Climate change: We haven't experienced anything like this in the past 2,000 yearsClimate scientists

As per the rules of this forum the title is as it is in the source

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07...this-over-past-2000-years-scientists/11345022

One more denialist talking point bites the dust. Science triumphs again

 

You are dating from the Roman Warming Period, which was as lovely as today if not even more warm and balmy.

Tree rings from Italy in the late 3rd century BC indicate a period of mild conditions in the area at the time that Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants.

Even warmer than that was the The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP.

 

You didn’t read the link did you?

PS the core concept here is the term “global”

 

Long term we've been cooling since Holocene Climate Optimum, that is, for 8,000 years. Your claim that "it hasn't been this warm in 2,000 years is simply an artifact of a warming blip measured against the early waning period after the peak of the Roman period, which was itself cooler than the HCO.

And all of this is still within an inter-glacial within an ice-age, we will never see even warm earth conditions, which are much nicer conditions than even an inter-glacial. But, if you have to live during an ice age, be grateful it's during an inter-glacial. The last one lasted about 15,000 years and was followed by a hundred thousand years of ice advance. This one has been going about 12,000 years, hopefully we get another 3,000 years out of it.

 

When I read comments like this, I am always curious about the source of the information. I am not disputing it, it just seems curious to me that the tens of thousands of scientists studying climate related matters don't appear to either be aware of this, or to regard this as relevant to what is happening today.

I suspect that events used as talking points to dismiss anthropogenic climate change have already been considered by scientists, and there are sound reasons for them not being accorded as much weight as certain non scientists seem to think they deserve.

 

And tree rings in the much larger South American continent during your so called "warmer period" in little Italy, show that the continent was going through a cold spell. The GLOBAL temperature during your example shows that Earth was no hotter or colder than any other small frame period.

You also left this out of your link (that you did not post) that during the HCO "The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude and so essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and middle latitudes."

Also the HCO occurred over 4000 years to see small changes in one location on Earth. We are now seeing similar temperature changes GLOBALLY in less than 150 years

 

Raphael Neukom

• Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research and Institute of Geography, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
• Nathan Steiger
  • Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, USA
  • Juan José Gómez-Navarro
    • Department of Physics, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain
    • Jianghao Wang
      • The MathWorks Inc, Natick, USA
    Johannes P. Werner
    • Bjerknes Center for Climate Research, Bergen, Norway
  So these five hard core true believers concoct a paper who's primary conclusion is there is no concensus on why recent dramatic climate events occured or how widespwide they were and in their minds that equates to evidence that these events are irrelevant? Good God these people are truly getting desperate and by the way these five guys kind of cut their own throats by demanding a concensus on one hand and then claiming five scientists can reach such a conclusion on previous climate events. Where is the concensus there. Is this the best you and they can do Bower?
• Another cult attempt to derail real science bites the dust.

 

The original article was published in Nature, a reputable, peer reviewed journal. If you go to the original article it is quite informative. The so called "little ice age", for example, occurred at different times depending on where you were. This correlates with findings in other peer reviewed papers.

 

Interesting you bring this up. I was just listening to a documentary about post Roman England yesterday and rising temps and rising sea levels were one of the reasons given for the Anglo-Saxon invasion of England in 3rd century.

 

Uh oh, new paper that just shot you down.

The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Antarctica

 

Most right wingers believe in climate change, we just don't believe that unlimited illegal immigration and socialism is the cure for it

 

I want to fight climate change, but only if it avoids income redistribution.

It shouldn’t involve taking money from me and giving it to Leroy in South Central L.A., or Juan in Bolivia, or Mohammad in Sudan.

 

Meh, solar flares.....nuff said.

 

So, you produced a summation of the study, not the study. Where in the study mentioned to said scientists actually make the claim you assert? Please produce the actual citation, not an australian version of ABC news... Laughable.

 

Go science. Let's hope government doesn't triumph. I have yet to understand how you reduce global warming by giving money to government.

 

Have the read the hundreds of peer reviewed papers which preceded the bogus hockey stick ??

Have they read H. H. Lamb's climate text book from 1995 ?? Who is H. H. Lamb ??

And what about the Minoan and other 7 warming/cooling cycles which had nothing to do with CO2 increasing ??

 

The government gives the money to scientists who write papers which government uses to grow bigger which is something they are very good at. Eisenhower was right.

 

The hurry to worry is about carbon dioxide, which is contained in the human body as a normal product of respiration, and to hurry hurry hurry to live within the bleak atmosphere of Mars, which is a hundred times thinner than earth's atmosphere, and which is 95% carbon dioxide.

Go figure. Ain't nobody going to live in large number on Mars. Ever. Maybe a few, a handful.

 

Taking money from rich countries and giving it to poor countries will TOTALLY solve climate change. Trust us. And by the way, Florida may be hit by 8-10 major Hurricanes this year. COUNT on it!!! I've heard that since the early 90s =) Oh yeah. I can predict that the sky may be blue tomorrow, and I might be right or I may be wrong. Doesn't matter though. Give me lots of money because I'm smart at predicting as accurately as a monkey tossing darts at a pinata.

My answer to any scientist or politician who wants to spend our money...YOU first. You hand over 60% of your net worth to the govt. of Zimbabwe. Then I might take seriously. If you've got no skin in the game, I can't trust you.

 

And that global warming is net beneficial. Also there is no possible political way in a democracy to significantly reduce CO2 emissions. And China will pay lip service to the alarmist bureaucracies whilst manufacturing and selling economically damaging “green technologies” to the alarmist west.

 

So anything counter to "Climate Change" in the past = local while all data that supports it is global got you,

 

You just have to ask progressive AGW faithful, to what end? What is the optimal climate that they believe they will achieve? We hear lots of the sky is falling, never, what the outcome of human intervention in climate change would actually produce. Is now a good stopping point? Or do we need to remediate back to the little ice age again? What global temperature average value are we actually going to shoot for?

And that's where the rest of the prescriptive measures they support stop. There is zero plan. The reason is simple, there doesn't need to be one, as long as folks are simply scared enough to comply with forking over their wealth so others get to play Santa with it. It really is that simple.

 

Oh, I don’t know, the last big ice age was pretty global. If you really believe driving or flying a darling daughter to Disney World to see her laugh, and cheer, and smile, with sparkling eyes and wondrous smiles of amazement, well, then I guess I’ll just have to call you Mean Mister Mustard, or maybe I’ll just call you “an enemy” of we, the living.

Ayn Rand: “Ecology as a social principle . . . condemns cities, culture, industry, technology, the intellect, and advocates men’s return to “nature,” to the state of grunting subanimals digging the soil with their bare hands.”—http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ecology-environmental_movement.html

Not to mention, I’ve lived through at least 3 heat waves of 100 plus temps; and 5 winters of brutal cold snaps of -20 below, not to mention record blizzards, record snowfalls, as well as record warm winters with little snowfall. I’ve seen Christmases of -17 and 65, and all in my short 60 plus years of living in the Midwest.

Climate changes, that’s a fact. Human activity contributes its two cents worth, and that’s a fact. But predicting the end of the planet and human existence because the rich vacation in the Caribbean, suburban moms drive SUVs, and men live grilling steaks and drinking beer, that’s a fantasy that will never come true. Betcha.

 

Funny how they know this hasn't happened for two thousand years when most meteoroligists claim not being able to reference anything before actual record keeping began about a 100-150 or so years ago.

 

Nevermind that throwing data away that does not match your opinion seems to be how science "triumphs"... Showing there is no science behind this its political agenda.