Nobody denies the world has natural climate variations. Everyone knows about the Ice Ages and the world did warm out of that period, naturally. The argument from the left may be how did we warm out of the Ice Ages? To a person on the right they may say the world naturally warmed during that period, to a person on the left… we’ll your going to have to ask them that question.
Far leftist alarmist like ‘Dr.’ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez whom last year was a bartender, and just a year later she is the leading expert on climate to the left. Her expertise and studies into the climate have concluded that we have just 12 years to doom.
87°F just south of the Arctic Circle in Finland today.
Folks, you may think that this is not normal and you'd be right https://t.co/sTBnAfa0AN
— Eric Holthaus (@EricHolthaus) June 7, 2019
Shockingly most of the data they use only goes back 60 years, yes just 60 years. How we can fairly predict weather on climate. The fact is that a few decades of data says nothing about what the normal variation over ten thousand or one hundred thousand years is hence what is normal and what is not.
There’s no data back beyond 30 to 60 years. Scientists are guessing or making a what they call a ‘scientific estimate’. It’s mambo jumbo because there’s a lot of money in research on climate change.
The leftist argument that a 60 year average proves the world is warming by man. But using a small period than say using 1,000 year average is misleading . A 60 year average will have greater variability than a 1,000 year average because there is less data, what has caused the changes is even a greater hurdle to conclude, but the left does not want yo to ask these questions.
You say it’s based on ice core samples, tree rings, coral reefs, and other proxy measurements but how do those work to generate believable information? How can an ice core, for example, tell you the temperature of the earth a thousand years ago?
Yes climate has always changed, but continuous and reliable temperature observations in have only started until recently, so what is normal can only be assumed.
Antarctic [South Polar Regions] are cooling down, while in the Arctic [North Polar Regions] the temperature is rising.
About 1,000 year ago, the Vikings settled in Greenland and Newfoundland [Canada]. They did not call it Greenland for nothing. Back then the climate was mild as in warmer and it had nothing to do with man made climates, they kept cattle and sheep on Greenland. It is not possible to do this today, such animals would simply die from the cold, even with the warming that is going on, today the winter are still very harsh, compared.
The Vikings actually called Newfoundland “Vineland” because wild grapes grew their in great abundance. This does not happen today.
A Few Things Ill Considered: Vineland Was Full of Grapes Newfoundland was so warm in the Medieval Warm Period that when the Vikings landed they called it Vineland and brought boatloads of grapes back to Europe.
We are currently in another upswing in the solar cycle, which started about 1750, and which will probably rise about another 0.5-1 degree C over the next few hundred years. Current T to the 21st century is entirely in line with this solar cyle trend. C02 is irrelevant to this cycle,it has been traced 600 times over the last 1 million years in ice cores, and is a result of an overlap between the 87 and 210 year solar cycles.
It is well documented, world wide, and climatologists have conveniently forgotten about it.
Greenland was settled by Vikings during the last solar warming period, which is also why they traveled so far in general during this time period-the northern world was warm.
There are also several diaries from southern Germany monks traveling from Freybourg to Rome over the Alps. These diaries are up to 1200 years old an describe in detail the travels. Some of the oldest diaries does not even show the word “snow” or “ice” in the diaries.
Why? Because there was no snow in the Alps at that time-span!?
2 Civilizations (The Anasazi & The Mayans) both died out during the Middle Ages-both due to extended drought which was believed to be caused by a regionally warming climate, -as did the Khmer Empire-though several hundred years apart. Again a strong suggestion it was a natural occurrence and was not caused by man, as the left would claim today.
In other words, there is little to nothing man can do to reverse global warming. All of the hysterical predictions of melting ice caps, flooding coastal cities, drought, etc., is going to happen no matter what you do.
The preponderance of evidence we have strongly suggests regional warming at various periods of time over several centuries that also coincided with regional cooling. Some areas warmed and others cooled. The area with best data for a localized, regional, warm period is in Europe. This period was also punctuated with brief colder periods where glaciers in the Alps underwent significant advancement. It was a complex climatic period.
Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a “stable” climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.
Over 31,000 scientists signing a petition stating “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere.
There were Periods warmer than current conditions, natural warming and cooling period. This leads is to one very simple conclusion, climate change is not unusual, and hence must be natural and was not man-made then, so the question is, why do leftist think the climate is all the sudden man-made today?