So, it was this hot in the 1800’s? Or is that when the record keeping began?
I agree, but don’t you realize that it happens all the time to make the case for global warming? You get one bad hurricane season, a “super storm,” a couple years of drought in one region, a hot summer somewhere, and the movement points to those individually as evidence of global warming. Basically, the flipside of what the original post in this thread is.
For example, many people claimed that the Katrina and Rita hurricane season was evidence of global warming. But then there were no big hurricanes for many years in a row after that, but the absence was never cited as evidence against global warming, and anyone who tried to would have been attacked like the original post in this thread.
If some region had three years of higher heat and low rainfall, would that be a piece of evidence in favor of global warming? But if that same region had average or below average temperatures and ample rainfall the next five years, would anyone say that could be a piece of evidence against global warming?
I’m just talking about the asymmetry in the methodology and argument here. This obviously isn’t the place to argue the underlying issue. Do you at least see where I’m coming from? You shouldn’t be able to have it both ways.
that is when record keeping began. sorry if that was confusing.
Chris, I completely understand what you are saying. When you say many people used Katrina and Rita as evidence of global climate change, may I ask whom you are referring to? The scientists that I know and/or know of who study this specifically stated that a specific storm cannot be linked to global climate change.
IDONKNOW but here’s an opinion (one of many) ;
I have no dog in the fight. But something always made me wonder…
They have done tree ring analysis in Mesa Verde National Park. You can google it. They determined that sometime around 1280AD ish a “great drought” occurred and some think it may be the reason why the cliff houses were abandoned. I remember touring the park and seeing a cross cut of old timber. There was a 30 year period of very little ring growth, so lack of water. When people discuss climate change, I wonder what the ancients would have thought while living through those 30 years.
here’s another:
Just in a 60 second Google search:
https://www.tni.org/es/node/11589
You are right that many others caution against attributing single events and short-term weather conditions to climate change, so I don’t mean to imply that this is the uniform view.
Anyway, climate issues are astronomically complicated, and this isn’t the place to hash it all out, but I was just responding to the original post and the reactions to it in terms of methodology and approach. Thanks for sharing your perspectives, Pat.
The recording instruments (thermometers) has also changed a lot since 1800’s. And very important, the number of sites, where official measuring takes place. Very few in 1800’s, and many, many more today. Not easy to compare.
The 70 % water surface on the globe, is extremely difficult to measure. especially when the depths holds both very cold, and fairly varm “giant transport systems”. Science is just starting to understand these mechanisms.
The sun (the main radiator) is also a field, with little knowledge still.
Many natural factors can influence the climate.
One thing is sure, that the earth is a highly dynamic environment, has always been, and will continue to be.
Many blame people as the main culprits, while others see natural causes, not yet fully explored. (We still don’t know everything.)
-Soren.
I also got a link.
From Climategate 2009, where all the historic thermal readings, were manipulated by the very top guys. (Michael Mann et al, - all later fired.)
The Telegraph :
Billions of dollars rolling, in the fear of near apocalypse.
-Soren.
Holy crap! I am shocked at the comments in this thread. Denying science is simply embracing ignorance.
I guess some folks here must be anti-vaccination as well. Sigh.
No, that is absolutely not how it works. Your entire premise is wrong.
And to paraphrase a quote I heard:
Don’t confuse your Google search with my degree in science.
Science is not based on Google searches, or who comes up with the most or best links. The ignorance about science among Americans is astounding and concerning.
I think We need more science, and knowledge.
As Chris said, “-climate issues are astronomically complicated.”
To sit back and say the Humans do it all, is denying science and progress IMO.
Well, that certainly convinces me. ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
And I didn’t claim Google searches are science. Pat asked if any scientists had claimed individual weather events like hurricanes were evidence of global warming, and I just showed some articles confirming that yes, many of them had. I didn’t offer some Google results as proof of what views are right or wrong about the global warming issue itself. I’m not sure my ignorance is as astounding and concerning as you want to believe.
So, to paraphrase your point- you do agree that temperatures are rising, but are not certain whether humans cause this or not, and whether this is a unique occurrence, if it may reverse itself at some point in time
Where’s a Jehovah’s witness when you need one? 
![[rofl.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/a/a7452fcd8e675af869f8da01174474a545b03944.gif "rofl"){kind=small}
And this is why there is a place called “Cali-for-nee-yah”.
Traditionally, skepticism and challenging accepted views were not considered bad things in the realm of science. Many things considered certain in science were discovered later to have been incorrect. Including past science about ice ages, the world running out of oil by the 1980s, and so forth.
Then again, hard science has not traditionally been proven by “consensus of most experts” or by using predictive models as the evidence before, either. That was how you argued your side in fields like economics and sociology, but not hard sciences. I never read in my chemistry textbooks that it was a consensus of most chemists that water molecules have two hydrogen and one oxygen atom.
As a matter of strategy, I’m not sure that constantly saying “this is 100% certain objective science and anyone who questions it is stupid or has nefarious motives” has really worked that well for the global warming movement. Sure, you can get more people than not to say they agree with it in a poll, but it hasn’t galvanized actual policy to any great degree. I wonder if a different approach would work better. But then, that’s how politics (on both sides) tends to go these days. My side is right and has good intentions, and your side is wrong and has bad intentions, nobody’s differing views on a subject are ever considered earnest or legitimate anymore. Thus, nothing positive really gets done in politics anymore.
I’m open to learning more about how humans affect the environment, and finding ways that make sense to modify our behavior where the benefit outweighs the detriments. And I try to be a reasonable conscientious citizen - I purchased solar panels for my house, we drive fairly fuel efficient vehicles, I compost and recycle, I donate to certain environmental charities. But I’ll admit to getting turned off by being told that uncertain predictions and opinions about something as enormously complex as global climate going decades and centuries into the future are 100% certain science and that I’m a bad person for viewing them critically, so I haven’t really been on board. I do understand and respect that many bright folks have been persuaded in one way or the other; I’ll probably join them at some point.
I am sipping some Pinot Noir, it’s awesome. 1998 Vostok.
Worth the search.