@Ionus,
Oh.. now you are just making stuff up, it seems.
Either that or your Alzheimer's is kicking in. I have never said there was ONLY one ice age. You can't find an instance of me saying it. But carry on with your fantasy world.
@farmerman,
I would like to add to what Gomer the Turd said by saying that the Glacial Advances and Retreats did not happen in Europe, Asia and North America at exactly the same time . As I do not know why this was so, I await his geo input...
@Ionus,
There isnt a great deal of difference to matter except for musuem and Phd theses , the purposes of which are to make great big deals out of relatively minor findings. Several European Ice advances centered on the Alps so when samples of remaining cores were analyzed, the time step difference between an Alpine and a huge continental sheet like in AMerica or Asia would have differences in time projected at distal ends. Ive never really given it much thought cause I dont do much work in continental ice deposits.
The actual tip-off mechanism (This is only a farmerman hypotheis) for the Quaternary Ice Age goes back to a major coincidental event called the Brunhes/MAtuyama MAgnetic Reversal. This event seems to coincide nicely with the start of the major Pleistocene Ice Age. Coincidence? I think not but theres really no evidence to connect them, and , as far as I know,we have no sunspot information from that time period
@farmerman,
Thanks, I was curious as to whether it might be a error of data or if there might actually be some weird climate reason .
@H2O MAN,
You do know he got filthy rich from Global Warming ? He can afford the odd fur coat made of Polar Bear...
@H2O MAN,
That has to be one o the grossest pictures ever posted on A2K, waterman.
@okie,
Since especially you, okie, always doubt weather station data - the Met Office has published all surface station data
>HERE<.
"
The data subset consists of a network of individual land stations that has been designated by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) for use in climate monitoring and other data that the Met Office has gained permission from the owners to make available. The data contain monthly average temperature values for more than 3,000 land stations."
I seriously ask you to look at what this means ...
designated by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) ... since, what I've tried to explain already years ago, there are certain specification for an official WHO surface weather station.
@okie,
I'm curious how you are not posting about the record warm/;hot temperatures in Oklahoma after you spent last winter posting how your average cold temperatures disproved global warming.
@parados,
News for you, Parados,It always gets hot in Oklahoma in the summer. Summers have always bbeen hot there. My uncle told me about my grandpa having his corn crops burn up every year. Grandpa was born in Illinois and thought he could raise corn in Okla. Wrong. I remember 113 degrees in the 50's and 60's,just as I remember us stoking the wood stove in sub zero weather in the winter. It is not my job to disprove global warming, and I do not think I have claimed to do so. it is the job of global warming fanatics to give us sound and reliable evidence to prove it. So far I do not believethey have done that. I think the earth might be warming a fraction of a degree,but it may be due to solar and other cycles just as likely as anything caused by man. There is no reason for any mass hysteria over it.
re okie:
To repeat, the sun is not doing it. The last solar cycle was lower than any cycle since 1910, and it coincided with the hottest years on record. CO2, by contrast, increased, and you're going to get a lot more effect if the cause of something has increased by around 35 percent than you would have decades earlier, when it had increased b y 2% or 5% or 10%. There is nothing evident in the atmospheric and temperature records which we have which cover the last 700,000 years or so, the last half dozen ice ages and interglacials, like what we're experiencing now. If you think there are other cycles, what are they, and why is there no evidence for their effect? Tain't there.
And Texas has smashed the temperature and drought records of the Dust Bowl years. I would assume OK has too. However hot it was in you granddad's day, it's hotter now.
@MontereyJack,
Mj, until I am convinced the modern pop science is more reliable than the weather I have observd and experienced, I am not niclined to buy into the global warming hysteria. It is your choice to do that. As a person that worked in a scientific field much of my life, I have seen too many trendy theories prove to be overblown, so I do not jump on every band wagon. I believe the best science is approached with a healthy skepticism, and it appears to me that there is plenty to be skeptical about the global warmers' case, starting with the accuracy of climate station data. The most basic foundation of any scientific study is the collection of very reliable and accurate data. See below as an example.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/ushcn-crn-qualityplot2-small.png?w=640
That map is useless. The legend is cryptic and your cite only produces the map, not any of Watts' "analysis" of it.
And I suggest that you go back and look at the primary sources for the analyses, rather than people like Anthony Watts, who has a number of axes he's grinding. Read the IPCC's TAR, which pretty accurately summarizes the research, read the original research, hell, start with wikipedia on urban heat islands (you've gotta measure temps in urban areas, after all, if you're going to research how they may differ from non-human-intensive areas, and meditate on how temps in open fields differ from temps on a plowed field, differ from temps in a field with growing crops, and differ from coniferous forests differ from deciduous forests--EVERY PLACE IS DIFFERENT). And then read some of the original research the article is based on. Remember the data sets are almost infinitely separable and searchable, and when you compare satellite temp data to radiosonde data, to sea surface data to ARGOS deep sea data, to rural land temp stations, to urban undeveloped stations (parks, airports in the scrubland away from the tarmac, etc), to urbanized sites--downtowns, parking lots (makes a difference if it's asphalt versus concrete, new versus several year old asphalt, which is much more the same albedo as the surrounding earth), and no matter which dataset you select, they all show similar rising trend lines. Urban temp stations are frankly just a red herring.
I suggest you look at what the people who actually do the research all say, okie:
Quote: The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.
Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.
“For the first time, and in a single compelling comparison, the analysis brings together multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “The records come from many institutions worldwide. They use data collected from diverse sources, including satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys. These independently produced lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: our planet is warming,”
Ten Indicators of a Warming World.
High resolution (Credit: NOAA)
The report emphasizes that human society has developed for thousands of years under one climatic state, and now a new set of climatic conditions are taking shape. These conditions are consistently warmer, and some areas are likely to see more extreme events like severe drought, torrential rain and violent storms.
“Despite the variability caused by short-term changes, the analysis conducted for this report illustrates why we are so confident the world is warming,” said Peter Stott, Ph.D., contributor to the report and head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution of the United Kingdom Met Office Hadley Centre. “When we look at air temperature and other indicators of climate, we see highs and lows in the data from year to year because of natural variability. Understanding climate change requires looking at the longer-term record. When we follow decade-to-decade trends using multiple data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world.”
While year-to-year changes in temperature often reflect natural climatic variations such as El Niño/La Niña events, changes in average temperature from decade-to-decade reveal long-term trends such as global warming. Each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the decade before. At the time, the 1980s was the hottest decade on record. In the 1990s, every year was warmer than the average of the previous decade. The 2000s were warmer still.
“The temperature increase of one degree Fahrenheit over the past 50 years may seem small, but it has already altered our planet,” said Deke Arndt, co-editor of the report and chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. “Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are more common. And, as the new report tells us, there is now evidence that over 90 percent of warming over the past 50 years has gone into our ocean.”
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
Notice the point that converging lines of evidence from many different disciplines measuring different things in different ways all come to a common conclusion.It's not just coming from one scientific discipline using one kind of measurement, and when many different lines of evidence all point in the same direction, the conclusion is much more robust, and this one is approaching the proverbial 800-pound gorilla in robustness.
Anthony Watts is another television weatherman-entertainer getting out well beyond his depth.
@MontereyJack,
Go ahead and ride the pop science band wagon,MJ, but I will stick with a more sensible, measured, and common sense view. I am in Colorado right now and the feeling of fall is in the air, same as it always feels about now.
@okie,
okie wrote: I am in Colorado right now and the feeling of fall is in the air, same as it always feels about now.
That's certainly a convincing, more sensible, measured, and common sense view than looking at data etc.
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
I suggest you look at what the people who actually do the research all say, okie:
Quote: The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable.
We already know it's warming. The planet has been warming and cooling along a purely natural cycle for over 600,000 years. And since we're near the peak of that cycle there is every reason to expect that the warming trend will soon (geologically soon) come to an end and we'll once again slip back into a long period of glaciation.
If we're really lucky, human activity will overwhelm the natural processes controlling the cycle and we'll only have to deal with a 13 foot rise in sea levels and the problems of warming, rather than a new glaciation. But that's if we're lucky. The most likely outcome is that the natural cycles will vastly overwhelm all human activity like a Redwood falling on an ant, and the planet will simply continue to do what it's been doing, as though we weren't even here.
Yes, Milankovich cycles, cyclical variations in the earth's orbit, changing its relationship to the sun. And the calculation of those variations puts the end of this interglacial at greater than 10,000 years in the future, which is a bit far in the future to worry about when the evidence is that we've been changing the climate more than the natural long-period cyclic variation for the last century or so and that change is accelerating as we continue to change the atmosphere. CO2 is already a third greater than any of the cyclic variation in CO2 due to ice ages over the last 600K years, and CO2 is unquestionably a greenhouse gas. Sorry, but cyclic variation doesn't work as an explanation.
@okie,
Quote:I think the earth might be warming a fraction of a degree,
Have you changed you mind since last winter?
