreciate Ron giving me the opportunity to share so much information with you all.

  4. #1279
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    Look man, you have reservations about politics, don't transfer them to science. Just because people you don't like believe this shit doesn't make it false.

    As a lifelong democrat I share some of your concerns but not your doubts about the science. Compartmentalize. Figure out what goes with what. Science is not political, it speaks for itself, and you are misunderstanding it.
    A lot of people in this thread have been trying to make this political. I have not. I have no interest in the politics of this subject.

  5. #1280
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,190
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    A lot of people in this thread have been trying to make this political. I have not. I have no interest in the politics of this subject.
    Or the science...

  6. #1281
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Ron's mind cannot be changed. I still bet he is paid by one of the Koch Brothers organizations. Anyone who thinks they can change his mind is as crazy as he is.

    I post for everyone else reading the thread and I appreciate Ron giving me the opportunity to share so much information with you all.
    I'm positive that I am more open minded than you are.

  7. #1282
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Or the science...
    It's pretty clear you don't have any interest in the science yourself. For example, even after it was clearly demonstrated to you that the scientific consensus on hurricanes doesn't support that hurricanes are worsening from global warming, you continued to post hysterical hurricane articles.

  8. #1283
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    1. I don't know what post you took that quote by me from, but I don't know how you can cherry pick GISS data. The quote from the IPCC, "The global climate has been experiencing significant warming at an unprecedented pace in the past century" includes the warming of the first half of the 20th century, which is largely natural.

    2. I'm saying that the paper's authors are deferring to the IPCC for that statement. It is not a conclusion from their study. The goal of the study, from the abstract: "This warming [of the past century] is spatially and temporally non-uniform, and one needs to understand its evolution to better evaluate its potential societal and economic impact. They conclude, "We find that the noticeable warming (>0.5 K) started sporadically over the global land and accelerated until around 1980. Both the warming rate and spatial structure have changed little since."
    - I don't know where you got the GISS info from, if not cherry picked then perhaps from a fraudulent source. The quote is accurate even though the content is not.


    -- I know what you are saying, but you are missing the substance of the paper (if anyone else cares see the previous two pages). They are citing research which they themselves are situated in, they are placing their research inside a larger context. They are comparing a statistical decomposition (figure 1, which the abstract refers to) against the actual secular trend (figure 2), which shows warming much stronger than the statistical decomposition. They are investigating multidecadal variability of natural or anthropogenic forcing at different timescales and showing that warming accelerated after 1950 and then settled into a slow-varying nature, "consistent with the slowly increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."


    --- They state their position plainly, in plain language. Your argument is with your own source:

    "The warming and cooling rates are shown in Fig. 2. Before 1950, there were both moderate warming and weak cooling regions. The cooling regions shrank and most of them turned into warming regions with an accelerated pace of warming over the next three decades. By 1980, except for the weak cooling in the northern tip of Greenland and in the vicinity of the Andes, almost all the global land had been warming."


    ---- The point being, you are losing the forest for the trees. Prior to 1950 there is lots of warming/cooling spatial-variability. Then, the cooling spatial-variability slowly goes away as time moves towards the present with a warming period affecting (almost) the entire planet.
    Last edited by MultiVerse; 09-10-2019 at 10:32 AM.

  9. #1284
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,190
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I'm positive that I am more open minded than you are.
    Are you bi or something?

  10. #1285
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,862
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    It's pretty clear you don't have any interest in the science yourself. For example, even after it was clearly demonstrated to you that the scientific consensus on hurricanes doesn't support that hurricanes are worsening from global warming, you continued to post hysterical hurricane articles.
    snort, "scientific consensus"

    how much spit is on your monitor?

    edjumakate urelfs, member, global warming...
    https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/hurricanes.html


    In the Atlantic and Northeast Pacific, we use the term "hurricane" to describe severe storms with high-velocity winds that rotate around a central, low-pressure core. The same type of disturbance in the Northwest Pacific is called a “typhoon” and “cyclones” occur in the South Pacific and Indian Ocean.

    In order for a hurricane to form, two things must be present: a weather disturbance, such as a thunderstorm, that pulls in warm surface air from all directions and water at the ocean’s surface that is at least 80° Fahrenheit (27° Celsius). Because it is the interaction of warm air and warm seawater that spawns these storms, they form over tropical oceans between about 5 and 20 degrees of latitude. At these latitudes, seawater is hot enough to give the storms strength and the rotation of the Earth makes them spin.

    Hurricanes start simply with the evaporation of warm seawater, which pumps water into the lower atmosphere. This humid air is then dragged aloft when converging winds collide and turn upwards. At higher altitudes, water vapor starts to condense into clouds and rain, releasing heat that warms the surrounding air, causing it to rise as well. As the air far above the sea rushes upward, even more warm moist air spirals in from along the surface to replace it.

    As long as the base of this weather system remains over warm water and its top is not sheared apart by high-altitude winds, it will strengthen and grow. More and more heat and water will be pumped into the air. The pressure at its core will drop further and further, sucking in wind at ever increasing speeds. Over several hours to days, the storm will intensify, finally reaching hurricane status when the winds that swirl around it reach sustained speeds of 74 miles per hour or more.

    Eventually, hurricanes turn away from the tropics and into mid-latitudes. Once they move over cold water or over land and lose touch with the hot water that powers them, these storms weaken and break apart.

    Recent studies have shown a link between ocean surface temperatures and tropical storm intensity – warmer waters fuel more energetic storms.

  11. #1286
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,862
    Maybe next time I'll use puppets and crayons so you can keep up

  12. #1287
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    the talk is about GLOBAL warming and dumb cunt posts an altered graph with no link about US temps, for fucts sake just stop
    You are so helpless that I need to link a graph from NOAA USCRN? https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-p...=2019&month=12

    And no, Multi and I are discussing global warming in the context of regional warming.

  13. #1288
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,862

  14. #1289
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    snort, "scientific consensus"

    how much spit is on your monitor?

    edjumakate urelfs, member, global warming...
    https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/hurricanes.html


    In the Atlantic and Northeast Pacific, we use the term "hurricane" to describe severe storms with high-velocity winds that rotate around a central, low-pressure core. The same type of disturbance in the Northwest Pacific is called a “typhoon” and “cyclones” occur in the South Pacific and Indian Ocean.

    In order for a hurricane to form, two things must be present: a weather disturbance, such as a thunderstorm, that pulls in warm surface air from all directions and water at the ocean’s surface that is at least 80° Fahrenheit (27° Celsius). Because it is the interaction of warm air and warm seawater that spawns these storms, they form over tropical oceans between about 5 and 20 degrees of latitude. At these latitudes, seawater is hot enough to give the storms strength and the rotation of the Earth makes them spin.

    Hurricanes start simply with the evaporation of warm seawater, which pumps water into the lower atmosphere. This humid air is then dragged aloft when converging winds collide and turn upwards. At higher altitudes, water vapor starts to condense into clouds and rain, releasing heat that warms the surrounding air, causing it to rise as well. As the air far above the sea rushes upward, even more warm moist air spirals in from along the surface to replace it.

    As long as the base of this weather system remains over warm water and its top is not sheared apart by high-altitude winds, it will strengthen and grow. More and more heat and water will be pumped into the air. The pressure at its core will drop further and further, sucking in wind at ever increasing speeds. Over several hours to days, the storm will intensify, finally reaching hurricane status when the winds that swirl around it reach sustained speeds of 74 miles per hour or more.

    Eventually, hurricanes turn away from the tropics and into mid-latitudes. Once they move over cold water or over land and lose touch with the hot water that powers them, these storms weaken and break apart.

    Recent studies have shown a link between ocean surface temperatures and tropical storm intensity – warmer waters fuel more energetic storms.
    How far did you have to dig to find that random undated, unsourced web page snippet? This has already been posted in the thread: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-war...nd-hurricanes/

    "In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm activity support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. While one of our modeling studies projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, we estimate that such an increase would not be detectable until the latter half of the century, and we still have only low confidence that such an increase will occur in the Atlantic basin, based on an updated survey of subsequent modeling studies by our and other groups."

    "Therefore, we conclude that it is premature to conclude with high confidence that human activity–and particularly greenhouse warming–has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity."

  15. #1290
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    And no, Multi and I are discussing global warming in the context of regional warming.
    True. But to be clear the papers we are discussing focus on decadal (decade and multi-decade) patterns in an attempt to separate the signal from the noise. Nobody should be surprised to see warming or cooling trends occurring over shorter time frames.

  16. #1291
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,811
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    A lot of people in this thread have been trying to make this political. I have not. I have no interest in the politics of this subject.
    chuckle

    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Or the science...
    chuckle

    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I'm positive that I am more open minded than you are.
    ROFL

  17. #1292
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,862
    after rj can pass a 6th grade quiz on weather, we'll move to climate. Then, IF he can pass that quiz it's off to oceanography and the cryosphere

    then hopefully he can remove his right wing views, and monetary issues, with climate change and talk at the big boys table

  18. #1293
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    4,537
    PE, Mechanical Engineering
    University of Bridger Bowl Alumnus
    Alpental Creeper

  19. #1294
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,811
    I read that--it's where I got the Scientific American article I posted--but Franzen is a novelist. If we're going to be particular about sources it applies on both sides of the argument.

  20. #1295
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,190
    I posted those he other day but here it is again:


    ^^ the climate scientists on Twitter are furious about this article, saying Franzen gets the science wrong.

    Michael Mann:
    "Hey @NewYorker, I fixed the headline for you:
    "What if we stopped pretending that false prophecies of unavoidable doom are anything other than crypto-denialist narratives that favor an agenda of inaction?" (see: washingtonpost.com/opinions/dooms…)"

    Dr Genevieve Guenther:
    There are many problems w the @NewYorker Franzen climate piece. Here are three:

    1) It distorts the science.
    2) It's completely apolitical.
    3) It contradicts itself: is the apocalypse coming or should we all start local farmers markets

    First: the science.

    Franzen claims that climate change will spin "completely out of control" if the planet heats to somwhere around 2°C.

    This is flat-out wrong.

    According to @helixclimate, the EU agency tasked with studying climate impacts from 1.5° to 6°C, the "tipping points" that cause global heating to spin out of control happen at solidly higher temperatures.

    But lest you think that scientists know what they're talking about, Franzen makes sure to attack the legitimacy of the @IPCC_CH.

    The crazy thing, though? Franzen doesn't understand how climate science works.

    (Although I don't know why I'm surprised.)

    Climate scientists don't make "best predictions." Nor do they have most confidence in their "lowest" projected temperature.

    They project temperature across a confidence *range*.

    I get it, I guess, climate science is hard. But if you're going to write about climate science for the @newyorker you should really get it right.

    Moving on to the more serious issue with this essay: did you all notice that it's easier for Franzen to imagine the end of the world than to envision a politics that will change our systems in time to save millions of lives?

    That lack of vision is a choice.

    It's an aesthetic choice.

    It's a political choice.

    These putatively lefty smart boys acting like they're so courageous and manly for accepting the apocalypse?

    They're just lazy and entitled.

    (And selfish, too, also selfish.)

    ...
    Washington Post Reporter Sarah Kaplan
    I'm not linking to that Jonathan Franzen essay (which is not only poorly argued but completely mischaracterizes the scientific understanding of climate change and its impacts on society), BUT...
    1. "Climate Change" is not a bomb that's gonna go off in 2030 if we don't cut emissions. It's an ongoing process (that is already well underway) and every day we don't take action to mitigate it, it gets worse.

    But the flip side of that is: everything we DO do makes it better.
    Yes, a global avg temperature rise of 1.5 degrees will be better and safer for humanity than one of 2 degrees. But a 2 degree world is still better than a 3 degree world, which is better than 4 or 5 or 8. Cutting emissions isn't EVER "pointless."

    2. Framing our response to change as a choice between mitigation and adaptation is misguided. And not a single person who actually spends time thinking about the problem sees it that way. We have to do both.
    3. Franzen wants us to give up on large scale, transformative change and turn inward. He says the global climate catastrophe can't be averted, so we may as well stop caring about the whole world and just focus on ourselves.

    Easy to say for someone who is white, affluent, privileged, protected -- and revealing of how blinkered Franzen's view of the world is.

    Look at the Bahamas right now. What is that except the climate catastrophe, already well underway?

    It's not only inaccurate to suggest that there's salvation to be found by retreating from the world. It's inhumane. It denies the suffering of millions of people we share this world with *right now*. It condemns countless more people to suffering in the future.

    4. If you're struggling with how to feel about climate change, I'd recommend this @DrKateMarvel essay: "Courage is the resolve to do well without the assurance of a happy ending."

    Or read what the poet Alice Major told @MrDanZak:

    “It is an immense privilege to be alive at this time. We owe it to ourselves to try ... and to give meaning to it. Only by understanding our lives as meaningful can we hope to create meaningful change.”

  21. #1296
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    - I don't know where you got the GISS info from, if not cherry picked then perhaps from a fraudulent source. The quote is accurate even though the content is not.


    -- I know what you are saying, but you are missing the substance of the paper (if anyone else cares see the previous two pages). They are citing research which they themselves are situated in, they are placing their research inside a larger context. They are comparing a statistical decomposition (figure 1, which the abstract refers to) against the actual secular trend (figure 2), which shows warming much stronger than the statistical decomposition. They are investigating multidecadal variability of natural or anthropogenic forcing at different timescales and showing that warming accelerated after 1950 and then settled into a slow-varying nature, "consistent with the slowly increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."


    --- They state their position plainly, in plain language. Your argument is with your own source:
    "The warming and cooling rates are shown in Fig. 2. Before 1950, there were both moderate warming and weak cooling regions. The cooling regions shrank and most of them turned into warming regions with an accelerated pace of warming over the next three decades. By 1980, except for the weak cooling in the northern tip of Greenland and in the vicinity of the Andes, almost all the global land had been warming."


    ---- The point being, you are losing the forest for the trees. Prior to 1950 there is lots of warming/cooling spatial-variability. Then, the cooling spatial-variability slowly goes away as time moves towards the present with a warming period affecting (almost) the entire planet.
    I'm still not sure to what you are referencing my use of GISS data from, but it's funny you accuse me of cherry picking from a fraudulent source when you posted a clearly fake GISS graph that only showed .3'C warming in the first half of the 20th century.

    I have been using this paper as evidence against your statement that "a warming period is now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time." The graph in this paper clearly shows that warming is NOT affecting the WHOLE planet at the same time. It is affecting most of the planet, but that was never a point of contention.

  22. #1297
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    after rj can pass a 6th grade quiz on weather, we'll move to climate. Then, IF he can pass that quiz it's off to oceanography and the cryosphere

    then hopefully he can remove his right wing views, and monetary issues, with climate change and talk at the big boys table
    You've made a fool of yourself every time you have tried to contribute anything relating to climate in this thread.

  23. #1298
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I'm still not sure to what you are referencing my use of GISS data from, but it's funny you accuse me of cherry picking from a fraudulent source when you posted a clearly fake GISS graph that only showed .3'C warming in the first half of the 20th century.

    I have been using this paper as evidence against your statement that "a warming period is now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time." The graph in this paper clearly shows that warming is NOT affecting the WHOLE planet at the same time. It is affecting most of the planet, but that was never a point of contention.
    - You falsely claimed warming was greater from 1920-1945 than it was from 1980-today

    -- You posted a similar graph after accusing me of posting a fake graph. Your graph was essentially the same as the graph you accused of being fake. Then you posted another graph after saying "I didn't post the right graph" with a different timescale but was once again essentially the same over equivalent time periods.

    --- You posted the paper to show "global warming hasn't been uniform across the globe." If you want to argue 98% of the planet is warming or the entire planet except the northern tip of Greenland & areas of Andes then that's fine because my statement was always intended in the context of 98% of the planet.

  24. #1299
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    4,537
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    I posted those he other day but here it is again:


    ^^ the climate scientists on Twitter are furious about this article, saying Franzen gets the science wrong.

    Michael Mann:
    "Hey @NewYorker, I fixed the headline for you:
    "What if we stopped pretending that false prophecies of unavoidable doom are anything other than crypto-denialist narratives that favor an agenda of inaction?" (see: washingtonpost.com/opinions/dooms…)"

    Dr Genevieve Guenther:


    Washington Post Reporter Sarah Kaplan
    Thank you for bringing the arguments against that piece. I lazily posted it without making any comments, but should have. It's been making the rounds and has been pissing me off.
    PE, Mechanical Engineering
    University of Bridger Bowl Alumnus
    Alpental Creeper

  25. #1300
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Alpental
    Posts
    5,398
    NATURE 24 JULY 2019

    "The aberrant global synchrony of present-day warming"


    Were extended warm or cold periods in the past worldwide, or only regional? Efforts to reconstruct Earth’s climate history suggest that the near-global extent of ongoing warming is unparalleled over the past 2,000 years.


    Abstract
    Earth’s climate history is often understood by breaking it down into constituent climatic epochs1. Over the Common Era (the past 2,000 years) these epochs, such as the Little Ice Age2,3,4, have been characterized as having occurred at the same time across extensive spatial scales5. Although the rapid global warming seen in observations over the past 150 years does show nearly global coherence6, the spatiotemporal coherence of climate epochs earlier in the Common Era has yet to be robustly tested. Here we use global palaeoclimate reconstructions for the past 2,000 years, and find no evidence for preindustrial globally coherent cold and warm epochs. In particular, we find that the coldest epoch of the last millennium—the putative Little Ice Age—is most likely to have experienced the coldest temperatures during the fifteenth century in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean, during the seventeenth century in northwestern Europe and southeastern North America, and during the mid-nineteenth century over most of the remaining regions. Furthermore, the spatial coherence that does exist over the preindustrial Common Era is consistent with the spatial coherence of stochastic climatic variability. This lack of spatiotemporal coherence indicates that preindustrial forcing was not sufficient to produce globally synchronous extreme temperatures at multidecadal and centennial timescales. By contrast, we find that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the twentieth century for more than 98 per cent of the globe. This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures(5), but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years.


    Because thermometer measurements of air near Earth’s surface before AD 1850 are not widely available, we rely on archives of proxy data to extend our perspective on climate further back in time. Trees in cold Arctic or alpine forests have annual rings with widths and wood densities that reflect year-to-year variations in summer temperature5. And because the chemical make-up of seawater depends on its temperature, massive corals build endoskeletons that contain a permanent geochemical record of past warming and cooling6. Other geological and biological archives that encode temperature information into their physical structure, substance or geochemical composition include lake sediments, glacier ice and bivalve molluscs (such as clams, oysters and mussels). Such archives likewise serve as ‘palaeothermometers’ that record temperatures stretching hundreds or thousands of years into the past.

    Neukom et al. weave all of this evidence into a detailed global portrait of surface temperatures that spans the past two millennia. The foundation for their work is provided by the PAGES 2k proxy temperature database7. This community-sourced compilation includes nearly 700 records from trees, ice, sediment, corals, cave deposits, documentary evidence and other archives. Partly because the database incorporates so much information, the authors can chart the geographical extent of unusually warm or cold conditions across the entire planet by year.

    The team reports in Nature that, although the Little Ice Age was the coldest epoch of the past millennium, the timing of the lowest temperatures varied from place to place. Two-fifths of the planet were subjected to the coldest weather during the mid-nineteenth century, but the deepest chill occurred several centuries earlier in other regions. And even at the height of the Medieval Climate Anomaly, only 40% of Earth’s surface reached peak temperatures at the same time. Using the same metrics, global warming today is unparalleled: for 98% of the planet’s surface, the warmest period of the Common Era occurred in the late twentieth century — the authors’ analysis does not encompass the continued warming in the early twenty-first century, because many of their proxy records were collected more than two decades ago.

    In 2005, palaeoclimatologists John Matthews and Keith Briffa1 cautioned against deeming the Little Ice Age an “uninterrupted, globally synchronous, cold period”. These new results certainly bolster their point of view. And we can be confident in that conclusion because Neukom et al. carried out an exhaustive set of experiments to confirm that their findings were unaffected by their choice of statistical tools to relate the proxy network to thermometer measurements.

    Unfortunately, limitations inherent in the proxies themselves probably still hamper our ability to compare warm or cool intervals with each other throughout the entire Common Era. Tree-ring records, the most frequently used proxy archive in the PAGES 2k database, are sometimes unreliable in registering slow climate changes over several centuries or longer8. Moreover, some other proxies — particularly records from marine and lake sediments — exaggerate variations at multidecadal or centennial timescales9,10. It is still an open question how well we can compare global temperatures across this entire 2,000-year span.

    We can be more certain of how and why Earth warms or cools over decadal and multidecadal timescales. In their companion paper in Nature Geoscience, Neukom et al. show that, in the pre-industrial period (AD 1300–1800), major volcanic eruptions (or the lack of such eruptions) were the main factor behind cold (or warm) swings that persisted for several decades. Shifts in greenhouse-gas concentrations had a smaller, but still detectable, imprint. The team found no indication that variations in the Sun’s radiation output affected mean global temperature over the same time frames.

    In general, physics-based climate models accurately reproduce proxy estimates of our climate’s history over the past millennium. However, these models exaggerate the degree of cooling caused by the two largest volcanic eruptions of the Common Era: the AD 1257 Samalas and the AD 1815 Tambora eruptions in Indonesia11. This discrepancy implies that we cannot be sure how bitter a chill would follow a similar eruption in the future.

    The familiar maxim that the climate is always changing is certainly true. But even when we push our perspective back to the earliest days of the Roman Empire, we cannot discern any event that is remotely equivalent — either in degree or extent — to the warming over the past few decades. Today’s climate stands apart in its torrid global synchrony.

    Nature 571, 483-484 (2019)
    doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-02179-2
    Move upside and let the man go through...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •