Climate Change - The Roman Warm Period, MWP & LIA were global events proven by proxy data

"The Little Ice Age in South Africa, from around AD 1300 to 1800, and medieval warming, from before 1000 to around 1300, are shown to be distinctive features of the regional climate of the last millennium. The proxy climate record has been constituted from oxygen and carbon isotope and colour density data obtained from a well-dated stalagmite derived from Cold Air Cave in the Makapansgat Valley. The climate of the interior of South Africa was around 1°C cooler in the Little Ice Age and may have been over 3°C higher than at present during the extremes of the medieval warm period."

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Ice_Age_and_medieval_warming_in_South_Africa

Roman Warm Period

"This record comparison consistently shows the Roman as the warmest period of the last 2 kyr, about 2 °C warmer than average values for the late centuries for the Sicily and Western Mediterranean regions."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67281-2

Roman Warm Period was global

"After the 1st century ce there is evidence of a progressive rise in sea level. Roman buildings and peat layers were covered by the marine transgression in the Netherlands, southern England, and parts of the Mediterranean. At the same time, drying and warming trends were associated with alluviation of streams and general desiccation in southern Europe and North Africa. Similar alluviation occurred in the American Southwest. This warming and desiccation trend is evident also in the subtropics of the Southern Hemisphere. "

https://www.britannica.com/science/Holocene-Epoch/Classical-Roman-Period

We've had weather satellites for only 50 years. 2K years ago, they would have shown these were global events, even more extreme than the proxy record shows.

 

[volsrock1]

The Younger Dryas is considered the most well-understood and studied example of abrupt climate change

And man had nothing to do with it!!!!!!!!!

Younger Dryas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[evince]

But you guys hate science remember

And you hate history

And math

And democracy

So you can’t use any of it without looking like fucking idiots

 

[volsrock1]

But you guys hate science remember

u don't support science FACT that can be backed up

 

[evince]

So do u...u don't support science FACT

When have you ever accepted known science asshole?

 

[evince]

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

science.nasa.gov

Accept scientific fact asshole

 

[evince]

u don't support science FACT that can be backed up

One bought asshole is not a scientific consensus


Only a scientific consensus is scientific consensus

 

[evince]

u don't support science FACT that can be backed up

You look like a fucking idiot

 

[volsrock1]

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

science.nasa.gov

Accept scientific fact asshole

DNA science says Caitlyn Jenner and Rachel Levine is a man...u don't agree with that science

Cosmetic surgery does not change one’s basic biology.

Actual real science says male. His chromosomes says he's male. His bone structure says he's male. His DNA says he's male.


This is a man not a woman


Accept scientific fact asshole

 

[evince]

DNA science says Caitlyn Jenner is a man...u don't agree with that science

Accept scientific fact asshole

Link

 

[volsrock1]

Link

Link to what? you don't accept DNA science?​

Caitlyn Jenner agrees with the science he says he is not a real woman​

 

[moon]

So it wasn't freezing cold during the Ice Age...u know with Neanderthal thermometers not being all that accurate and we have to rely on paleoclimatology scientists to tell us it was very cold

Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening​

​

Not a bad try- so I'll help you out
Historic regional warming was not anthropogenic. Now it is.

 

[Lionfish]

You cannot convince mentally unsound leftists how stupid this argument is. They've been lied to and gaslighted for so long, they actually like it.

I mean, voting for Kamala is a sign of stupidity. But they are all in.

 

[BartenderElite]

We only have this one planet. Not sure why we're ignoring what's happening to it.

 

[serendipity]

Well let’s explain simple enough for even a flat earther as yourself might understand

The water is getting warmer due to climate change. Warmer water accelerates the formation, power, and intensity of hurricanes. Ergo, recent hurricanes have been worse and in greater frequency due to climate change, or did you think it was normal for the mountain communities of Appalachia to experience severe flooding

It is always the same, they find some obscure scientist or weatherman out in nowhere and echo their study or findings as game changers.

All part of an effort to create a false paradigm, and often if you look hard enough you’ll see their nobody scientist can often be traced back to some fossil fuel entity

Fucking idiot, you are always the same! The fact is though that there is no real evidence for an increase in hurricane activity,. Who says that, NOAA says that but what the fuck do they know? NASA, even the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agree. They all say that there’s been no increase in the big hurricanes going back to 1850, we know every single hurricane that’s made landfall since 1850, because they’re hard to miss. And land-falling hurricanes in the United States have been declining.

Similarly for Atlantic basin-wide hurricane frequency (after adjusting for changing observing capabilities over time), there is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity.

Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

Contents Summary Statement Global Warming and Atlantic Hurricanes Statistical relationships between SSTs and hurricanes Analysis of century-scale Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane frequency Analysis of other observed Atlantic hurricane metrics Model simulations of greenhouse warming...

www.gfdl.noaa.gov

 

[Nordberg]

So it wasn't freezing cold during the Ice Age...u know with Neanderthal thermometers not being all that accurate and we have to rely on paleoclimatology scientists to tell us it was very cold

Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening​

​

You mean a tiny proportion of climate scientists do not believe the data? https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ You accept far-out outsiders because it backs your right-wing preconceptions. As usual, you are wrong and twisting stats as Trumpys are prone to do. Actually, that is what you have to do to type the lies you do.

 

[moon]

Similarly for Atlantic basin-wide hurricane frequency (after adjusting for changing observing capabilities over time), there is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity.

Just pop down to Tampa, maggot- and straighten everybody out.

 

[archives]

and man had nothing to do with it

Not in Finland

 

[archives]

Fucking idiot, you are always the same! The fact is though that there is no real evidence for an increase in hurricane activity,. Who says that, NOAA says that but what the fuck do they know? NASA, even the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agree. They all say that there’s been no increase in the big hurricanes going back to 1850, we know every single hurricane that’s made landfall since 1850, because they’re hard to miss. And land-falling hurricanes in the United States have been declining.

Similarly for Atlantic basin-wide hurricane frequency (after adjusting for changing observing capabilities over time), there is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity.

Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

Contents Summary Statement Global Warming and Atlantic Hurricanes Statistical relationships between SSTs and hurricanes Analysis of century-scale Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane frequency Analysis of other observed Atlantic hurricane metrics Model simulations of greenhouse warming...

www.gfdl.noaa.gov

Really

“Based on a survey of existing studies global warming scenarios would be expected to lead to the following:”
* storm inundation levels will increase
* rainfall rates are projected to increase
* number of hurricanes reaching category 4 or 5 are projected to increase
* stronger winds are projected to increase
(https://sciencecouncil.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/1.1_SOS_Atlantic_Hurricanes_Climate.pdf)

“Scientists project that hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates will increase as the climate continues to warm”
(https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/effects/)

 

[volsrock1]

You mean a tiny proportion of climate scientists do not believe the data? https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ You accept far-out outsiders because it backs your right-wing preconceptions. As usual, you are wrong and twisting stats as Trumpys are prone to do. Actually, that is what you have to do to type the lies you do.

Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues​

The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.

So no sign of a 97% consensus. Not only do about half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue.

The Netherlands Environmental Agency recently published a survey of international climate experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, and 1868 responses were received, a similar sample and response rate to the AMS survey. In this case the questions referred only to the post-1950 period. 66% agreed with the IPCC that global warming has happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either don’t know or think human influence was not dominant. So again, no 97% consensus behind the IPCC.

Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues: op-ed

In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments, especially Canada’s, to fall in line with the global warming agenda and accept emission targets that could seriously harm our economy.

www.fraserinstitute.org

 

[volsrock1]

You mean a tiny proportion of climate scientists do not believe the data? https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ You accept far-out outsiders because it backs your right-wing preconceptions. As usual, you are wrong and twisting stats as Trumpys are prone to do. Actually, that is what you have to do to type the lies you do.

Celebrating 50 years of Failed Climate Predictions​

https://www.agweb.com/opinion/doomsday-addiction-celebrating-50-years-failed-climate-predictions

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute

Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and...

cei.org

scientists were wrong!!!!!​