Climate Change

I realized rapid climate change and was fooked the next day (broke the 1911 record). Happens rapidly several times each year. Has anybody followed the money trail behind little Greta to see where it leads too, to see who is doing the coaching and paying for travel? Perfect talking head because nobody is going to call a little girl a liar. FOLLOW THE CLIMATE CHANGE THEORY MONEY TRAIL.
Or for that matter any chicken little BS.

 

Sorry but you are making factual assertions you cannot possibly substantiate...... like ‘never at the speed at which it is happening now’. It would appear the Mayan and other ancient civilisations may have been impacted by rapid changes never mind pre-history when humans barely featured in the landscape, if at all.

Aztec and Inca maybe although the Inca mummies May be connected to prolonged drought and crop failures.

 

There has been rapid climate change in the relatively recent past. There was the Roman Warm Period with temperatures above current, which was followed by the Dark Ages Cool Period, followed by the Medieval Warm Period, followed by the Little Ice Age.

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of warm climate from about 900 A.D. to 1300 A.D. when global temperatures were apparently somewhat warmer than at present. Its effects were evident in Europe where grain crops flourished, alpine tree lines rose, many new cities arose, and the population more than doubled. The Vikings took advantage of the climatic amelioration to colonize Greenland, and wine grapes were grown as far north as England where growing grapes is now not feasible and about 500 km north of present vineyards in France and Germany. Grapes are presently grown in Germany up to elevations of about 560 m, but from about 1100 A.D. to 1300 A.D., vineyards extended up to 780 m, implying temperatures warmer by about 1.0–1.4 °C (Oliver, 1973). Wheat and oats were grown around Trondheim, Norway, suggesting climates about 1 °C warmer than present (Fagan, 2000).

And the temperature swing conicides directly with solar activity:


And the current travel of temperature is downward as the Modern Solar Maximum has passed it peek, and we are heading for another Solar Minimum. This fact is why climate alarmists has dropped the term "global warming" and instead are using "climate change", because the global temperature has been falling for the last few years.

 

Or maybe try this one...

 

The problem with your line is that it is based on ice cores. Their alleged infallibility and pretty flat line into pre history is at marked variance with other proxies that appear to indicate far greater atmospheric CO2 variability.
It may simply be that ice under steady pressure can only hold so much ancient atmospheric CO2......

 

But changes in carbon dioxide follow approx 600-800 years after changes in temperature up or down. so how can CO2 be the primary factor that drives global warming.

 

Yes granted it is almost impossible to see the desired information from that graph, I did have a better one that more clearly showed the turning points, and that temperature changes first followed by CO2, can't find the graph I was thinking of but it was something like this...

 

Not strictly accurate. The Law of Conservation of Matter says the oxygen and carbon can change form not least when absorbed by plant life and, with water, converted to sugar and oxygen. Just don’t start splitting atoms!

 

@MadMrB
In your interpretation here there is a blatant error that completely ignores the development of the last 170 years! The natural correlation between general solar activity and thermal rhythm only corresponds until the beginning of the industrial age, but no longer. If you take a closer look at the diagram (#235), you can see very well how the aforementioned rhythm was disturbed about 170 years ago and has lost all connection with the current solar activity since the middle of the 20th century. In fact, the maximum activity of the sun cycles observed so far has been decreasing since about 1955 and it continues to decline, but the average temperature of our planet has been rising at an unnatural rate since about 1900, so this mechanism isn't working anymore.

This is certainly not a reason to become hysterical, but I think it is normal to worry about it. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether it is called 'global warming' or 'climatic change'.
As a side note: The hypocrisy of all these doubters now goes so far that they are more willing to fantasize about Terraforming on Mars than to be willing to protect their own planet.

 

@NightRider funny how the climate alarmists always use the 1800's as the start of their data source, when the planet was just coming out of the little ice age, so of course it makes the temperature rise appear to be more pronounced. However if you look at more recent data it shows that there has been no global warming for about 20 years, and then if you look back over a longer time period it shows that the planet has infact been cooling.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/

 

Debate here that touches on this point, this link should start at the right stage if not skip to 5m

 

This guy was predicting climate warming in the 80s, but has changed his mind and admits he got it wrong...

 

Interesting debate, but for now I'm sticking with the climate scientists who are working with this stuff every day. I suspect that they know already that correlation doesn't prove causality, so to claim that they've made that basic schoolboy error doesn't ring true to me. And I find it difficult to accept random graphs where I don't know the source or original context (some were claimed to be taken out of context from studies showing the opposite of his interpretation). In short, I wasn't convinced by the climate change sceptic. I believe a lot of what he said was false.

The earlier video of the guy (Trump impersonator?) claiming that an early snowfall disproves climate change just made me want to punch his lights. My garden was pretty frosty this morning, but I'm not going to pin my hopes on that.

I'll watch the most recent video you've put up, and see what I think (though I've just seen that he is a Trump advisor, so I must admit to an instant prejudice - I'll give it a go however).

 

If you want some more real scientists then try these:





This bloke is a PhD climate scientist, his videos arn't the easiest watch due to is presentation style, but the information is interesting:

 

Science should and does change to reflect observations, but when science gets conflicted with politics the temptation is to only recognise observations that maintain the narrative and ignore oposing observations.

I work with a lot of scientists, they are human, and have the same human faults as the rest of the population. If you put faith and trust in them to be somehow morally superior and pure of motive, you'd be making a huge mistake.

Science moved on from the 70s, will it move on again?



edit: as for the colder than average autumn, and record snow falls etc, I'd score that in favour of the solar scientists predicting colder winters for the next decade or so. Climate Scientists can't predict this as their models don't include sun cycles. (this dosn't say anything about thier CO2 theory, just that they ignore sun cycles, both can be true)