Climate variations analyzed five million years back in time

March 16, 2016
Peter Ditlevsen's calculations show that you can view the climate as fractals, that is, patterns or structures that repeat in smaller and smaller versions indefinitely. The formula is: Fq(s)~sHq . Credit: Maria Lemming

When we talk about climate change today, we have to look at what the climate was previously like in order to recognise the natural variations and to be able to distinguish them from the human-induced changes. Researchers from the Niels Bohr Institute have analysed the natural climate variations over the last 12,000 years, during which we have had a warm interglacial period and they have looked back 5 million years to see the major features of the Earth's climate. The research shows that not only is the weather chaotic, but the Earth's climate is chaotic and can be difficult to predict. The results are published in the scientific journal, Nature Communications.

The Earth's system is characterised by complex interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, ice sheets, landmasses and the biosphere (parts of the world with plant and animal life). Astronomical factors also play a role in relation to the great changes like the shift between ice ages, which typically lasts about 100,000 years and interglacial periods, which typically last about 10-12,000 years.

Climate repeats as fractals

"You can look at the climate as fractals, that is, patterns or structures that repeat in smaller and smaller versions indefinitely. If you are talking about 100-year storms, are there then 100 years between them? - Or do you suddenly find that there are three such storms over a short timespan? If you are talking about very hot summers, do they happen every tenth year or every fifth year? How large are the normal variations? - We have now investigated this," explains Peter Ditlevsen, Associate Professor of Climate Physics at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen. The research was done in collaboration with Zhi-Gang Shao from South China University, Guangzhou in Kina.

Peter Ditlevsen discusses data with colleague Sune Olander Rasmussen in the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute. Credit: Ola Jakup Joensen

The researchers studied: Temperature measurements over the last 150 years. Ice core data from Greenland from the interglacial period 12,000 years ago, for the 120,000 years ago, ice core data from Antarctica, which goes back 800,000 years, as well as data from ocean sediment cores going back 5 million years.

"We only have about 150 years of direct measurements of temperature, so if, for example, we want to estimate how great of variations that can be expected over 100 years, we look at the temperature record for that period, but it cannot tell us what we can expect for the temperature record over 1000 years. But if we can determine the relationship between the variations in a given period, then we can make an estimate. These kinds of estimates are of great importance for safety assessments for structures and buildings that need to hold up well for a very long time, or for structures where severe weather could pose a security risk, such as drilling platforms or nuclear power plants. We have now studied this by analysing both direct and indirect measurements back in time," explains Peter Ditlevsen.

The research shows that the natural variations over a given period of time depends on the length of this period in the very particular way that is characteristic for fractals. This knowledge tells us something about how big we should expect the 1000-year storm to be in relation to the 100-year storm and how big the 100-year storm is expected to be in relation to the 10-year storm. They have further discovered that there is a difference in the fractal behaviour in the ice age climate and in the current warm interglacial climate.

Associate Professor in Climate Physics at the Niels Bohr Institute, Peter Ditlevsen has analyzed the natural climate variations 5 million years back in time. Credit: Ola Jakup Joensen

Abrupt climate fluctuations during the ice age

"We can see that the climate during an ice age has much greater fluctuations than the climate during an interglacial period. There has been speculation that the reason could be astronomical variations, but we can now rule this out as the large fluctuation during the ice age behave in the same 'fractal' way as the other natural fluctuations across the globe," Peter Ditlevsen.

The astronomical factors that affect the Earth's climate are that the other planets in the solar system pull on the Earth because of their gravity. This affects the Earth's orbit around the sun, which varies from being almost circular to being more elliptical and this affects solar radiation on Earth. The gravity of the other planets also affects the Earth's rotation on its axis. The Earth's axis fluctuates between having a tilt of 22 degrees and 24 degrees and when the tilt is 24 degrees, there is a larger difference between summer and winter and this has an influence on the violent shifts in climate between ice ages and interglacial periods.

The during the ice age could be triggered by several mechanisms that have affected the powerful ocean current, the Gulf Stream, which transports warm water from the equator north to the Atlantic, where it is cooled and sinks down into the cold ocean water under the ice to the bottom and is pushed back to the south. This water pump can be put out of action or weakened by changes in the freshwater pressure, the ice sheet breaking up or shifting sea ice and this results in the increasing climatic variability.

Natural and human-induced climate changes

The climate during the warm interglacial periods is more stable than the climate of ice age climate.

"In fact, we see that the ice age climate is what we call 'multifractal', which is a characteristic that you see in very chaotic systems, while the interglacial climate is 'monofractal'. This means that the ratio between the extremes in the climate over different time periods behaves like the ratio between the more normal ratios of different timescales," explains Peter Ditlevsen

This new characteristic of the climate will make it easier for to differentiate between natural and human-induced climate changes, because it can be expected that the human-induced climate changes will not behave in the same way as the natural fluctuations.

"The differences we find between the two climate states also suggest that if we shift the system too much, we could enter a different system, which could lead to greater fluctuations. We have to go very far back into the geological history of the Earth to find a climate that is as warm as what we are heading towards. Even though we do not know the climate variations in detail so far back, we know that there were abrupt climate shifts in the back then," points out Peter Ditlevsen.

Explore further: Critical turning point can trigger abrupt climate change

Related Stories

Critical turning point can trigger abrupt climate change

April 20, 2009

Ice ages are the greatest natural climate changes in recent geological times. Their rise and fall are caused by slight changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun due to the influence of the other planets. But we do not know ...

Dramatic climate change is unpredictable

August 30, 2010

The fear that global temperature can change very quickly and cause dramatic climate changes that may have a disastrous impact on many countries and populations is great around the world. But what causes climate change and ...

Earth's last warm phase exposed

May 2, 2014

Analysis of data collected from ice cores and marine sediment cores in both polar regions has given scientists a clearer picture of how the Earth's climate changed during the last Interglacial period. This comparatively warm ...

Recommended for you

Japan scientists detect rare, deep-Earth tremor

August 26, 2016

Scientists who study earthquakes in Japan said Thursday they have detected a rare deep-Earth tremor for the first time and traced its location to a distant and powerful storm.

65 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

orti
2.2 / 5 (21) Mar 16, 2016
But 97% of 'climate' scientists are certain they know how to get their bread buttered.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.9 / 5 (15) Mar 16, 2016
@Ori: Because of science like this, yes. Please read the article: "The differences we find between the two climate states also suggest that if we shift the system too much, we could enter a different system, which could lead to greater fluctuations. We have to go very far back into the geological history of the Earth to find a climate that is as warm as what we are heading towards."

Also, your figures are out of date. The consensus is *way* above 97 % depending on how you ask. It is now ~ 1/10.000 of science output that reject the overwhelming data consensus. [ https://en.wikipe...e_change ]

This isn't rocket science.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 16, 2016
Let me try to make it simple for the Chicken Littles.
Warm good, cold bad.
bluehigh
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 16, 2016
Dear Climate Control Scientists,

Would you please quote to provide the following indefinitely:

Temp: 21 C
Humidity: 50%
Sunlight: 10 hours per day.
Cloud: Patchy or heavy to contain sunlight.
Rainfall: 10mm between 2am and 3am nightly.
Wind: Light breezes. Mostly in the evening.

How much will this cost and when can you deliver?

Thanks in advance, IPCC Chief Financial Officer

thefurlong
4.4 / 5 (20) Mar 16, 2016
Let me try to make it simple for the Chicken Littles.
Warm good, cold bad.

Well, no. Both can be good, and bad. For example, we need cold winters to curb the growth of disease causing microbes/pests. We need warm springs/summers to encourage crop growth. A consistently warm arctic/antarctic, on the other hand is TERRIBLE because then the permafrost starts melting.

Also, it is warming at 10x the rate of past warming. Nature doesn't do well with abrupt change. I hate to use the term, but, this is really common sense. You should have learned this property of nature in school.

You are extremely simple minded.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 16, 2016
The climate during the warm interglacial periods is more stable than the climate of ice age climate.

I tried to make it simple and then stupid comes along.
gkam
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2016
anti, please do not be so insulting. It does your cause no good.
thefurlong
4.4 / 5 (19) Mar 16, 2016
I tried to make it simple and then stupid comes along.

You are simple minded. You make everything simple.

But, simple does not mean correct.

For example, your simple mind disregarded my point that the RATE at which it is warming is what is part of what is making things so dangerous. If climate were warming at a normal rate, then it wouldn't be such a problem.

However, assuming that the climate does continue to warm at this rate, or higher, your simple mind also neglected the following, also from the article:
The differences we find between the two climate states also suggest that if we shift the system too much, we could enter a different system, which could lead to greater fluctuations. We have to go very far back into the geological history of the Earth to find a climate THAT IS AS WARM AS WHAT WE ARE HEADING TOWARDS


As I said, you are simple minded.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (12) Mar 16, 2016
What is a normal rate of warming?
Take a look at the rate of warming at the end of the ice ages.
http://earthobser...ture.png

Take a look at the rate of warming during the MWP.
Take a look at the rate of warming at the beginning of the last century.

As I said, STUPID.
thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (18) Mar 16, 2016
anti, please do not be so insulting. It does your cause no good.

To be fair, we insult them, too. This is not a civil debate. You cannot have a civil debate with idiots. I have tried. I have counted one person with whom I consistently disagree, who is nonetheless worth debating, and that's Noumenon, and that's because he often makes good points, and adapts to new information. The rest are all incorrigible, unpleasant, narcissistic, intellectual midgets, and the only thing you can do is correct them and indulge in catharsis by insulting them.

People like antigoracle and dogbert will NEVER adapt to new information. Not even if, tomorrow, the oceans rose 60 meters, and they started experiencing hypercapnia.
thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (19) Mar 16, 2016
http://earthobser...ture.png


anti, that graph is tiny. The resolution on it is not that good. Do you even know what the smallest increment is? No, you don't. Let me help you. One hundred years comprises 0.0125% of that graph. That's right. If you divided that graph into 100 time intervals, you would have to divide each interval 100 MORE TIMES before you could find a time interval representing the last hundred years.

That's microscopic. Even your simple mind has to understand that the resolution of this graph is not that high.

Now, take a look at a different graph representing temperature trends over the last hundred years from the SAME GODDAMN PAGE.

http://earthobser...tion.png

You goddamn buffoon.
Zzzzzzzz
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 16, 2016
When a person has a delusion that their sanity depends on, the delusion must be defended and validated AT ALL COSTS. Things like logic or reason cannot be allowed to intervene. This is why I ignore the comments of the delusional on this site. There is no value to be found in reading their drivel, or replying to their psychotic babble. They do not employ intelligence in their arguments, to do so would be to admit the validity of reason, logic, and intellect. Then the delusion is easily destroyed - these delusions fall apart very quickly when exposed to the light of day. Of course that spells disaster for the delusional.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 16, 2016
We have to go very far back into the geological history of the Earth to find a climate THAT IS AS WARM AS WHAT WE ARE HEADING TOWARDS

That graph was in response to your quote above and it clearly shows exactly how far back you need to look i.e. the end of the last ice age.
I left it up to you to find graphs for the finer details and as expected all you could find is the thoroughly debunked farce, called the Hockey Schtick.

As I said, STUPID.
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (15) Mar 16, 2016
I left it up to you to find graphs for the finer details and as expected all you could find is the thoroughly debunked farce, called the Hockey Schtick.

Well, that's not true, but let's suppose it has been debunked. One way to determine if a phenomenon actually exists is to get multiple independent confirmations of it.

If all we had was the hockey stick, well, you'd still be wrong that it was debunked, but at least you'd be right that more independent research would have to be done. Unfortunately, more HAS been done, and strangely, THEY ALL SHOW SIMILAR TRENDS.

Like this:
http://www.rap.uc...2007.pdf
this
http://www.ldeo.c...2700.pdf
and this
http://www.ncdc.n...005.html

You want more? I can give you more.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 16, 2016
Why would I want more of your stupidity?
Only one of those even covered the MWP and it was by Mann's pal in a feeble attempt to justify the Hockey Schtick.
You can read all about them and their PAL review process here. http://www.prison...ils.html

I would tell you to try and read those links before you post them, but then you relish confirming your stupidity.
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 16, 2016
Why would I want more of your empirically confirmed facts?

There, I fixed that for you.
Only one of those even covered the MWP and it was by Mann's pal in a feeble attempt to justify the Hockey Schtick.

The medieval warm period was not a globally warm period.
The warming referred to was in the North Atlantic. There is little to no evidence that this was a global trend.
https://www.ipcc..../070.htm
http://www.nature..._F4.html

You can read all about them and their PAL review process here. http://www.prison...ils.html

I will not read the smears of ideologues. If you want to show me evidence, provide me with direct sources.

Also, a link to an Alex Jones site? Really? You have to do better than that.
Phys1
4.4 / 5 (14) Mar 16, 2016
I have an image of antigoracle as a homunculus with a high voice.
gkam
3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2016
Oops, Phys1, that was supposed to be a 5 for you.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2016
Can we have the same "chart" that Peter Ditlevsen discusses data with colleague Sune Olander Rasmussen. Would be fantastic!!
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2016
Possibly antigoracle identifies with Calimero, Chicken Little's archrival.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2016
I have an image of antigoracle as a homunculus with a high voice.

Whoa!! there fella. You have an image of me!! Sorry, I don't swing that way. Just ask your wife. Would explain why she needs satisfaction from elsewhere.
leetennant
4 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2016
Let me try to make it simple for the Chicken Littles.
Warm good, cold bad.


That's why I'm moving to Venus
tommo
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2016
At 400-ppm gained 3.05-ppm last year we're committed to 25m/82ft of sea-level rise regardless of time. We hit over 3mm/year sea-level rise after nodding on 1.2mm/year for centuries.

Only a geophysicist dufus would interpret this to be doubtful on outcome or someone with an agenda.

If the Arctic sea-ice can't be restored we're hosed big time, you can't jump a major greenhouse gas on a water planet 43% in 200-years and expect otherwise or your physics teacher sucked or you had money to pass.

Have a nice 5-6C warming by 2100 fools ... the Arctic methane awaits.

gkam
3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2016
The thawing Permafrost and the Methane Hydrates in the warming seas will do us in.
Phys1
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 17, 2016
I have an image of antigoracle as a homunculus with a high voice.

Whoa!! there fella. You have an image of me!! Sorry, I don't swing that way. Just ask your wife. Would explain why she needs satisfaction from elsewhere.

you are now at the level of those spam messages everyone recieves.
so I put you right along with o_pervert
___
Stay away from:
untouchable perverts: o…_socks antigoracle
outcast: bschott
psychos: Benni philstacy9 ichisan rodkeh
delusionists: viko_mx DavidW BartV FredJose LifeBasedLogic BEGINNING
trolls: promile plasmasrevenge cantdrive45 liquidspacetime kaiserderden Seeker2 swordsman bluehigh baudrunner Solon hyperfuzzy julianpenrod emaalouf theprocessionist wduckss Old_C_Code Bigbangcon katesisco jimbraumcos indio007 Reg Mundy vidyunmaya Osiris1 mememine69 betterexists SHREEKANT RealityCheck
This list is updated continuously.
antigoracle
Mar 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
4 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2016
You should know about being scorned, having your filth removed by a moderator.
szore88
2.3 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2016
Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is 0.039% of the atmosphere- a trace gas. Water vapor varies, but averages around 1%, and is about ten times more effective a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is about 25 times more prevalent and ten times more effective; that makes it 250 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide. The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore about 0.004%. The total human contribution to carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%. So human greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.00%, works out to about 0.001%. Since TOTAL greenhouse effect on temperature is estimated at around 63 degrees Fahrenheit, that would come to human-caused warming of about 0.063 degrees Fahrenheit.
antigoracle
Mar 19, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2016
@szore88

you have cross-posted this exact same false claim in several threads even though it was explained to you more than once
http://phys.org/n...eas.html

http://phys.org/n...bal.html

If you aren't going to bother to accept evidence validated by science, then does that mean you won't use computers anymore because you don't believe in science or the technology you use that is based upon it's research?

quit spamming with the same refuted false claim and learn to read
Eddy Courant
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2016
B-b-but CO2. CO2.
viko_mx
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2016
Typical shamanic methodology. There is no way to be reconstructed the fictional past when there is no direct witnesses that recorded the events for the next generations. The time does not conservate the past events.
Phys1
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2016
@viko_mx
There is no way

"The researchers studied: Temperature measurements over the last 150 years. Ice core data from Greenland from the interglacial period 12,000 years ago, for the ice age 120,000 years ago, ice core data from Antarctica, which goes back 800,000 years, as well as data from ocean sediment cores going back 5 million years."
Phys1
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2016
@szore88
Rubbish :-) .
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2016
Climate variations analyzed five million years back in time

What a waste of time, everybody knows that "climate variations" only started in 1935 and are wholly and completely caused by CO2 and the humans that manufacture it.
antigoracle
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2016
accept evidence validated by science

YES, please accept the evidence.

Study vindicates climate models accused of 'missing the pause'
http://phys.org/n...sed.html

Interaction of Atlantic and Pacific oscillations caused 'false pause' in warming
http://phys.org/n...lse.html

Global warming pause linked to sulfur in China
http://phys.org/n...ina.html

British scientists offer explanations on global warming pause
http://phys.org/n...bal.html

Warming 'pause' gives thought for scientists, sceptics
http://phys.org/n...ics.html

Vietvet
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 19, 2016
accept evidence validated by science

YES, please accept the evidence.

Study vindicates climate models accused of 'missing the pause'
http://phys.org/n...sed.html



I need to step away from the rating button when only getting three hours sleep across two nights. Should have been a negative 10 rating.
tofubob
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2016
@szore88: Neither of your links address the point made by szore88; not even close. Ironic, given your comment.

you have cross-posted this exact same false claim in several threads even though it was explained to you more than once

If you aren't going to bother to accept evidence validated by science, then does that mean you won't use computers anymore because you don't believe in science or the technology you use that is based upon it's research?

quit spamming with the same refuted false claim and learn to read

tofubob
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2016
The research in this article suggests the chaotic nature of the climate. That is why the models miss their short term projections. Using these models to quantify the impact man has on climate via CO2 is not justified. The direct impact of CO2 can be estimated and is small. All the dire predictions come from the assumed positive feedback of H2O. The direction of that feedback isn't clear, let alone the magnitude.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2016
But 97% of 'climate' scientists are certain they know how to get their bread buttered.


And you are 100% loopy.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2016
Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is 0.039% of the atmosphere- a trace gas.
True.
Water vapor varies, but averages around 1%, and is about ten times more effective a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is about 25 times more prevalent and ten times more effective; that makes it 250 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide.
True
The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore about 0.004%. The total human contribution to carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%. So human greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.00%, works out to about 0.001%. Since TOTAL greenhouse effect on temperature is estimated at around 63 degrees Fahrenheit, that would come to human-caused warming of about 0.063 degrees Fahrenheit.
Its cumulative. Add it up x yrs.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2016
The research in this article suggests the chaotic nature of the climate. That is why the models miss their short term projections. Using these models to quantify the impact man has on climate via CO2 is not justified. The direct impact of CO2 can be estimated and is small. All the dire predictions come from the assumed positive feedback of H2O. The direction of that feedback isn't clear, let alone the magnitude.
Said with a clear disdain for physics.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2016
The research in this article suggests the chaotic nature of the climate. That is why the models miss their short term projections. Using these models to quantify the impact man has on climate via CO2 is not justified. The direct impact of CO2 can be estimated and is small. All the dire predictions come from the assumed positive feedback of H2O. The direction of that feedback isn't clear, let alone the magnitude.
Said with a clear disdain for physics.

Said with a clear disdain for reality.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2016
accept evidence validated by science

YES, please accept the evidence.

Study vindicates climate models accused of 'missing the pause'
http://phys.org/n...sed.html



I need to step away from the rating button when only getting three hours sleep across two nights. Should have been a negative 10 rating.

That's still 10 more than your IQ.
Look again. The climate models now explains the newly NONEXISTENT pause. Well, nonexistent to the AGW Cult only after they gave us 66 debunked explanations for it .
Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2016
Chucky likes being bad!
Shootist
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2016
Explain 400 years of growing wheat and raising dairy cattle in Greenland.
Explain 800 years of commercial vineyards in Caledonia/Scotland.

Any warming is normal as it has happened in historical times.
Any cooling is normal. as it has also happened in historical times.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2016
Explain 400 years of growing wheat and raising dairy cattle in Greenland.
Explain 800 years of commercial vineyards in Caledonia/Scotland.

Any warming is normal as it has happened in historical times.
Any cooling is normal. as it has also happened in historical times.

yea tried to talk to you about this b/s crap you spew. You ignored it, and ignored the proof that you're little theory here is bullshit. Why ask the question, spammer, when you will ignore any attempt to discuss it anyway, Get stuffed you denying, old, left behind, fossil.
Ultron
1 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2016
We have to go very far back into the geological history of the Earth to find a climate that is as warm as what we are heading towards.


Not really. Around 2000 years ago was the average temperature slightly higher than today. And around 50 million years ago, the average temperature was significantly higher than today. And when you compare 50 million years to 4 billion years, it is very very short time.
http://www.scienc...a-134638
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2016
Not really. Around 2000 years ago was the average temperature slightly higher than today. And around 50 million years ago, the average temperature was significantly higher than today. And when you compare 50 million years to 4 billion years, it is very very short time.
http://www.scienc...a-134638


A short time as compared to the planet, sure. All of recorded history, everything about our species, occurred in the last 10,000 years. The very earliest fossil evidence of hominid is about 3.5 million years ago. We, as a species, evolved in a epoch of short warm period punctuated by short warmer periods. Never, in that time, has our species had to deal with the kind of warmth we see coming now. Your argument, if it can be considered one, is moot.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2016
Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is 0.039% of the atmosphere- a trace gas.
Its concentration being hundredths of a percent doesn't speak to its global warming potential, which is dependent upon its ability to absorb photons near the peak of Earth's blackbody radiation.

Science fail. Corporate propaganda fail.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2016
The direct impact of CO2 can be estimated and is small.
Over one year, perhaps. Over a hundred years, you're lying.

Simple as that.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2016
now, this comment is almost too stupid
There is no way to be reconstructed the ... past when there is no direct witnesses that recorded the events for the next generations
@viko
1- deleted the word "fictional" because the only thing fictional here is your religion - science works for a reason

2- because no one can ever possibly know that someone walked across a clean linoleum floor with muddy boots if it isn't actually observed and there is a "direct witnesses that recorded the events for the next generations", right?
(need i actually malign your blatant ignorance, or is that enough?)

i know what i will get you for x-mas this year
https://www.youtu...fLJVSdjg

you can "pray" us all away
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2016
Typical shamanic methodology. There is no way to be reconstructed the fictional past when there is no direct witnesses that recorded the events for the next generations.

Weird. Here I was thinking you were christian. But you do know that the bible was written hundreds of years after everyone depicted therein died, don't you? (Or do we have to teach you the history of your own religion now, too?)

No direct witnesses. So by yor logic it didn't happen.

Welcome, fellow atheist.

It'll be interesting to watch how you'll weasel out of that one (without becoming madder than you already are)
tblakely1357
2 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2016
When the whole Global Warming scam started 20 or so years ago the 'experts' stated that our coastlines would be several feet underwater by now. Funny how past apocalyptic predictions that never happen go right down the memory hole. If Global Warming was real and there were scientists who actually practiced science rather than grant whoring, they'd be asking why every prediction from 10-20 years ago have turned out false.

But nowadays the 'narrative' is everything. A noble lie for a 'good' cause is far more important than actual truth (and far more profitable and career enhancing).
SteveS
5 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2016
When the whole Global Warming scam started 20 or so years ago the 'experts' stated that our coastlines would be several feet underwater by now.


This is news to me. I'll be interested in any evidence you have that any expert claimed 20 years ago that sea levels would rise several feet by 2016, or you could just retract the statement and admit you were mistaken.
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2016
When the whole Global Warming scam started 20 or so years ago the 'experts' stated that our coastlines would be several feet underwater by now. Funny how past apocalyptic predictions that never happen go right down the memory hole. If Global Warming was real and there were scientists who actually practiced science rather than grant whoring, they'd be asking why every prediction from 10-20 years ago have turned out false.

But nowadays the 'narrative' is everything. A noble lie for a 'good' cause is far more important than actual truth (and far more profitable and career enhancing).

Are you paid for telling these lies or is it a pathology ?
Bongstar420
5 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2016
Duh!

You wonks
BackBurner
3 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2016
The basic problem with this article rests in measurement, not climate theory. It's frankly impossible to have measures today that model conditions 5 million years ago with the precision and accuracy claimed by the authors.

The data doesn't exist. The authors admit that, and also admit they've estimated rather than measured. It may be better than nothing, but unless the accuracy and precision of those estimates have somehow been determined, it's noise. Tossing chicken bones would be equally valid.

This is a measurement problem, not a theory problem.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2016
BackBurner
3 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2016
Typical shamanic methodology. There is no way to be reconstructed the fictional past when there is no direct witnesses that recorded the events for the next generations. The time does not conservate the past events.


Few understand this. It's difficult to conceive how much time "5 million years" or even "50,000 years" it. People thing thermometers and paper, without realizing those are recent inventions.

Time covers its tracks.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2016
The basic problem with this article rests in measurement, not climate theory. It's frankly impossible to have measures today that model conditions 5 million years ago with the precision and accuracy claimed by the authors.
Their methodology was clearly illuminated by the article.

If you're going to lie at least try to do it without getting caught. Duh.

I actually thought you were worth talking to. Illusion dispelled. Bye now.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2016
Typical shamanic methodology. There is no way to be reconstructed the fictional past when there is no direct witnesses that recorded the events for the next generations.

Weird. Here I was thinking you were christian. But you do know that the bible was written hundreds of years after everyone depicted therein died, don't you? (Or do we have to teach you the history of your own religion now, too?)

No direct witnesses. So by yor logic it didn't happen.

It'll be interesting to watch how you'll...
- antialias_physorg
And here I was thinking that you were the "meticulous" one. You forgot to mention to Viko that it was the NEW TESTAMENT that was written later, as opposed to the OLD testament, which was AT LEAST a thousand years older (the Hebrew Bible). You also appear to THINK that nobody in the Christ's lifetime had taken any notes and kept them for posterity. HUNDREDS OF YEARS? GUESS AGAIN!! You fail to notice that Viko said: "FICTIONAL past". He is no Christian.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2016
Typical shamanic methodology. There is no way to be reconstructed the fictional past when there is no direct witnesses that recorded the events for the next generations. The time does not conservate the past events.


Few understand this. It's difficult to conceive how much time "5 million years" or even "50,000 years" it. People thing thermometers and paper, without realizing those are recent inventions.

Time covers its tracks.
- BackBurner
Agreed. But as I pointed out to antialias, Viko said "fictional past". If he was referring to the biblical past, he would not have called it fictional if he is really a Christian, unless it is a problem with language. If he refers to global warming, it MAY mean that he doesn't trust geologists' and Archaeologists' OR CC authorities' research results. That could also mean that he only believes in the 6000 - 7000 year old Earth story which Hebrewcentric Jews in the past had calculated according to the length of lifetimes.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2016
The basic problem with this article rests in measurement, not climate theory. It's frankly impossible to have measures today that model conditions 5 million years ago with the precision and accuracy claimed by the authors.

The data doesn't exist. The authors admit that, and also admit they've estimated rather than measured. It may be better than nothing, but unless the accuracy and precision of those estimates have somehow been determined, it's noise. Tossing chicken bones would be equally valid.

This is a measurement problem, not a theory problem.
- BackBurner
You are correct. Guesstimates are merely "a shot in the dark" and only a ballpark figure, which renders the numbers too ambiguous to be taken seriously. Ice cores taken from one location may be very different from those in other locations, and those in turn may vary widely from each other. Perhaps the global warming nuts wouldn't mind their doctor estimating a ballpark figure wrt their medication dosage also.
Phys1
5 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2016
@o_pervert
Ice cores taken from one location may be very different from those in other locations, and those in turn may vary widely from each other.

Back that up. Or are you lying again?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.