Extreme weather

[Alan Klein]

Just google and you will know. Here's one result: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

Here's a graph from that article.  What I find interesting is that there were sudden jumps in temperature in the Antarctic and Greenland around 12,000 years ago, long before the industrial age.  What accounted for that?  Could other natural changes be happening recently that account for the relatively minor blips of rise recently?  What accounts for all the other changes throughout geologic history?  Are there any coincidental changes happening now that are being ascribed to CO2 that are actually caused for other reasons or in addition to CO2 (undersea volcanoes, sun spots, other?)?

[faberryman]

Here's a graph from that article.  What I find interesting is that there were sudden jumps in temperature in the Antarctic and Greenland around 12,000 years ago, long before the industrial age.  What accounted for that?  Could other natural changes be happening recently that account for the relatively minor blips of rise recently?  What accounts for all the other changes throughout geologic history?  Are there any coincidental changes happening now that are being ascribed to CO2 that are actually caused for other reasons or in addition to CO2 (undersea volcanoes, sun spots, other?)?

You asked so many questions there it reminds me of the narrator at the end of a Batman episode right before he asks you to tune in tomorrow nigh to find out.

[Alan Klein]

You asked so many questions there it reminds me of the narrator at the end of a Batman episode right before he asks you to tune in tomorrow nigh to find out.

Well if you don't have the answers, why don't you step aside and let others.  Of course, my question raises doubt about the efficacy of warming due to CO2.  So naturally you make fun of the questions. 

[TechTalk]

The peer reviewer then has the option of either being scientifically honest, or failing to mention the "ifs, buts, and doubts", as Professor Schneider explained.

Peer review was not the object of Dr. Stephen H. Schneider's remarks or criticism and you're well aware of that fact. It does fit a well worn pattern of attempting to undermine the credibility of respected scientists by casting doubt and uncertainty on the honesty and integrity of their work, methods, findings, and process. Your characterization and statement are, to be charitable, misleading at best and some might find it downright dishonest.

Dr. Schneider's remarks, which you knowingly misapply to peer review, were directed at how complex science is discussed in popular media. To quote Dr. Schneider again: "I decried soundbite science and journalism by pointing out that nobody gets enough time in the media either to cover all the caveats in depth, (i.e., "being honest") or to present all the plausible threats (i.e., "being effective")."

I suggested to you earlier that endlessly repeating the same quote completely out of context does you no good service. And I will advise again, this type of tactic generally harms the practitioner more than the target in the long run.

[hogloff]

Curious?  Does anyone know how the polar bears survived the last warming period before the last Ice Age? If they did it once, maybe multiple times as there were many warming periods and Ice Ages,  why shouldn't they survive the current warming? After all, they're very smart, adaptable, and I'm sure they haven't eaten seal only throughout their histories.  Maybe they'll move south and eat berries, salmon, and people.

Forget about polar bears...can humans adapt and survive. It is estimated that climate change will result in a migration of over 140,000,000 people by 2050 from Africa, SEA and Latin America. With countries building walls to keep migrants out...how well do you think humans will fare.

[faberryman]

Well if you don't have the answers, why don't you step aside and let others.  Of course, my question raises doubt about the efficacy of warming due to CO2.  So naturally you make fun of the questions.

Just the number of them. Look, you don't believe scientists or other experts. Supposedly they are all lying. And it is apparently too much trouble to try to look the answers up yourself.  I don't know why you think you are going to get any definitive answers to these kind of questions on a photography forum. Its not like your are asking if you like Canon or Nikon best.

[Alan Klein]

Just the number of them. Look, you don't believe scientists or other experts. Supposedly they are all lying. And it is apparently too much trouble to try to look the answers up yourself.  I don't know why you think you are going to get any definitive answers to these kind of questions on a photography forum. Its not like your are asking if you like Canon or Nikon best.

I asked a very simple question.  What accounts for the rapid raising of temperatures higher than they are now but 12,000 years ago?  That was long before humans added to the rapid rising of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the industrial revolution of 200 years ago.

[faberryman]

I asked a very simple question.  What accounts for the rapid raising of temperatures higher than they are now but 12,000 years ago?  That was long before humans added to the rapid rising of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the industrial revolution of 200 years ago.

So you believe the information shown in the chart is true and accurate, and not subject to any doubt. I have to ask why.

[Alan Klein]

So you believe the information shown in the chart is true and accurate, and not subject to any doubt. I have to ask why.

I'll flip that question on you.  Why don't you trust this scientific study but accept others?  If you refuse to accept this one, then you ought to reject all others as questionable as well. 

In any case, my question does not refute your studies.  It raises a specific question about why temperatures went up before the industrial revolution.  It doesn;t question whether CO2 contributes to rising temperatures due to the greenhouse effect.  If there's another reason for the rise 12000 years ago, I'd like to know. 

[faberryman]

I'll flip that question on you.  Why don't you trust this scientific study but accept others?  If you refuse to accept this one, then you ought to reject all others as questionable as well.

Of course you will flip the question. It is your MO around here. You never answer a direct question. I guess that is so no one can ever say you are wrong.

In any case, my question does not refute your studies.

What studies would those be? I don't recall ever doing any climate studies. I am certainly not qualified to do any. I just look stuff up on the internet. Who knows if any of it is true. Except of course the link I gave you that proves the dinosaurs are fake. That's true.

It raises a specific question about why temperatures went up before the industrial revolution.

I don't know that they did. How did you determine that temperatures went up before the industrial revolution? Oops, a direct question.

It doesn;t question whether CO2 contributes to rising temperatures due to the greenhouse effect.

Yeah, that's a whole separate question, unless of course the answer to why the temperature went up is that CO2 contributes to rising temperatures due to the greenhouse effect.

If there's another reason for the rise 12000 years ago, I'd like to know.

I guess we all would. But first things first; I don't know that the temperatures went up 12,000 years ago. Last time I checked (which was just now) the thermometer wasn't even invented until 1714.

I have already ask you why you believe the temperature went up 12,000 years ago. You flipped the question, so it is obvious you don't have any idea either.

Epistemology is kind of tricky sometimes.

[Alan Klein]

Of course you will flip the question. It is your MO around here. You never answer a direct question. I guess that is so no one can ever say you are wrong.
 

What studies would those be? I don't recall ever doing any climate studies. I am certainly not qualified to do any.

I don't know that they did. How did you determine that temperatures went up before the industrial revolution? Oops, a direct question.

Yeah, that's a whole separate question, unless of course the answer to why the temperature went up is that CO2 contributes to rising temperatures due to the greenhouse effect.

I guess we all would. But first things first; I don't know that temperatures went up 12,000 years ago. Last time I checked (which was just now) the thermometer wasn't even invented until 1714.

I have already ask you why you believe the temperature went up 12,000 years ago. You flipped the question, so it is obvious you don't have any idea either.

I'm assuming the chart is accurate.  Stop playing word games and answer the question.  Why did temps go up 12000 years ago suddenly. 

[faberryman]

I'm assuming the chart is accurate.

Why? You don't believe anything else the experts tell you. Why is this chart any different? Oops, another direct question.

Stop playing word games and answer the question.  Why did temps go up 12000 years ago suddenly.

I told you. I don't have any idea why the temperature went up, if it really did. I am sure there are competing theories. Ray seems to like the ocean floor volcano theory. Bart thinks that's bollocks and has a video explaining why. Just pick one that sounds good to you. We'll probably never know for certain anyway. I take that back. Ask Trump. He aced that cognitive ability assessment, so if anyone knows, it will be him.

I am much more interested in polar bears anyway.

[Alan Klein]

Why? You don't believe anything else the experts tell you. Why is this chart any different? Oops, another direct question.

I told you. I don't have any idea why the temperature went up, if it really did. I am sure there are competing theories. Ray seems to like the ocean floor volcano theory. Bart thinks that's bollocks and has a video explaining why. Just pick one that sounds good to you. We'll probably never know for certain. I take that back. Ask Trump. He aced that cognitive ability assessment, so if anyone knows, it will be him.

I am much more interested in polar bears anyway.

Maybe someone else can provide a coherent, non-gaming playing response.  If temps can go up 12000 years ago for non-human reasons, couldn't the same cause be happening again? No response is require from you, Frank. Take the afternoon off. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Maybe someone else can provide a coherent, non-gaming playing response.  If temps can go up 12000 years ago for non-human reasons, couldn't the same cause be happening again? No response is require from you, Frank. Take the afternoon off.

Climate Change -- isn't it natural?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

In general, temperatures are influenced by:
1. Insolation
2. Greenhouse gasses
3. Particulates and aerosols
4. Amplification

I haven't checked your specific 12000 year ago situation, that would take time I do not have right now.

[hogloff]

I asked a very simple question.  What accounts for the rapid raising of temperatures higher than they are now but 12,000 years ago?  That was long before humans added to the rapid rising of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the industrial revolution of 200 years ago.

Looking at a localized climate does not give you the big picture...it gives you a localized microclimate that can be affected by many different conditions like the ocean currents. If you would look deeper into the entire earths climate over the last 20,000 years, you'd see the temperature change at a very slow rate right until the 19th century when the temperature started to climb at a rate never before and has been accelerating that climb. I'm more personally interested in how the entire earth's temperature is rising, not some isolated region.

[Alan Klein]

Looking at a localized climate does not give you the big picture...it gives you a localized microclimate that can be affected by many different conditions like the ocean currents. If you would look deeper into the entire earths climate over the last 20,000 years, you'd see the temperature change at a very slow rate right until the 19th century when the temperature started to climb at a rate never before and has been accelerating that climb. I'm more personally interested in how the entire earth's temperature is rising, not some isolated region.

The change I noticed in the above chart shows the temperature being 8 degrees lower than current  20,000 years ago.  In then goes up 8 degrees over about 8000 years and then stay relatively steady at 0 for the last 12000 years.  Why?

Prior to 20,000 years ago, there were 13 degree swings from -8 to +5 above the nominal 0 every 100,000 years?  What caused those swings?   How did the polar bear survive +5 rises above the nominal 0 degrees?

[faberryman]

The change I noticed in the above chart shows the temperature being 8 degrees lower than current  20,000 years ago.  In then goes up 8 degrees over about 8000 years and then stay relatively steady at 0 for the last 12000 years.  Why?

Prior to 20,000 years ago, there were 13 degree swings from -8 to +5 above the nominal 0 every 100,000 years?  What caused those swings?   How did the polar bear survive +5 rises above the nominal 0 degrees?

What is the margin of error for the temperatures in your chart?

[Alan Klein]

What is the margin of error for the temperatures in your chart?

Direct combination of these interpreted geological temperature records is not necessarily valid, nor is their combination with other more recent temperature records, which may use different definitions. Nevertheless, an overall perspective is useful even when imprecise. In this view time is plotted backwards from the present, taken as 2015 CE. It is scaled linear in five separate segments, expanding by about an order of magnitude at each vertical break. Temperatures in the left-hand panel are very approximate, and best viewed as a qualitative indication only.[9] Further information is given on the graph description page.
Data
Panel 1: 540 to 65 million years ago
The panel 1 data is from stable oxygen isotope measurements from the shells of macroscopic marine organisms, collected by Veizer et al (1999),[1] as re-interpreted by Royer et al (2004).[2] The graph effectively reproduces the upper panel of Royer et al's figure 4, but with an expanded range (see below). The orange band shows the effect of extreme assumptions in application of the GEOCARB reconstruction to interpretation, and is not representative of the full uncertainly (which would be much larger).

Because the Royer and Veizer results are indicative of the temperature of the shallow tropical and subtropical seas where the organisms lived,[2] they are unlikely to be fully representative of global average surface air temperature variation. The anomalies are plotted here expanded by a factor of two, as a very approximate conversion. Multiple confounding factors affect interpretation of samples this old, so panel 1 is best viewed as a qualitative indication of temperature (warmer/colder).[3]

Panel 2: 65 to 5.3 million years ago
This data is from the Hansen et al (2013)[4] interpretation of the global collection of oxygen isotope data from microscopic marine organisms of Zachos et al (2008).[5]

This is a direct estimate of global average sea surface temperature, a close analogue of surface air temperature. Hansen et al describe it as a "first estimate", meaning an approximate one, but limited independent corroboration (e.g. Zachos et al (2006)[6] for the Eocene optimum) indicates that it is substantially more quantitative than panel 1.

Panel 3: 5.3 to 1 million years ago
This data is from the Lisiecki and Raymo (2005)[7][8] global stack of oxygen isotope data from microscopic marine organisms interpreted using the Hansen et al (2013)[4] prescription.

At this scale, the Zachos et al stack (which also covers this interval) is virtually indistinguishable from the Lisiecki and Raymo stack. This is a direct estimate of global average sea surface temperature.

Panel 4: 1 million to 20,000 years ago
Two datasets are plotted:

Lisiecki and Raymo, as in panel 3.
Temperature estimates from stable hydrogen isotope measurements from the EPICA Dome C ice core from central Antarctica[9] These temperature anomaly estimates are polar, not global, and are here divided by a standard polar amplification factor (2.0, as for example in Hansen et al (2013)[4]) to approximately convert them to global estimates.
Panel 5: 20,000 years ago to present (2015)
Five datasets are plotted:

EPICA Dome C, as in panel 4.
Temperature estimates from oxygen isotope measurements on the north Greenland ice core, NGRIP,[10] interpreted using the simple procedure of Johnsen et al (1989).[11] (There are more modern and complex procedures which would yield slightly different interpretations.) Like the EPICA Dome C record, this record is polar, and is shown divided by a polar amplification factor of 2.0. The difference between this and dataset 1. illustrates the polar sea-saw hypothesis.
Global temperature estimates over the ~12,000 years of the Holocene from the multi-proxy collection and interpretation of Marcott et al (2013).[12]
Instrumental (not proxy) data since 1850 from the Berkeley Earth project land-ocean dataset (2014),[13] plotted as decadal means.
Projected temperatures for 2050 and 2100 from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report's WG1 Summary for Policy Makers (2013)[14] for the RCP8.5 scenario.
See section at bottom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png#Summary
from the original link that shows this and other charts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

[hogloff]

The change I noticed in the above chart shows the temperature being 8 degrees lower than current  20,000 years ago.  In then goes up 8 degrees over about 8000 years and then stay relatively steady at 0 for the last 12000 years.  Why?

Prior to 20,000 years ago, there were 13 degree swings from -8 to +5 above the nominal 0 every 100,000 years?  What caused those swings?   How did the polar bear survive +5 rises above the nominal 0 degrees?

Again...its a localized climate which is heavily influence by the ocean currents. Maybe the currents changed bringing warm currents to Greenland for a few hundred years, then changed and those warm currents did not reach Greenland. Please look at the entire earth's temperatures and you'll see the drastic increase in temperature the last 100 years, especially the last 20 years has not occurred before.

As far as Polar bears...who knows how they survived. Maybe the rest of the Artctic stayed cold. I'm much more concerned about how humans will adapt. Where will 140,000,000 million migrants go?

[Alan Klein]

Apparently my "joke" about brown bears and polar nears switching identifties wasn't far off the mark.  It also shows how polar bears survived warming and will survive any curent changes as well.  You have to give a lot of credit to Darwin.

Here's an interesting study.: https://news.ucsc.edu/2013/03/polar-bear-genomics.html
"At the end of the last ice age, a population of polar bears was stranded by the receding ice on a few islands in southeastern Alaska. Male brown bears swam across to the islands from the Alaskan mainland and mated with female polar bears, eventually transforming the polar bear population into brown bears."
"In areas such as western Hudson Bay and the Russian coast, polar bears are spending more time on land in response to climate warming and loss of sea ice, a behavior that could have left polar bears stranded on the ABC Islands at the end of the last ice age."
"Two studies published in 2012 sought to determine when the polar bear lineage diverged from the brown bear lineage using nuclear DNA data. The first, published in April in Science, put the split at 600,000 years ago and concluded that polar bears carry brown bear mitochondrial DNA due to past hybridizations. The second, published in July in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggested that brown bears, black bears, and polar bears diverged around 4 to 5 million years ago, followed by repeated episodes of hybridization between polar bears and brown bears."

This indicates to me that polar bears survived warm periods and all the hypo about them becoming extinct is just trying to scare people to change their attitudes about climate change.