Nasa: Earth is warming at a pace 'unprecedented in 1,000 years'

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What a crock. How the hell can they say anything about 1000 years? Where are the records depicting this? The temperature of this planet has variations throughout 4 billion years.

a reply to: searcherfortruth

They can estimate via ice-core samples, but the reality is that it doesn't really depict the global atmosphere, just what was happening over Antarctica at the time.

The fact that they take the global data measured with scientific instruments in real time and continue it on over the ice core samples and then claim that they are one in the same is a problem to anyone who understands scientific data and recording and graphing and analyzing it. I'm not a scientist by trade, yet even I understand the problem with that method.

Anyhoo, the point here is that there is recorded data to talk semi-intelligently about the atmosphere 1,000 years ago, but only above Antarctica, where we currently see increasing ice and no real indication of a global warming (if looking at Antarctica only).

It's a purposeful deception, IMO, by those trying to push forward an agenda and sound semi-intelligent and semi-scientific while doing it.

ETA: You can look at a few different samples at this site and just make a determination for yourself. Yes, CO2 (and other gas) levels are increasing since the industrial revolution, but how much of a real effect that is having on the globe as a whole, and how "doomsday" it really is, and how much of it is SOLELY the culpability of human beings has not been factually determined in a way that satisfies me, as of yet.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I linked to the author or the money study linked in the Guardian article so it was not WUWT but if you read his comment on the subject you see the Guardian article you posted to follow the money to show how much $$ the deniers get has little to no significance in the big picture ,just like the charts you use have no significance .

Just as Nick Lewis latest piece shows that the science is a mixture of proxy and bad math .

It appears that the claim in Abrams et al. that the diagnosed early onset – about 180 years ago in some regions – of industrial-era warming is of anthropogenic origin is based on inappropriate evidence that does not substantiate that claim, which is very likely incorrect. Most of the evidence given for the anthropogenic origin claim, which is entirely model-simulation based, ignores the industrial era increase in aerosol forcing, the dominant negative (cooling) anthropogenic forcing; the remaining evidence appears to be invalidated by a simulation discontinuity in 1850. The only evidence provided that includes even the post 1850 increase in anthropogenic aerosol forcing – half of the Figure 3a multi-model ensemble simulations – is affected by the simulations from 1850 on being started with the ocean significantly warmer than it was in 1849. Recovery from the heavy volcanism earlier in the century and an upswing in Atlantic multidecadal variability, superimposed on a slow trend of recovery in surface temperature from the LIA as the ocean interior warmed after the end of the particularly cold four hundred year period from AD 1400–1800, appears adequate to account for warming from the late 1830s to the final quarter of the 19th century. It is unlikely that anthropogenic forcing, estimated to be very low until the 1870s, played any part in warming before then. The heavy volcanism in the first four decades of the 19th century likely caused the warming onset dates diagnosed from the proxy data, at least, to be up to several decades earlier than they would have been in its absence. Ironically, should the study’s finding of anthropogenic warming starting as early as circa the 1830s be correct, it would imply that anthropogenic aerosol forcing is weaker than estimated in IPCC AR5, and therefore that observational estimates of climate sensitivity (both transient and equilibrium) based on AR5 forcing values need to be revised downwards. That is because total anthropogenic forcing would only have become positive enough to have had any measurable impact on temperatures in the 1830s if AR5 best estimates significantly overstate the strength of anthropogenic aerosol forcing. Nicholas Lewis

climateaudit.org...

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I linked to the author or the money study linked in the Guardian article so it was not WUWT but if you read his comment on the subject you see the Guardian article you posted to follow the money to show how much $$ the deniers get has little to no significance in the big picture ,just like the charts you use have no significance .

Just as Nick Lewis latest piece shows that the science is a mixture of proxy and bad math .

It appears that the claim in Abrams et al. that the diagnosed early onset – about 180 years ago in some regions – of industrial-era warming is of anthropogenic origin is based on inappropriate evidence that does not substantiate that claim, which is very likely incorrect. Most of the evidence given for the anthropogenic origin claim, which is entirely model-simulation based, ignores the industrial era increase in aerosol forcing, the dominant negative (cooling) anthropogenic forcing; the remaining evidence appears to be invalidated by a simulation discontinuity in 1850. The only evidence provided that includes even the post 1850 increase in anthropogenic aerosol forcing – half of the Figure 3a multi-model ensemble simulations – is affected by the simulations from 1850 on being started with the ocean significantly warmer than it was in 1849. Recovery from the heavy volcanism earlier in the century and an upswing in Atlantic multidecadal variability, superimposed on a slow trend of recovery in surface temperature from the LIA as the ocean interior warmed after the end of the particularly cold four hundred year period from AD 1400–1800, appears adequate to account for warming from the late 1830s to the final quarter of the 19th century. It is unlikely that anthropogenic forcing, estimated to be very low until the 1870s, played any part in warming before then. The heavy volcanism in the first four decades of the 19th century likely caused the warming onset dates diagnosed from the proxy data, at least, to be up to several decades earlier than they would have been in its absence. Ironically, should the study’s finding of anthropogenic warming starting as early as circa the 1830s be correct, it would imply that anthropogenic aerosol forcing is weaker than estimated in IPCC AR5, and therefore that observational estimates of climate sensitivity (both transient and equilibrium) based on AR5 forcing values need to be revised downwards. That is because total anthropogenic forcing would only have become positive enough to have had any measurable impact on temperatures in the 1830s if AR5 best estimates significantly overstate the strength of anthropogenic aerosol forcing. Nicholas Lewis

climateaudit.org...

You are racist!

Well , Mother Nature will sort it herself anyway .

She will just let the ice melt and flood most of the globe , killing off most of mankind and the animals .

And the record turns . And repeat .

a reply to: Edumakated

LOL :>)

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Nasa: Earth is warming at a pace 'unprecedented in 1,000 years'

The planet is warming at a pace not experienced within the past 1,000 years, at least, making it “very unlikely” that the world will stay within a crucial temperature limit agreed by nations just last year, according to Nasa’s top climate scientist.

This year has already seen scorching heat around the world, with the average global temperature peaking at 1.38C above levels experienced in the 19th century, perilously close to the 1.5C limit agreed in the landmark Paris climate accord. July was the warmest month since modern record keeping began in 1880, with each month since October 2015 setting a new high mark for heat.

But Nasa said that records of temperature that go back far further, taken via analysis of ice cores and sediments, suggest that the warming of recent decades is out of step with any period over the past millennium.

“In the last 30 years we’ve really moved into exceptional territory,” Gavin Schmidt, director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said. “It’s unprecedented in 1,000 years. There’s no period that has the trend seen in the 20th century in terms of the inclination (of temperatures).”

This is VERY serious news here. The Earth is warming at a rate unseen in over a millennium! Now let me stop anyone here who wants to point out that the Earth has been warmer in the past. This isn't ABOUT being warmer in the past. This is about the rate of change of the heat increase. In other words the derivative temperature increase is higher than it has been in the last 1000 years. Here is a graph of said derivative

You see how the blue part shoots up really high at towards the right of the graph? That's us. THAT'S the effect of man made climate change. YES climate changes naturally, BUT we adding onto the Earth's natural changing climate. THUS the derivative of heat exchange increases. For some reason people refuse to understand this. Do they not understand calculus?

Schmidt repeated his previous prediction that there is a 99% chance that 2016 will be the warmest year on record, with around 20% of the heat attributed to a strong El Niño climatic event. Last year is currently the warmest year on record, itself beating a landmark set in 2014.

“It’s the long-term trend we have to worry about though and there’s no evidence it’s going away and lots of reasons to think it’s here to stay,” Schmidt said. “There’s no pause or hiatus in temperature increase. People who think this is over are viewing the world through rose-tinted spectacles. This is a chronic problem for society for the next 100 years.”

I REALLY suggest you click on the link and scroll down to the middle of the article. You'll see a graph with a parabola that represents the temperature over a single year change over time from the early 1900's to the late 1900's. This will give you a good idea of how derivatives work and why Man Made Climate Change is so alarming.

Temperature reconstructions by Nasa, using work from its sister agency the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, found that the global temperature typically rose by between 4-7C over a period of 5,000 years as the world moved out of ice ages. The temperature rise clocked up over the past century is around 10 times faster than this previous rate of warming.

Again derivatives are higher than they've EVER been.

Lingering carbon dioxide already emitted from power generation, transport and agriculture is already likely to raise sea levels by around three feet by the end of the century, and potentially by 70 feet in the centuries to come. Increasing temperatures will shrink the polar ice caps, make large areas of the Middle East and North Africa unbearable to live in and accelerate what’s known as Earth’s “sixth mass extinction” of animal species.

PS: I put the word derivative in bold throughout the thread to stress that word since so many Climate Change deniers like to stress previous temperature levels and fail to look deeper into graph analysis.

Also, they have analyzed historical trends and contributions from natural causes, including sun cycles. There is a large part of the data that can only be explained by human causes.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Call me nuts,

You're nuts.

Where's the links to these graphs?

Oh and you are still ignoring my point about derivatives. Like your circled parts in the graphs, the derivative CURRENTLY is still higher than on those prior sharp rises. The steaper the graph goes, the higher the derivative is. So the derivative is HIGHER than it is has ever been.

Way to fail at graph interpretation.

Please peddle this doom porn somewhere else..."derivatives" or otherwise. I like how you end your OP with name calling and pretending that people who don't buy into this crap don't look deeper into graph analysis. It's a pathetic tactic, but one that we're all used to at this point. Sticks and stones...and all that jazz.

Thanks for your opinion. I'll continue to post this stuff in ATS. Freedom of speech and all. Posts like yours whining about me posting this stuff just reinforces that opinion. It's like you guys are scared of this information when I post it. Always whining that I'm posting about Climate Change.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Just ignored everything I said huh and continue with whatever you are talking about? I guess you can't refute that they never refuted denialists are receiving money for denying climate change either. Good to know.

Unfortunately, there's nothing more we can do. Earth is gone now and it's just a matter of time now to see how it'll respond to our destruction. Just get ready for the bad things that are going to happen with us in a few months/years.

Oh good another hockey stick graph chart. Global warming is a scam to fleece you of more of your money. Sure there is data to help the theory stay alive, but was it manipulated by scientists dependent on money from organizations lookibg for certain outcomes?

Pro--tip

There is jack $#@* you can do about it anyways.

a reply to: Denoli

YES!

After that, we'll be vanished from Earth and it'll be cold again!

a reply to: RustyNailer

Pro-tip: Kneejerk dismissing evidence presented to you because it doesn't confirm with your biases is the textbook example of embracing ignorance.

I'm pretty much a pessimist about this....there is too much money involved fighting this, along with the apathy of people that could facilitate change....I think we now have to look at the future as being an "adaptive period of change" and in the next few decades learn how to live with ever increasing fluctuations in climate. in the western part of the U.S., millions of acres of forests are dying off due to temperature increases, and lack of rainfall and snowpack accumulations.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And you failed to read what I was writing--my point was that these types of dramatic and steep-rise increases happen, and happen a LOT in history. Yes, we SEEM to be in a point in history where this is happening back-to-back without a break between, but I also used these graphs to point out that this, too, is not unprecedented, and it has happened before on a much more dramatic scale...all without the evil human being having a major global impact.

This is not a fail at graph interpretation, it is called intelligent interpretation of the bigger picture. Anyone can take a tiny slice of global atmospheric history (from the Antarctic) and selectively interpret climate in any way that they deem fit. The past 1.5 centuries doesn't mean jack squat in the grand scheme of things. Just because it plays to your (and others like you) paranoia and guilt about the human species is irrelevant to what I said, nor does it reflect negatively on MY interpretation of information (that, btw, is based on data gathered through ice-core samples, then replaced at the end by info measured in real time--as if that paints anything of an accurate picture between the two forms of data collection).

I guess that I'll just relegate myself to sitting here and refuting your freedom of speech with my own, watching you complain about my complaints about you, and then watching it happen all over again. Or maybe I'm just so scared that I'll stop commenting on these threads of yours so that I can keep a bit of my sanity. One of those two...but, yes, I'm really scared of you posting this, just like when I tell my 12-year-old to quite being annoying with repetitive nonsense--I must be scared of him, too.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

**frantically searching for my safe space!!!**

Oh, I forgot to use this word: Derivative. There, now I feel smarter...I was almost askeered AND smartless.

Best regards...yet another interaction without anything gained and all for naught.

ETA: Not to mention you feed this type of crap:

originally posted by: vinifalou
Unfortunately, there's nothing more we can do. Earth is gone now and it's just a matter of time now to see how it'll respond to our destruction. Just get ready for the bad things that are going to happen with us in a few months/years.

Give me a GD break.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think I'll just trust scientists that are smarter than both you and I instead of you just casually dismissing things because you can find some instances where the temperature got warmer in the past without carefully looking at the reasons why that happened (which those same scientists DO know what caused those increases or at least have good ideas). Your graph interpretation is common sense? PLEASE it's just standard denier fare because you don't want to look harder at what the scientists are saying. I like your shtick about my paranoia like that is fueling this. Hint: I'm not paranoid. In fact I'm one of the people most paranoid people on this site argue with on things.

Hell you don't even appear to know what a derivative is since you are using it so derisively. It's such a shame that people such as yourself dedicate so much effort to maintaining ignorance. I also don't give a # what you do in my thread. You are the one who started whining about me posting this here first. If you think I'm whining back to you instead of just having a discussion then you are a fool.

Still waiting for those links to those graphs you seemed to pull out of your ass btw.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: network dude
And what happened here?

How did those spikes happen? What events led to them? Also hugely important to know when looking at the BIG picture. I am not discounting anything you presented, but since you seem to be an authority on this matter, these questions are important to the overall future of our survival.

First off, those aren't temperature spikes. They are derivative spikes, and as you can see the current spike is MUCH higher than those spikes. However, those spikes are merely naturally occurring spikes. The current spike is a combination of naturally occurring and artificially occurring events.

If you were robbed and beaten up everyday for a week, and on the first 5 days of the week they only took $50 from you, but on the 6th day (payday) they took $500 from you, would you only say you were robbed one day?

It's YOUR FRIGGIN CHART so if you can't handle the discussion on it, you may not want to bring it here. In the areas I circled, the derivatives rose dramatically, perhaps not as much as the end point of your graph, but they rose quickly just the same. If you couple that with the FACT that we have been emerging from an ice age, I really don't see how you can disregard the rest of it, and just focus on the scary part at the end. That is ignorant. If you don't understand, you can just say that, but it's a valid question to ask what made those previous spikes. lets see if the integrity check comes out good.

originally posted by: network dude
In the areas I circled, the derivatives rose dramatically, perhaps not as much as the end point of your graph, but they rose quickly just the same.

THIS. THIS is what I'm talking about and you are just trying to casually hand wave it away without trying to explore why the derivative is higher this time. This is a fail at graph interpretation and makes you a lousy scientist. You see unlike you, who is content to not care, scientist DO care about why the end point is higher this time around than the previous times.

No one is denying that temperatures haven't risen before for the #ing thousandth time. Pointing that out is just insulting people's intelligence and shows you either don't know what you are talking about or don't care to learn.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The trouble is 1000 years is nothing... I was shown a graph once that went back through the entire history of earth, it was shown to me by a global warming believer... The last million years showed a cycle of warm periods and ice ages, it took roughly 100,000 years to complete a cycle. So just to be clear roughly 10 ice ages/warm periods the last million years.

The graph showed we're somewhere in the middle of the peak (a warm period)... So going by this it seems there won't be any significant change for another 20,000-30,000 years, at least.

On this kind of time scale what is 1000 years? Not much... I'll have to try and find this graph.

Edit: Okay so this isn't the exact graph but it should give you an idea of what I am talking about.

Graph

Do you see how a thousand years is not really anything to go by, when you look too closely things will be blown out of proportion.

a reply to: FamCore

Even if we all ended "factory farming" & ate nothing but plants, the net change in methane output will be zero.
Do you know why that is?
Think about it. Methane output is a byproduct of digestion, whether it be a mouse, an elephant, a bull or ... a human!
What do you think a fart is?

Eating meat is actually better for the environment. Animals take inedible plants (for humans) and turns it into food w/o pesticides and w/o herbicides. Meat, on average, is at least 20X more energy dense than plants - so it takes 20 trucks to ship the equivalent of plants (20X the fuel).
It doesn't stop there: The hydes of cattle used for leather are 100% natural, can last for decades for anything from furniture to clothing, and are 100% biodegradable. The same goes for fur, bones & many other parts of the animal.
But the whiners (who are completely clueless as the laws of nature) insist on fake everything (all petroleum based manmade fiber) - then complain about nanoparticles of plastic in the oceans as they drink their f'in bottled water (another topic entirely, but also anti-green).