Are left wingers right when they say in billions of years of world history there was no global warming before the 18th century A.D.?
46-50
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Patriot96 · 56-60, C
In at least one of their studies the experts left out warm periods prior to 1800s in their calculations.
John Robson has done the excellent research
John Robson has done the excellent research
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@Patriot96 Wrong--warm periods are not left out of rigorous climate studies. John Robson is not a climate scientist, is not a knowledgeable source, and has not done "excellent research". He has a Ph. D. in American History and no background in climate science. He should stick to his area of expertise and let the climate experts do the necessary research in their area of expertise.
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@Patriot96 John Robson is paid by the fossil fuel industry, who have a vested interest with predetermined outcomes. Get smart. You don't go to your baker for car repair, or to your auto mechanic for knee surgery. Don't go to historians with no science background for scientific evaluation.
Patriot96 · 56-60, C
@windinhishair ill bet you believe 97% OF scientists believe in man made global warming
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@Patriot96 Not 97% of scientists, because there are many scientists who don't work on climate issues, but there is global consensus among climate scientists that global climate change is caused largely by man. Right-wingers love to lump in people like Robson who have no science background as if their uninformed opinion is valuable.
Patriot96 · 56-60, C
@windinhishair ahh there is that word CONSENSUS. True science is not consensus.
A few points for your consideration.
Temperatures were not recorded prior to about 1850. Even then the accuracy is dubious.
Tree ring records are not accurate because of different climates.
World wide temps are were not available. There was no temp records in Antarctica until about 1957. There were no records in S. America, there were no maps of S. America until the 1950s. Likewise for Africa and many SE asian areas.
Lets take for instance Chicago. Originally temps were taken in the downtown area subject to Lake effect. Then in the 1950s they began taking OFFICIAL temps a Midway airport. Less lake effect. A concrete jungle.
Now they take the official readings at OHare AP. Several miles away from Lake Michigan. A concrete heat source. The concrete heats and gives off erroneous reading throught the night. It is not CO2.
Some of thebtemp data is supposedly accurate to two decimal points. Really, do you believe a thermometer from 1850 was that accurate.
Some common sense please
A few points for your consideration.
Temperatures were not recorded prior to about 1850. Even then the accuracy is dubious.
Tree ring records are not accurate because of different climates.
World wide temps are were not available. There was no temp records in Antarctica until about 1957. There were no records in S. America, there were no maps of S. America until the 1950s. Likewise for Africa and many SE asian areas.
Lets take for instance Chicago. Originally temps were taken in the downtown area subject to Lake effect. Then in the 1950s they began taking OFFICIAL temps a Midway airport. Less lake effect. A concrete jungle.
Now they take the official readings at OHare AP. Several miles away from Lake Michigan. A concrete heat source. The concrete heats and gives off erroneous reading throught the night. It is not CO2.
Some of thebtemp data is supposedly accurate to two decimal points. Really, do you believe a thermometer from 1850 was that accurate.
Some common sense please
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@Patriot96 CONSENSUS refers to the fact that man-made climate change is real. Scientists will always continue to investigate questions with respect to global climate change. Like to what extent will methane in northern regions be released in northern areas? Why has a disproportionate amount of the warming gone into the upper portion of the oceans? Those are areas where questions still remain, and there are others, but the overall fact of global climate change is globally accepted.
There are many ways to estimate temperatures, so the lack of direct measurement 150 years ago is not a significant issue, nor does it invalidate the current warming and other global climate change impacts we are now seeing.
Official measuring stations move all the time. Some of these are impacted by the urban heat island effect. But when considering thousands of measuring stations around the world, moving a couple of stations is not significant, particularly when it is the CHANGE at these stations which is significant.
I tried to watch Mr. Robson's most recent (2017) documentary, and it was largely unwatchable. He is trying to make the point that climate changes in the geologic past invalidate current global climate change. What he as an historian with no scientific background fails to grasp is that the earth was highly different then. The further back you go, the more days there were in a year on earth. Oxygen and nitrogen concentrations were significantly different. The continents were larger, or smaller, and in different places. Oceans differed significantly and were less salty the further back you go. Of course climates during those periods were different than what we have today. It would be shocking if they were similar.
In addition to his failure to grasp simple climate concepts, he fails to grasp the fact that one of the primary issues with global climate change is the RATE of change. Climate change has occurred in the past, but has generally occurred relatively slowly. Climate models have predicted change correlated with increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, and those changes are happening.
You should read the most recent IPCC reports produced by actual scientists. You can go into as much detail as you want to, and you might actually learn something. Watching bullshit produced by Robson, an historian, will just fill your head with......well, bullshit.
There are many ways to estimate temperatures, so the lack of direct measurement 150 years ago is not a significant issue, nor does it invalidate the current warming and other global climate change impacts we are now seeing.
Official measuring stations move all the time. Some of these are impacted by the urban heat island effect. But when considering thousands of measuring stations around the world, moving a couple of stations is not significant, particularly when it is the CHANGE at these stations which is significant.
I tried to watch Mr. Robson's most recent (2017) documentary, and it was largely unwatchable. He is trying to make the point that climate changes in the geologic past invalidate current global climate change. What he as an historian with no scientific background fails to grasp is that the earth was highly different then. The further back you go, the more days there were in a year on earth. Oxygen and nitrogen concentrations were significantly different. The continents were larger, or smaller, and in different places. Oceans differed significantly and were less salty the further back you go. Of course climates during those periods were different than what we have today. It would be shocking if they were similar.
In addition to his failure to grasp simple climate concepts, he fails to grasp the fact that one of the primary issues with global climate change is the RATE of change. Climate change has occurred in the past, but has generally occurred relatively slowly. Climate models have predicted change correlated with increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, and those changes are happening.
You should read the most recent IPCC reports produced by actual scientists. You can go into as much detail as you want to, and you might actually learn something. Watching bullshit produced by Robson, an historian, will just fill your head with......well, bullshit.