Joshpantera

The Big Picture: 65 million years of temperature swings

Recommended Posts

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

 

65 million years of global temperatures

 

 

 

 

 

Greenland GISP2 ice core - last 10,000 years.

 

I'm still reading through this stuff.

 

But one issue that seems clear as I keep seeing long term charts is how the last couple hundred years of upward temperature trend (coinciding with the industrial revolution through today) is seldom put into large scale perspective. For one reason, it doesn't look nearly as alarming or fearful when you do add the surrounding context. I kept noticing this while we were going over information about the last ice age and the Younger Dryas. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

Some people will accept the science that determines what happened 65 million years ago but dismiss the science that studies our current situation and reaches a 97% consensus. Fascinating.

 

Obviously there are climate swings over time just as there are naturally occurring forest fires, but we don't have to throw gasoline on the fires.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, florduh said:

Some people will accept the science that determines what happened 65 million years ago but dismiss the science that studies our current situation and reaches a 97% consensus. Fascinating.

 

Obviously there are climate swings over time just as there are naturally occurring forest fires, but we don't have to throw gasoline on the fires.

 

 I see a connection between "consensus" and religion. A handful of people with authority and power decide what is true based on their agenda. The rank and file go along to get along in order to keep their jobs & professional reputations creditable. Academia is just as corrupt as politics. 

 

What your posts says to me is that an unknown percentage of that 97% of climate experts have been coerced into going along to get along. The fact academia and politics are bedfellows is a big part of the problem. I am skeptical when anyone claims 97% of people agree on anything. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Geezer said:

 

 I see a connection between "consensus" and religion. A handful of people with authority and power decide what is true based on their agenda. The rank and file go along to get along in order to keep their jobs & professional reputations creditable. Academia is just as corrupt as politics. 

 

What your posts says to me is that an unknown percentage of that 97% of climate experts have been coerced into going along to get along. The fact academia and politics are bedfellows is a big part of the problem. I am skeptical when anyone claims 97% of people agree on anything. 

Whatever. Nothing to be accomplished here. Moving on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, florduh said:

Whatever. Nothing to be accomplished here. Moving on.

 

Your desire to make your left leaning political bias well known isn't helping your credibility. I have no issue with anyone's political bias but it does place their objectivity into question. 

 

I admit I have both a left and right political bias. My bias is directly connected to the issue being discussed. Does that label me as an independent or just politically cautious? As far as climate change I think the left is feeding us political BS. I accept climate change is real but I'm not convinced humans are causing it. And I don't trust the so called evidence the left is feeding us. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Geezer said:

 

Your desire to make your left leaning political bias well known isn't helping your credibility. I have no issue with anyone's political bias but it does place their objectivity into question. 

 

I admit I have both a left and right political bias. My bias is directly connected to the issue being discussed. Does that label me as an independent or just politically cautious? As far as climate change I think the left is feeding us political BS. I accept climate change is real but I'm not convinced humans are causing it. And I don't trust the so called evidence the left is feeding us. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you believe the entire global community of scientists is a liberal plot, that anyone who finds evidence contrary to your own political agenda is part of a conspiracy, then there is nothing to discuss. You are not open to information, scientific or otherwise, that runs counter to your agenda and belief system. I don't seek credibility for myself where the credibility of evidence and observation is totally discounted in favor of politics. My credibility isn't relevant as I am not a scientist in the area in question. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, florduh said:

Some people will accept the science that determines what happened 65 million years ago but dismiss the science that studies our current situation and reaches a 97% consensus. Fascinating.

 

Obviously there are climate swings over time just as there are naturally occurring forest fires, but we don't have to throw gasoline on the fires.

 

Some do. Others understand that warming has occur'd but less than what prediction models figured and don't think it's an alarming issue. The article is about how our warming trend is part of a larger scale cooling trend which is easily seen in the graphs. Short term warming from way down low in a larger scale cooling cycle. It's like the Yuga's, cycles within cycles. 

 

If we face the planet getting too cold, that seems a lot worse as described in the article. So it may turn out in the long run that we actually may have to put effort into warming to ward off another ice age - throw fire on the forest fire for the sake of survival. 

 

Quote

Long-term, temperatures are now declining (for the last 3,000 years), and we appear to be headed for the next 90,000 year ice age, right on schedule at the end of our current 10,000 year warm period. We have repeated this cycle 46 times in succession over the last 2.6 million years. And in case you are wondering, the previous Antarctic ice cores tell a broadly similar story.  The following graph of ice core data from Vostok (vertical scale in degrees C variation from present) shows that Antarctica is also experiencing a long-term (4,000 year) cooling trend mirroring the Greenland GISP2 cooling trend. Though the individual temperature spikes and dips are different than in Greenland, the long-term temperature trend on the planet appears to be down, not up. And since it is so late in our current interglacial period, we could be concerned about global cooling.

 

[snipped from article]

 

Greenland GISP2 ice core - last 10,000 years.

 

That little red line of temperature spike to the right on the graph, is our current global warming. The green line downward spiraling to present day, is the temperature trend of the last 10,000 years. And this is evident when looking at the Younger Dryas through today. The spike is nowhere near as radical as the temperature spikes leading into the current era. But it appears radical if you isolate only a small portion of the context and history of temperature variation leading up to that small isolated sample. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be at least two major aspects to the global warming issue. Maybe 97% of climatologists believe global warming is real. But only a little more than 90% believe that effects of global warming are primarily man-made. Maybe 1 to 2% of climatologists assert that global warming, to the extent presently observed, is a good thing. Increased carbon dioxide levels would also be a big boon to the health and growth rate of plant life. After all, almost half of the cultivation potential of the world is presently covered over with permafrost, primarily Canada and Russia. Global warming could be a big boon to the economies of these countries as well as creating a large increase in the world food production and supply from those regions, and lower food prices for undeveloped countries and for all over the world. The vastly larger quantities of water required for such mass agricultural increases would come from increased rainfall (instead of snowfall) in such regions, as well as being produced from the oceans in desalination processes. Natural evaporation and rainfall increases based upon increased ocean evaporation, would cause more cloud cover which would somewhat mitigate the rate of increasing temperatures. Although sea levels seem to be rising at present, the transfer of water from the sea to land would decrease sea levels. Would this be enough? most think not.

 

Should mankind do more about global warming? Nearly all climatologists and countries agree we should. The real debate is how much money should be spent in the belief that our future will be benefited by these vast expenditures, aside from resulting in higher energy costs to the world at large, negatively effecting nearly all economies for this reason..

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pantheory said:

There seems to be at least two major aspects to the global warming issue. Maybe 97% of climatologists believe global warming is real. But only a little more than 90% believe that effects of global warming are primarily man-made. Maybe 1 to 2% of climatologists assert that global warming, to the extent presently observed, is a good thing. Increased carbon dioxide levels would also be a big boon to the health and growth rate of plant life. After all, almost half of the cultivation potential of the world is presently covered over with permafrost, primarily Canada and Russia. Global warming could be a big boon to the economies of these countries as well as creating a large increase in the world food production and supply from those regions, and lower food prices for undeveloped countries and for all over the world. The vastly larger quantities of water required for such mass agricultural increases would come from increased rainfall (instead of snowfall) in such regions, as well as being produced from the oceans in desalination processes. Natural evaporation and rainfall increases based upon increased ocean evaporation, would cause more cloud cover which would somewhat mitigate the rate of increasing temperatures. Although sea levels seem to be rising at present, the transfer of water from the sea to land would decrease sea levels. Would this be enough? most think not.

 

Should mankind do more about global warming? Nearly all climatologists and countries agree we should. The real debate is how much money should be spent in the belief that our future will be benefited by these vast expenditures, aside from resulting in higher energy costs to the world at large, negatively effecting nearly all economies for this reason..

 

I think very few people, if any, believe man is the only or even the primary force behind climate change. Almost everyone involved in its study do show that the activities of industrialized man are indeed a contributing factor. I do find it interesting that some people can readily accept the science that tells us what conditions existed 65 million years ago but balk at more recent findings. Scientists either lie or they don't. Cherry picking? Hmmm, where have I seen that before.........

 

The effects of warming are being experienced right now. Perhaps we could stop being a contributing factor? Why is that so radical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2018 at 1:31 PM, florduh said:

 

I think very few people, if any, believe man is the only or even the primary force behind climate change. Almost everyone involved in its study do show that the activities of industrialized man are indeed a contributing factor. I do find it interesting that some people can readily accept the science that tells us what conditions existed 65 million years ago but balk at more recent findings. Scientists either lie or they don't. Cherry picking? Hmmm, where have I seen that before.........

 

The effects of warming are being experienced right now. Perhaps we could stop being a contributing factor? Why is that so radical?

 

Yeah, I expect most scientists regardless of their beliefs do not consciously cherry-pick data, but a major part of the funding for global-warming scientists comes from the federal government so that data contrary to man's affect on global warming may not be addressed with the same enthusiasm as data showing mankind as being a major factor in global warming, This is because their job may depend on man's role in global warming.

 

Of course man's role involving increased global warming is generally accepted, the question remains to what extent man contributes. Yes, increased CO2 emissions by mankind probably adds to global warming,  it also heavily spurs plant growth that gobble up CO2 in their respiration reducing the greenhouse effect. Industrial pollution (smog) that accompanies increased CO2 emissions also  contributes to global cooling. This, of course should not stop our efforts to control pollution -- if not just for our lungs' sake, but also for other health considerations. 

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cleaning-up-air-pollution-may-strengthen-global-warming/

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, florduh said:

I think very few people, if any, believe man is the only or even the primary force behind climate change. Almost everyone involved in its study do show that the activities of industrialized man are indeed a contributing factor. I do find it interesting that some people can readily accept the science that tells us what conditions existed 65 million years ago but balk at more recent findings. Scientists either lie or they don't. Cherry picking? Hmmm, where have I seen that before.........

 

I think very few people believe that the warming is completely made up on the same token. I think I've heard that mentioned before but earlier on in the debates before things evolved to where they are now. And I get it, those people just picked up on the political angles and called BS on the whole thing because there are political angles to be noticed. But the warming trend is there on the charts and most of what I've heard is about how the warming is not alarming, or the prediction models went sky high and the reality of the warming trend has been much lower. The other issue is where people have made adjustments to try and "harmonize" the projected models with the real time data, I know you've seen that before. 🤣

 

As to scientists lying, I think it's safe to say some do and some don't, just like anywhere else. They're human, have egos, have reasons to manipulate situations to their advantage just like anyone else in any number of work places. I don't see it as a black and white either scientists lie or don't situation. But what's clear from zooming out into the larger context, like in most politicized cases (like politicized gun issues) is that the further you back up the less dramatic and alarming the situations look. By focusing very short term and small, you can manipulate a lot of situations to appear as if they are much bigger issues than they actually are. This is a tactic that I keep seeing over and over again when something, any number of issues, become politicized. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

I think very few people believe that the warming is completely made up on the same token.

Sure, NOW. They were largely in total denial of the phenomenon at first but at this point even the craziest admit to the warming trend being real. It is not a Chinese conspiracy after all. It follows that given more time to digest the science they will eventually be unable to deny our part in the shift taking place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, florduh said:

Sure, NOW. They were largely in total denial of the phenomenon at first but at this point even the craziest admit to the warming trend being real. It is not a Chinese conspiracy after all. It follows that given more time to digest the science they will eventually be unable to deny our part in the shift taking place.

 

That's the thing, surely we have part in it with massive carbon emission taking place world wide since the industrial revolution. Even if it's not the entire role, it must be part of it. But this larger scale look does tend to show the whole shebang may be taking place within the larger framework of a short interglacial period that's on the verge of going down further. All of our emissions being a small blip up on a downward trend. The dominant projection seems to be temps going up and up. But what if they go down instead as the article is suggesting? 

 

If that happened then we'd get our answer about how much we're affecting the temperature. That's the problem with short term analysis. It fails to consider the bigger picture and the unknowns seem to outweigh the known's. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     That second graph is wonky.  The scale is all over the place (it looks nice and linear but it's not) and it doesn't include the most recent data (it's YBP-95 so 1950-95 or 1855).  I don't think I'd trust any of this.  It seems loaded even though it's laid out nice and perty.

 

     But, hey, if you want to look at it another way that "spike" is pretty huge considering the Industrial Revolution hadn't even started in earnest by that point in history.

 

          mwc

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side note, but related, I'd heard that the planes that landed on the ice sank over the years rather than were covered by fresh ice (thickening ice). The thawing and freezing there happen rather often, many times a year, and little by little the plane sank. This came up when creationists were saying that the ice cores don't show annual thaws as some claim, but far more frequent thaws, and thus can't be used to date the core layers. They used the planes as evidence of this.

In this case, even though the ones pointing out the flaw in the claims are creationists, they seem to have good evidence. But perhaps I missed something since reading this back in the 90s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fuego said:

Side note, but related, I'd heard that the planes that landed on the ice sank over the years rather than were covered by fresh ice (thickening ice). The thawing and freezing there happen rather often, many times a year, and little by little the plane sank. This came up when creationists were saying that the ice cores don't show annual thaws as some claim, but far more frequent thaws, and thus can't be used to date the core layers. They used the planes as evidence of this.

In this case, even though the ones pointing out the flaw in the claims are creationists, they seem to have good evidence. But perhaps I missed something since reading this back in the 90s.

 

Sounds more like creationist's looking to dismiss carbon dating and basically anything that suggests deep antiquity, like ice core samples. 

 

Glacier Girl, WWII, Plane, Greenland, Ice.

“Glacier girl” crashed on an icecap in Greenland and became buried under 264 ft of ice.

UPDATE: 2017 The image comes from this Youtube about the discovery and recovery of the plane.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that intellectuals fear taking a stand on much of anything for fear they might be proven wrong, and that might damage their scholarly reputation and make them the object of ridicule. And that would ruin them & their careers.

 

Since I am in no danger of being mistaken for an intellectual; I'm fearless when it comes to expressing my opinions. 

 

:argue::yelrotflmao:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know that there are scientists that disagree with the consensus version relating to man-made global warming. One of these dissenting scientists is the only living astronaut that has walked on the moon, Harrison Schmitt. Here are some of his views:

 

Oct. 15, 2018, Harrison Schmitt made statements concerning his views of global warming. Schmitt is a former astronaut and professional PhD geologist who is currently adjunct professor of engineering physics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and a member of the National Space Council’s Users Advisory Group. Schmitt flew on the Apollo 17 mission to the moon in 1972, being the last living person to have visited the lunar surface, told a roomful of science journalists on this date that he did not believe global warming was significantly effected by human activity, in contrast to the great body of asserted evidence, scientific claims and consensus  to the contrary.

 

In an article Schmitt co-authored several years back for the Wall Street Journal in 2013, Schmitt claimed that increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) would actually benefit humanity. Schmitt recently doubled down on these views while at the Science Writers 2018 conference in Washington, D.C.. when he said the following:

 

".....I, as a scientist, expect to have people question orthodoxy. And we always used to do that. Now, unfortunately, funding by governments, particularly the United States government, is biasing science toward what the government wants to hear.

“That’s a very dangerous thing that’s happening in science today, and it’s not just in climate. I see it in my own lunar research. If NASA’s interested in a particular conclusion, then that’s the way the proposals come in for funding. So it’s a very, very serious issue, and I hope the science writers in this room will start to dig deeply into whether or not science has been corrupted by the source of funds that are now driving what people are doing in research, and what their conclusions are.”

 

https://www.geekwire.com/2018/apollo-17-moonwalker-harrison-schmitt-stirs-buzz-climate-change-views/

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 10/13/2018 at 8:13 AM, Joshpantera said:

If we face the planet getting too cold, that seems a lot worse as described in the article. So it may turn out in the long run that we actually may have to put effort into warming to ward off another ice age - throw fire on the forest fire for the sake of survival. 

 

So the research I've seen about a coming iceage is all talking millennia in the future. Meanwhile our ice is melting and if you are serious about heating the fire I'd also suggest finding a way to move cities without causing chaos.

 

If you agree there is warming, no matter what the cause is, then it doesn't take much mathematics to figure out temperature rise means ice melt. Happens every spring. Ice melt means coastal flooding.

 

Of course the other version is an iceage which probably requires cities to be shifted towards the equator, rather than away from the coast. Either way humans have survived by being mobile. Our great cities today are not mobile. This presents something of a challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

So the research I've seen about a coming iceage is all talking millennia in the future. Meanwhile our ice is melting and if you are serious about heating the fire I'd also suggest finding a way to move cities without causing chaos.

 

5 million years of cooling

The last five million years of climate change is shown in the next graph based on work by  Lisiecki and Raymo  in 2005 [2] . It shows our planet has a dynamic temperature history, and over the last three million years, we have had a continuous series of ice ages (now about 90,000 years each) and interglacial warm periods (about 10,000 years each). There are 13 (count ‘em) ice ages on a 100,000 year cycle (from 1.25 million years ago to the present, and 33 ice ages on a 41,000 year cycle (between 2.6 million and 1.25 million years ago). Since Earth is on a multi-million-year cooling trend, we are currently lucky to be living during an interglacial warm period, but we are at the end of our normal 10,000 year warm interglacial period.

Five million years of global temperatures from sediment cores.

 

 

Our current warming is well within natural variation, and in view of the general decline in temperatures during the last half of this interglacial, is probably beneficial for mankind and most plants and animals. The graph clearly shows the Minoan Warming (about 3200 years ago), the Roman Warming (about 2000 years ago), and the Medieval Warm Period (about 900 years ago). Great advances in government, art, architecture, and science were made during these warmer times.

Greenland GISP2 ice core - last 10,000 years.

 

This article tends to show that we're at the end of the interglacial, but it's big picture oriented so the time scales are such. But one way or another, that would seem to indicate change in a down ward direction. 

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

If you agree there is warming, no matter what the cause is, then it doesn't take much mathematics to figure out temperature rise means ice melt. Happens every spring. Ice melt means coastal flooding.

 

Of course the other version is an iceage which probably requires cities to be shifted towards the equator, rather than away from the coast. Either way humans have survived by being mobile. Our great cities today are not mobile. This presents something of a challenge.

 

If for some odd reason we happened to stumble into technology that allows us to manipulate temperature (carbon emissions), geologically speaking, right at the end of an interglacial period when temperature will drop again, then that would tend to present something of an option of trying to utilize technology to find a balance that could keep us from going back to 2 mile deep ice sheets across North America, for instance. And a purposeful and intentional balance is the idea here, not a run effect one way or the other. And it would depend on how fast the natural cold needs to be off set by intentional temperature manipulation. 

 

This sounds sci-fi. There's so many movies based around humans altering the atmosphere for various reasons in the future. The Matrix being one of the more popular ones. We might be able to manipulate high and low pressure systems too, who knows. Conspiracy theorists claims they're already doing it now, with whether wars between countries. I'm sure they're already claiming Michael was a whether attack. But I digress. The point being that we're actively dreaming up ideas and conceiving of such a thing, so it may well be within reach of achieving as we head into the next major ice age. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe this is still a thing.   There is no more evidence for man made climate change than there is for Jesus or Muhammad's flying horse.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, duderonomy said:

I can't believe this is still a thing.   There is no more evidence for man made climate change than there is for Jesus or Muhammad's flying horse.

That's because it is a religion presented in a pseudoscience wrapper and sold to the public as a fact at government expense with legally extorted money.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2018 at 5:54 PM, pantheory said:

 

Yeah, I expect most scientists regardless of their beliefs do not consciously cherry-pick data, but a major part of the funding for global-warming scientists comes from the federal government so that data contrary to man's affect on global warming may not be addressed with the same enthusiasm as data showing mankind as being a major factor in global warming, This is because their job may depend on man's role in global warming.

 

Oh yes, the governments around the world must all be in league with this scam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now