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.

 

[Nordberg]

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

Since 1980, the number of 3 plus hurricanes hitting US has doubled. That is not science. It is math. You count them.

 

[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.

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's a consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't a consensus. Period. The greatest scientists in the world are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." (Michael Crichton, biological anthropologist, "Science" writer and author)

Consensus Science and the Peer Review

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[volsrock1]

Since 1980, the number of 3 plus hurricanes hitting US has doubled. That is not science. It is math. You count them.

‘There’s Been No Increase’: Scientists Debunk Climate Change Claims About Hurricanes​

“The “Rest of the Story”: According to NOAA, “There has been no significant trend in annual numbers of U.S. landfalling tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes.”

‘There’s Been No Increase’: Scientists Debunk Climate Change Claims About Hurricanes

“The “Rest of the Story”: According to NOAA, “There has been no significant trend in annual numbers of U.S. landfalling tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes.” NOTE: this article was originally published to TheEpochTimes.com on March 12, 2024. It was written by Karen...

www.pitchstonewaters.com

Hurricane numbers are decreasing in every ocean basin except for one, study finds​

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/weather/tropical-cyclone-frequency-21st-century-climate/index.html

 

[archives]

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

Right:

“The Institute has received donations of hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations controlled by Charles and David Koch. It also receives funding from ExxonMobil “

“When it comes to science, the Fraser Institute does not support the consensus of science through the publication of false or misleading stories”

Fraser Institute - Bias and Credibility

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Fraser Institute - SourceWatch

www.sourcewatch.org

As I said, obscure contrarian people or entity often funded by fossil fuel interests to create a false paradigm

Got any legitimate sources?

 

[Nordberg]

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's a consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't a consensus. Period. The greatest scientists in the world are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." (Michael Crichton, biological anthropologist, "Science" writer and author)

Consensus Science and the Peer Review

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The greatest scientists develop new ideas. That is what global warming is. It is like continental drift. Once it was proffered as a real idea, it got bandwagon effects and a huge percentage of scientists saw the light and jumped aboard. It fit the data and explained a lot we did not quite grasp. Global warming fits it, and you can predict from it.

 

[Bigdog]

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

Come on down to Tampa .

Is "Tampa" some kind of global event?

 

[Bigdog]

Getting tougher and tougher for the flat earthers to sell their climate denial bullshit, now we got a warmer Mediterranean back two thousand years ago

NEXT

According to an unbiased, neutral site like Britannica it was a global event. You can't just discard scientific evidence because it does not fit your political authoritarian scare tactics.

 

[Bigdog]

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

Satellite data tacked on to proxy data violates scientific method.

Sea level rose at the rate of 4 ft. per century for 10,000 years. Warming is not catastrophic. The Earth survived just fine.

 

[Bigdog]

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

Because there is zero evidence that warming is catastrophic for the planet.

You White Libs are just buying up beachfront property, driving up inflation to increase the cost of living, turning food crops into fuel and waging class warfare against the poor.

 

[moon]

Life in the Roman Warm Period

 

[Bigdog]

Today’s turn of an ignoramus throwing out a purported science study to other ignoramuses. The difference is the other ignoramuses don’t fake it.

No, you've just never seen neutral unbiased sources like ... Nature, Britannica, and Researchgate.

 

[BartenderElite]

Because there is zero evidence that warming is catastrophic for the planet.

You White Libs are just buying up beachfront property, driving up inflation to increase the cost of living, turning food crops into fuel and waging class warfare against the poor.

There is ample evidence - not just for warming being devastating, but for how human activity is changing our environment.

To say there is "zero evidence" is just something that someone says. It's not consistent with reality.

 

[Bigdog]

There is ample evidence - not just for warming being devastating, but for how human activity is changing our environment.

To say there is "zero evidence" is just something that someone says. It's not consistent with reality.

Ample, eh?

Please provide 3 examples of warming being catastrophic for the planet.

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

 

[BartenderElite]

Ample, eh?

Please provide 3 examples of warming being catastrophic for the planet.

Coral reefs, shoreline, mass extinctions.

Anything else?

 

[Bigdog]

Coral reefs, shoreline, mass extinctions.

Anything else?

The current "mass extinction" began 80,000 years ago starting with the megafauna.

Shorelines move ALL the time and so do coral reefs. The sea level was 400 ft. lower 20k years ago. The Australian reef has grown in recent years.

Other than being in its 3rd Icehouse, the "planet" is fine. The ocean pH is 8.1.

 

[BartenderElite]

The current "mass extinction" began 80,000 years ago starting with the megafauna.

Shorelines move ALL the time and so do coral reefs. The sea level was 400 ft. lower 20k years ago. The Australian reef has grown in recent years.

I could list 100 factors, and you'd reply w/ the same lazy counter-arguments. It's why I don't usually respond when someone says "list 3 things" or "list 5 things."

I doubt you even looked anything up, or have even studied anything about this.

 

[Bigdog]

I could list 100 factors, and you'd reply w/ the same lazy counter-arguments. It's why I don't usually respond when someone says "list 3 things" or "list 5 things."

I doubt you even looked anything up, or have even studied anything about this.

Your "big 3" were easily debunked with science facts that you didn't know.

I know far more about the environment and nature than you do.

 

[BartenderElite]

Your "big 3" were easily debunked with science facts that you didn't know.

I know far more about the environment and nature than you do.

Wow. Both of those sentences are wrong.

 

[Bigdog]

Wow. Both of those sentences are wrong.

Except YOU didn't know that these are all scientific facts ...

The current "mass extinction" began 80,000 years ago starting with the megafauna.

Shorelines move ALL the time and so do coral reefs. The sea level was 400 ft. lower 20k years ago. The Australian reef has grown in recent years.

Other than being in its 3rd Icehouse, the "planet" is fine. And the ocean pH is 8.1.

 

[BartenderElite]

Except YOU didn't know that these are all scientific facts ...

The current "mass extinction" began 80,000 years ago starting with the megafauna.

Shorelines move ALL the time and so do coral reefs. The sea level was 400 ft. lower 20k years ago. The Australian reef has grown in recent years.

Other than being in its 3rd Icehouse, the "planet" is fine. And the ocean pH is 8.1.

How much has the mass extinction accelerated in the last century?

How much more shoreline has disappeared just in the past 30 years?

The planet is NOT fine. Sorry 'bout that.

You post observations that lack context, and thus are woefully wrong.