Dramatic climate change is unpredictable

Aug 30, 2010
This is a schematic picture of the climate represented by the red ball. The climate can be located in two different states, the two valleys on each side of a hill. In the first scenario the climate is like a seesaw. If the outside influences increase or, for example, increased CO2 makes the weight heavier on the other side, the seesaw will tip forcing the climate over into the other state. The climate change would be predictable. In the second scenario, the hill is fixed and a series of small chaotic kicks from wind and weather could cause it to roll over into the other state. This climate change is unpredictable. Mathematically speaking, the first scenario is a "bifurcation" and the second scenario "noise-induced transition". Credit: Peter Ditlevsen

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 is it possible to predict future climate change? New research from the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen shows that it may be due to an accumulation of different chaotic influences and as a result would be difficult to predict. The results have just been published in Geophysical Research Letters.

For millions of years the Earth's climate has alternated between about 100,000 years of and approximately 10-15,000 years of a warm climate like we have today. The climate change is controlled by the Earth's orbit in space, that is to say the Earth's tilt and distance from the sun. But there are also other in the Earth's history and what caused those?

Dramatic climate change of the past

By analysing the ice cores that are drilled through the more than three kilometer thick ice sheet in Greenland, scientists can obtain information about the temperature and climate going back around 140,000 years.

The most pronounced climate shifts besides the end of the ice age is a series of climate changes during the ice age where the temperature suddenly rose 10-15 degrees in less than 10 years. The climate change lasted perhaps 1000 years, then - bang - the temperature fell drastically and the climate changed again. This happened several times during the ice age and these climate shifts are called the Dansgaard-Oeschger events after the researchers who discovered and described them. Such a sudden, dramatic shift in climate from one state to another is called a tipping point. However, the cause of the rapid climate change is not known and researchers have been unable to reproduce them in modern .

The climate in the balance

"We have made a theoretical modelling of two different scenarios that might trigger climate change. We wanted to investigate if it could be determined whether there was an external factor which caused the climate change or whether the shift was due to an accumulation of small, chaotic fluctuations", explains Peter Ditlevsen, a climate researcher at the Niels Bohr Institute.

He explains that in one scenario the climate is like a seesaw that has tipped to one side. If sufficient weight is placed on the other side the seesaw will tip - the climate will change from one state to another. This could be, for example, an increase in the atmospheric content of CO2 triggering a shift in the climate.

In the second scenario the climate is like a ball in a trench, which represents one climate state. The ball will be continuously pushed by chaos-dynamical fluctuations such as storms, heat waves, heavy rainfall and the melting of ice sheets, which affect ocean currents and so on. The turmoil in the climate system may finally push the ball over into the other trench, which represents a different climate state.

Peter Ditlevsen's research shows that you can actually distinguish between the two scenarios and it was the chaos-dynamical fluctuations that were the triggering cause of the dramatic climate changes during the ice age. This means that they are very difficult to predict.

Warm future climate

But what about today - what can happen to the climate of the future? "Today we have a different situation than during the ice age. The Earth has not had such a high CO2 content in the atmosphere since more than 15 million years ago, when the climate was very warm and alligators lived in England. So we have already started tilting the seesaw and at the same time the ball is perhaps getting kicked more and could jump over into the other trench. This could mean that the climate might not just slowly gets warmer over the next 1000 years, but that major climate changes theoretically could happen within a few decades", estimates Peter Ditlevsen, but stresses that his research only deals with investigating the climate of the past and not predictions of the future climate.

Explore further: Strong quake hits east Indonesia; no tsunami threat

More information: Geophysical Research Letters article: www.agu.org/journals/gl/papers… shtml#id2010GL044486

Provided by University of Copenhagen

3.7 /5 (22 votes)

Related Stories

Critical turning point can trigger abrupt climate change

Apr 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 ...

Ice cores map dynamics of sudden climate changes

Jun 19, 2008

New, extremely detailed data from investigations of ice cores from Greenland show that the climate shifted very suddenly and changed fundamentally during quite few years when the ice age ended. Researchers ...

Sea level rise of 1 meter within 100 years

Jan 08, 2009

New research indicates that the ocean could rise in the next 100 years to a meter higher than the current sea level - which is three times higher than predictions from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ...

New Ice Age maps point to climate change patterns

Jan 19, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- New climate maps of the Earth’s surface during the height of the last Ice Age support predictions that northern Australia will become wetter and southern Australia drier due to climate change.

Melting of the Greenland ice sheet mapped

Sep 16, 2009

Will all of the ice on Greenland melt and flow out into the sea, bringing about a colossal rise in ocean levels on Earth, as the global temperature rises? The key concern is how stable the ice cap actually ...

Recommended for you

Strong quake hits east Indonesia; no tsunami threat

19 hours ago

A strong earthquake struck off the coast of eastern Indonesia on Sunday evening, but there were no immediate reports of injuries or damage, and authorities said there was no threat of a tsunami.

Scientists make strides in tsunami warning since 2004

Dec 19, 2014

The 2004 tsunami led to greater global cooperation and improved techniques for detecting waves that could reach faraway shores, even though scientists still cannot predict when an earthquake will strike.

Trade winds ventilate the tropical oceans

Dec 19, 2014

Long-term observations indicate that the oxygen minimum zones in the tropical oceans have expanded in recent decades. The reason is still unknown. Now scientists at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research ...

User comments : 51

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rgwalther
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2010
So what does the research show about previous, heavily industrialized, technological civilizations and their impact on climate?
Arkaleus
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 30, 2010
Well the last technological civilization that passed this way was probably only visiting, or perhaps tending the gardens a bit. Maybe we should ask them about the lifespan of our terrestrial worlds and the realistic time span earth has before we must migrate to new systems. They seem to be master ark builders too, so we might ask for some pointers in hauling around the zoo.
NotParker
2 / 5 (24) Aug 30, 2010
" The Earth has not had such a high CO2 content in the atmosphere since more than 15 million years ago, when the climate was very warm ..."

But the climate has been hugely warmer with less CO2 leading a reasonable person to suggesting warming is caused by factors other than CO2.

But there isn't any money in that position ...
Sanescience
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 31, 2010
"researchers have been unable to reproduce them in modern climate models."

Or, in other words, we are still at the guessing phase and for all we know were just delaying the next ice age that the geological record suggests should be happening right about now.
Parsec
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2010
Wow, the climate change deniers are really happy with this one. Of course rqwalther, I can understand that you cannot imagine any source of CO2 except a technological civilization (large scale forest fires, earthquakes that cause oceanic mudslides uncovering methane hydrate formations, volcano's etc.).

The FACT that we can track CO2 concentrations and climate change for thousands of years (every-time CO2 is up, temp is up, and visa versa) doesn't bother you.

Don't any of you worry just a little that maybe just maybe the scientists who have studied this stuff just might know more than you? Just a little? Isn't there no doubt anywhere? Or are you just parroting the industry line, the radical right wing, etc. substituting ideology for sound science?
mikiwud
1.4 / 5 (19) Aug 31, 2010
The FACT that we can track CO2 concentrations and climate change for thousands of years (every-time CO2 is up, temp is up, and visa versa) doesn't bother you.

Don't it bother you that ALL ice core records show the change in CO2 levels follow the temperature changes by 100s to even 1000s of years?
Don't any of you worry just a little that maybe just maybe the scientists who have studied this stuff just might know more than you? Just a little? Isn't there no doubt anywhere? Or are you just parroting the industry line, the radical right wing, etc. substituting ideology for sound science?

Don't it bother you that they know about the lag and ignore it?
substituting ideology for sound science?
???
thermodynamics
3 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2010
mikiwud: I am sure you have been in on the discussions where I addressed the lead-versus-lag issue before. I will try to use small words this time and I will type slowly.

Every climate scientist or modeler that I know of (who publishes) knows that in the past CO2 followed warming. However, with the following is feedback and the CO2 amplified the warming. That was the way it was before humans started adding CO2 through land management and the burning of fossil fuels. This is the first time that it ever appears that CO2 is leading temperature. That is actually one of the things that worries the climate scientists. This is the first time a known amplifier has been artificially added to the atmosphere. It has been shown to add positive feedback when it followed and all estimates say it should have positive feedback when it leads. Did you get the idea this is a big secret from FOX "news" or Rush?
thermodynamics
2.9 / 5 (9) Aug 31, 2010
Not_Parker: You said: "But the climate has been hugely warmer with less CO2 leading a reasonable person to suggesting warming is caused by factors other than CO2." Of course there are other factors. The changes in the orbit of the Earth were mentioned in the article. Those are extremely important. Can't you read what they said in the article: "The climate change is controlled by the Earth's orbit in space, that is to say the Earth's tilt and distance from the sun."? This is addressing spikes that were not related to the changes in orbit. Take a deep breath and read the article again for comprehension.
rgwalther
2 / 5 (12) Aug 31, 2010
Of course rqwalther, I can understand that you cannot imagine any source of CO2 except a technological civilization (large scale forest fires, earthquakes that cause oceanic mudslides uncovering methane hydrate formations, volcano's etc.).


I meant to be slightly amusing and voice the opinion that no one on this planet has more than a tiny clue as to what is happening or what will happen. Apparently climate change fanatics, like Islamic extremists and Catholic popes, do not have a sense of humor. Too bad.
Uri
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 31, 2010
Every climate scientist or modeler that I know of (who publishes) knows that in the past CO2 followed warming. However, with the following is feedback and the CO2 amplified the warming.......


While posting in a Climate Change forum is like arguing with religious fundamentalists from two different religions, I'll bite. I've heard this argument before and while its plausible I have some doubts. Even the explanation from Realclimate states: "The other 4200 years of warming [b]could[/b] in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data." But i digress.....

My question is, does anyone have a cogent explanation/source for why the temperature also begins falling while CO2 continues to increase?

Link to realclimate explanation:
http://www.realcl...e-cores/
Jimee
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 31, 2010
The Mayans and several civilizations in Asia (and who knows how many others) seem to have suffered catastrophic decline due to weather and over utilization of resources.
SteveS
4 / 5 (4) Aug 31, 2010
My question is, does anyone have a cogent explanation/source for why the temperature also begins falling while CO2 continues to increase?


I'd like to try, can you give me a few links or examples.

Also I've just come across this quote on the CO2 lag and I thought I'd share it

"Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them"
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2010
"I meant to be slightly amusing and voice the opinion that no one on this planet has more than a tiny clue as to what is happening or what will happen. Apparently climate change fanatics, like Islamic extremists and Catholic popes, do not have a sense of humor. Too bad."

To say that no one has more than a tiny clue - is not true, but even if it were true - it would not absolve us of the responsibility to keep trying to understand. The science- like many other areas - (eg. quantum physics), is very young - and subject to constant revision. I think the lack of humor perhaps comes from understanding how high the stakes are - and wishing we could just have an intelligent conversation about the facts - rather than the religious defending of predetermined positions. Tell me you can read the following piece of research - and not wonder if we should be taking this issue more seriously

http://www.scienc...3651.htm

David.
rgwalther
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2010
David,
I take all of this very seriously. I have eight grown children and five grandchildren. I am also dying slowly of congenital heart defects. I have had two, different, emergency, open-heart, valve-replacement surgeries. Two different animal parts were stuck in my heart within a 10 day period. I am now part pig and part cow, so I cannot join any religion.
Without relatively recent, medical technology advancements, I would now be dead. Although I am not dead, I am in constant and debilitating pain from surgical collateral damage. I do guarantee you this; NO ONE has any idea what damage and/or repair the human race will ultimately implement. I am really pissed about this, especially since I will not get to see the outcome. To state that I do not understand 'how high the stakes are', well I have a stake for you...from Vlad the Impaler.
In any event. 'Sic transit gloria mundi.'
The Earth will abide!
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2010
Hey 'Vlad' - I never said that 'you' did not take it seriously. However-your response is such a good example of what I struggle with. This should be about the science - period. Your response becomes very personal - and emotional. I repeat - to say that 'no one has any idea what damage the human race will implement' is false. The science is building. The scientists are telling us 'Houston we have a problem'. I am very interested in the science - that is all.
Sanescience
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2010
So many comparisons to "science". If one looks up a meaning for science there should be a mention of correct predictions and reliable outcomes.

Until climate models achieve some kind of success, and I mean some "little crumb" of success, at making a prediction just one year into the future, I'm thinking we're still at the "we don't even know what we don't know" phase of understanding our climate.

Everything so far is mostly people's ego, need for moral authority, and greed.
SteveS
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2010
@Sanescience

It's not possible to model the climate over such a short period due to interannual variability. It would be like predicting the outcome of a single coin toss. Over a longer period interannual variability averages out.
djr
3.6 / 5 (5) Sep 01, 2010
Sanescience - do you not recognize that the system is immensely complex - and the models and predictions fully acknowledge this? Previous predictions have had some measure of accuracy - the glaciers are melting, and 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record. Do you prefer to use the ouija board approach?
Sanescience
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 01, 2010
@Steves: I understand what your trying to say, that we can know an average without knowing specific values. In the case of climate, we don't even know what the specific values possible are, so the analogy breaks down.

@djr: How you found a reference to Ouija boards in my post is a mystery that makes me think rational discussion is not your strong suit. On the glaciers melting, that trend preceded significant release of CO2 into the atmosphere. A better match seems to be the release of soot from industrial activities into the atmosphere and depositing onto snow and ice causing it to melt when warmed by the sun.
Sanescience
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 01, 2010
SteveS
3 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2010
@Steves: I understand what your trying to say, that we can know an average without knowing specific values. In the case of climate, we don't even know what the specific values possible are, so the analogy breaks down.


In the case of climate models the average is 'Climate'.

Can you explain what you mean by 'specific values possible'?

djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2010
I was just asking a question sanscience - I meant - If you are not wanting to rely on scientific data to understand our world - then is it safe to assume you use some other form of knowing - such as using a oija board? I was just asking.
Sanescience
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 03, 2010
Steves, 'specific values possible': for example a coin toss has two commonly recognized values: heads, and tails. Lets assign heads as the specific value 1, and tails the specific value of 0. Assuming a "fair" coin (no real coin is actually perfectly fair), the average is 0.5, which doesn't actually translate to a possible coin state (unlike, say averaging the ages of people in a room.) But using some mental acrobatics I can argue that a third possible state exists, I've seen it happen, when a coin lands on it's edge. Now assigning heads as 2, edge = 1, and tails is 0... If your not careful in your computer program, the average is 1, meaning a coin usually lands on it's edge.

Having written lots of computer programs, and seeing the GOD AWFUL climate model code leaked onto the internet, I have zero confidence that those programs are free of subtle bugs like the one exampled above.
Parsec
4 / 5 (4) Sep 03, 2010
Actually, quite apart from the religious aspects here, I would like to address a very common fallacy.

You can prove mathematically that weather is inherently unpredictable. Give a computer the size of the universe, and computing elements the size of atoms, it is impossible to predict the weather based on a set on initial conditions more than about 10 days in the future.

On the other hand, I can say that the chance of a winter day being colder than a summer day is very high. This is a prediction about the climate. Climate models will never be able to predict the weather (see above), but climate models get better and better over longer time scales because they are based on aggregating the data.

The very first climate changes started to be detectable in the latter 1990's with spring starting in northern latitudes a few days earlier each year. The signal now is enormous. Ignore it at your peril.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (16) Sep 05, 2010
.... Take a deep breath and read the article again for comprehension.


What you are talking about are proxies for thermometers. They guess that the earth was temperature X when CO2 was Y.

Lets take a look at another temperature proxy - US State Maximum Temperature Records.

25 of those records were set int he 1930's. 1934 is the warmest year in US history.

A reasonable person could surmise the 1930's were the HOTTEST decade in US history. This HOTTEST DECADE occurred before any significant rise in CO2.

Therefore the theory that CO2 rise lags temperature rise DEMOLISHES the theory CO2 causes temperature rise.
thermodynamics
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2010
NotParker: Sigh. This has been explained to you before but for the sake of other readers here it is again. The idea that the 1930s was the hottest decade has been shown to be wrong and the 2000s is the hottest decade as of now (and probably the 2010s will be hotter). Please show any legitimate reference that shows otherwise. You have seen the major climate change offices have the information showing that the decades have been getting warmer posted on their web sites. Maybe FOX news or Watts don't.

Second: Yes, CO2 used to lag temperature as a positive feedback source forcing the temperature higher. Now humans have forced CO2 higher first - leading to positive feedback. That is what worries people. We have pushed a normal feedback mechanism into a leading role. Please do a little reading instead of watching FOX news. The only thing demolished is your credibility.

SteveS
2.7 / 5 (3) Sep 05, 2010
Sanescience

I can argue that a third possible state exists, I've seen it happen, when a coin lands on it's edge. Now assigning heads as 2, edge = 1, and tails is 0... If your not careful in your computer program, the average is 1, meaning a coin usually lands on it's edge.


Assigning numeric values to a coin toss to ascertain the odds of a particular outcome is totally meaningless, you have just set this up as a strawman argument. If you were to write the program I am sure you would just count the outcomes of a large number of coin tosses, as anybody would. I'm also sure you wouldn't try to predict a single coin toss and call it anything other than a guess.

Climate is weather averaged out over a period of 30 or more years, predicting climate one year into the future is meaningless.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (16) Sep 05, 2010
1) The 1930s were the hottest decade.

Climate adjusters continuously alter the historical record to lower temperatures int he past to fake the idea that the 2000s were warmer.

If the 2000s were warmer, the USA would have set 25 max temperature records in the 2000s. That did not happen. The 1930s still have 25 of the hottest state records.

Globally: "GISS temperature readings were adjusted six times after analysis in July 1999 indicated that the temperature anomaly for 1934 was nearly 60% higher than for 1998."

Anyone who believes 1998 or 2010 was warmer than 1934 has been conned by James Hansens "adjustements".
thermodynamics
3 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2010
NotParker: Thank you for again stating your position without giving a shred of evidence. Here is evidence you are incorrect.

http://www.epa.go...ttc.html

I suppose you will just claim that all governments and all of the data available have been corrupted - so I will ask you for your source of uncorrupted data that says the 1930s were the warmest years for the earth. Please give me a site that is not FOX "news" or Watts. Give me an actual climate site with real scientists. If you are just a conspiracy theorist, then just say it and let everyone reading know you discount all of the scientific data and the thousands of papers on the topic.

As for data adjustments. All data is corrected. When you measure the temperature of a turkey in your oven you are actually measuring the electrical or physical changes of the probe that is adjusted to indicate the estimated temperature of the turkey. Just give me your sources or admit you don't trust anyone.
marjon
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 05, 2010
Give me an actual climate site with real scientists.

Why should they be trusted?

"An increasingly skeptical public started to notice that 'experts' weren't angels descending immaculately from heaven bearing infallible revelations from God. They were fallible human beings with mortgages to pay and funds to raise. They disagreed with one another and they colluded with their friends and supporters like everyone else."
"The political, cultural, business and scientific establishments stand firmly behind global warming today -- just as they once stood firmly behind Robert Moses, urban renewal and big dams. They tell us it's a sin to question the consensus, the sign of bad moral character to doubt. Bambi, look in the mirror. You will see Godzilla looking back." " http://www.washin...151.html
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (16) Sep 05, 2010
http://articles.l...i-temp15

"A slight adjustment to U.S. temperature records has bumped 1998 as the hottest year in the country's history and made the Dust Bowl year of 1934 the new record holder, according to NASA."

"With the new rankings, four of the 10 warmest years in the United States occurred during the 1930s."

The US had the most accurate temperature records in the world in the 1930's.

If the 4 warmest years were in the 1930's, and you wish to claim that the flawed non-USA records claim it wasn't the 1930s that were the warmest, go ahead. But all you will be arguing is that "regional warming" occurred in other places. It isn't "global warming" any longer.

And most claims of recent warming is not believable since most temperature stations are now at airports and in the middle of dense urban zones that are hopelessly contaminated by the Urban Heat Island effect.
Gargunzola
1 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2010
Has anyone else noticed that Mars's atmosphere is 95.32 % Carbon Dioxide? Also that Mars has annual mean surface temperatures of less than 210K (−63 °C; −82 °F). Seems to me that climatology is at the WAG stage (Wild Ass Guessing).
thermodynamics
3 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2010
Not Parker: You seem to be devolving into hysteria again. That seems to be a pattern for you. Please pay attention. I have said I was talking about the temperatures of the Earth (Global temperatures) which is what global warming is all about. You bring up US temperatures instead. Take a look at the URL I supplied for global temperatures. I have asked for and you have not produced anything showing the 1930s were warmer for the globe than the 2000s. Does that mean you just gave up?
thermodynamics
3 / 5 (2) Sep 06, 2010
Gargunzola: I can't quite tell if you are serious or are just trolling. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. The atmospheric pressure on earth is about 101.3 kPa. The atmospheric pressure on mars is about 0.6 kPa. That means that the pressure on the earth is about 170 times that of mars.

Mars is also at a distance from the sun of 227,000,000 km. The distance from the earth to the sun is about 149,600,000 km. So, mars is farther from the sun and the atmosphere is barely existent. Because of those two effects the planet is much colder than Earth.
davaguco
5 / 5 (3) Sep 06, 2010
About science, I suggest reading:

http://chem.tufts...rong.htm

I think a climate model that gets close to reality (but is still not right) is much better than just denying what scientists say because they are just "not right" about it.
marjon
1 / 5 (9) Sep 06, 2010
About science, I suggest reading:

http://chem.tufts...rong.htm

I think a climate model that gets close to reality (but is still not right) is much better than just denying what scientists say because they are just "not right" about it.

How close?
Close enough to kill economies around the world?
davaguco
5 / 5 (3) Sep 06, 2010
Kill economies? Why do you say that?

I think they are talking about a 2-3 celsius degrees increase over a period of 50 years. I don't think that will kill lots of economies around the world.

It will probably make some areas drier and hotter, a few countries will be more negatively affected by it but others might even benefit (Canada, north of Europe, Russia...). Some countries with little money might not be able to adjust to the new weather conditions in time to avoid death and famine.

I don't think it will be much of a problem in US or Europe, if we manage to avoid other problems like peak oil (I think we will).

Sorry if my english is not very good, I live in Spain.
marjon
1 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2010
I think they are talking about a 2-3 celsius degrees increase over a period of 50 years. I don't think that will kill lots of economies around the world.

It is called Koyoto or Cap and Tax.
It is the creation of a false economy run by governments.
rvlife
5 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2010

I don't think it will be much of a problem in US or Europe, if we manage to avoid other problems like peak oil (I think we will).

It will be a problem for the people of Asia and Africa.
When the affected few billion from these continents decide to march up north, their problem will become your problem.
No one is immunue in a globalised world.
NotParker
1 / 5 (13) Sep 06, 2010
Not Parker: ... I have said I was talking about the temperatures of the Earth (Global temperatures) which is what global warming is all about. You bring up US temperatures instead. Take a look at the URL I supplied for global temperatures. I have asked for and you have not produced anything showing the 1930s were warmer for the globe than the 2000s. Does that mean you just gave up?


Wow. Are you implying the USA is not on Earth?

Its regional warming at airports. Over half of all GISS thermometers are at airports where the concreate and tarmac heat up all day and radiate heat for hours after the sun goes down thereby making night temperature slightly higher than usual causing a marginal increase in average temperature.

However, the concept of "global" fail totally if North America's hottest decade is the 1930s.

80 years of CO2 and North America is still no warmer than the 1930s.

I will accede than some regions airports are now warmer.
thermodynamics
1 / 5 (1) Sep 06, 2010
davaguco: Thank you for the outstanding post. I seldom want to give a person 10 stars instead of the possible 5, but you fit the bill. Your URL to Asimov was outstanding. You have done an outstanding job of helping to explain the way science works, building on the knowledge gained over thousands of years. Thank you for your post.
thermodynamics
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 06, 2010
NotParker: I have yet to see a single web site, book reference, or scientific refereed paper that supports your babbling. I provided a scientific site that makes it clear that the 1930s were not warmer on a global scale than the 2000s. All you have come back with is quotes you get from FOX "news" or Watts - but no science. I have to assume you have looked and just can't find something scientific that supports your rambling monologue.

Of course the USA is on the earth. However, WEATHER patterns change for periods of time every year. It is CLIMATE we are talking about and that is the change we are concerned about. If you cannot tell the difference between regional weather and global climate you need to do some reading.
NotParker
1 / 5 (12) Sep 06, 2010
NotParker: I provided a scientific site that makes it clear that the 1930s were not warmer on a global scale


4 of the warmest years in the USA were in the 1930s. Therefore, despite 80 years of rising CO2, it isn't any warmer in the USA (really North America too since Canada also had massively hot 1930s and horrible droughts - see Dirty 30s)

Therefore the warming you claim was "global" was in fact regional.

And, it didn't include New Zealand either. People are suing their weather office for deliberately falsifying the NZ temperature record.

And I be there are many other regions without warming since the 1930s.

Rgional warming within hte margin of error is prooof of nothing since the worls has been warming slightly since the end of the little ice age.

Dirty 30s:
NotParker
1 / 5 (9) Sep 06, 2010
NotParker: I provided a scientific site that makes it clear that the 1930s were not warmer on a global scale than the 2000s.


Please remove Scandanavia from your list:

The top ten warmest years, included only years after 1828.
Helsinki 6.7-7.2 degrees: 1934, 1938, 1943, 1949, 1961, 1974-1975, 1989-1990, 2000
Stockholm: 7.4-7.8 degrees: 1934, 1938, 1943, 1949, 1975, 1989-1990, 1999-2000, 2002
Uppsala: 6.8-7.2 degrees: 1934, 1938, 1943, 1949, 1975, 1989-1990, 1999(-2000?)

http://www.kolumb...redutemp
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2010
NotParker:

Just who is Timo Niroma? I don't see any journal papers by his name. I don't see any affiliation on his web site. I looked him up and see he is a "Finish Climatologist" but does not seem to be affiliated with any organization. Does that make him a Ronin Climatologist?
mosahlah
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 06, 2010
If everyone had 8 children like David, you can throw all that carbon conserving non-sense into your recycle bag, cuz it wont matter in about 3 generations when the famine begins.
NotParker
1.1 / 5 (15) Sep 06, 2010
NotParker:

Just who is Timo Niroma? I don't see any journal papers by his name. I don't see any affiliation on his web site. I looked him up and see he is a "Finish Climatologist" but does not seem to be affiliated with any organization. Does that make him a Ronin Climatologist?


Helsinki (NASA data)

http://data.giss....ghbors=1

He is a Finnish Climatologist who died in 2009.

Lots of stuff on Google:

http://www.google...&oe=

You seem to be short on facts and long on smears.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2010
NotParker: Again you are confusing me with garbage. Yes, Finland has a GISS site. Yes, there are a lot of citations for him on google - but they are not journal papers. What do your two sites have to do with your using him as THE climatologist. Particularly since the things he wrote on the web (probably because he could not get them published) have to do, mostly, with the influence of sunspots.
NotParker
1 / 5 (11) Sep 07, 2010
NotParker: Again you are confusing me with garbage. Yes, Finland has a GISS site. Yes, there are a lot of citations for him on google - but they are not journal papers. What do your two sites have to do with your using him as THE climatologist. Particularly since the things he wrote on the web (probably because he could not get them published) have to do, mostly, with the influence of sunspots.


Thanks for reluctantly giving in and admitting I am right that the 1930s were as warm as they are now.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2010
NotParker: Nice try but you are out of your mind if you think I am giving in and feeding your delusions about the 1930s being as warm as the 2000s. You have done nothing but babble and discuss specific temperatures in specific locations instead of global averages. It is clear that you do not know the difference between weather and climate and it is also clear that you really don't care. The link I gave above gives an official view of global temperatures. If you think that the official views are wrong or dishonest there is no use arguing. You are just a conspiracy theorist who thinks the temperature on June 12, 1934 in Houston indicates the Earth was warmer that day and all of the scientists saying that was a local record temperature just aren't as smart as you are. If they were they would know that the temperature of a single city on a single day reflects the temperature of the earth. I am glad to say I do not share that view with you. I am not giving in, I am not giving up.
rvlife
3 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2010
If everyone had 8 children like David, you can throw all that carbon conserving non-sense into your recycle bag, cuz it wont matter in about 3 generations when the famine begins.

+1

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.