6 ms·

Is anyone aware if there is reliable data prior to say 1880? [1] Is there any possibility that large scale climate trends could be outside of the observed wind

Is anyone aware if there is reliable data prior to say 1880? [1] Is there any possibility that large scale climate trends could be outside of the observed window of time available? For instance, some large scale natural state-shifting appears to occur on the order of hundreds of years (reference is about earthquakes, but maybe relevant?) [2]. Based on everything I've heard/read/etc about this, it seems unlikely that humans are not impacting climate, but I get concerned I'm hearing lots of motivated agendas about it rather than facts. [1] https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land/ytd/12/1880-2015 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land/... [2] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 11y ago
> but I get concerned I'm hearing lots of motivated agendas about it rather than facts. What motivation does anyone have to predict disaster?
- TearsInTheRain 11y ago
  power? Almost every issue has at least one of the parties predicting disaster
- ekianjo 11y ago
  Distract people from real issues and extract taxes, is usually how people use disaster predictions.
  - moultano 11y ago
    The people making these predictions do not have the power to extract taxes. The people who do have the power to extract taxes (Congress) are ignoring the predictions.
    - ekianjo 11y ago
      The people making those predictions are PAID by the government.
      - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        And? Are you trying to make a case for conflict of interest? Because, time and time again, it's a pretty weak one(unless you want to invoke some global conspiracy involving carbon credits).
    - brc 11y ago
      With respect, that simply is not true at all. People (activists and their politicians) are continually using the constant threat of disaster to try and gain power. Witness how many times have we heard a politician say 'we have (insert timeframe here) to save the planet'? The fact that the U.S. Congress has only done a little bit of tax and power extraction on the issue ignores the fact that most of the rest of the developed countries have extracted huge amounts of taxation by throwing around planetary doom. Personally I am thousands of dollars worse off from the application of this power, and my (enforced) sacrifices have not done anything at all to change the planets temperature.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        The activists and politicians are irrelevant to this particular question. You have to look at the origin of the information, which is the climate scientists who gather this data and make predictions. What's their motivation to make dire predictions? Sure, anyone with the slightest political awareness can see why politicians are motivated this way, but that doesn't matter to the question of "what is actually happening?" If you want to tell me that the climate change threat is made up, you need to tell me why all these climate scientists are either consistently wrong, or conspiring to hide the truth.
- jupiter90000 11y ago
  Here you go [1]. If you don't want to read the whole thing, a relevant part: "News media is tightly entwined with the attention economy. Newspapers try to capture people’s attentions through headlines. TV and radio stations try to entice people to not change the channel. And, indeed, there is a long history of news media leveraging fear to grab attention, often with a reputational cost." [1] http://www.poynter.org/2012/fear-undermines-an-informed-citizenry-as-media-struggles-with-attention-economy/192509/ http://www.poynter.org/2012/fear-undermines-an-informed-citi...
  - DasIch 11y ago
    This argument ignores the overwhelming scientific evidence. There is no one who deserves to be taken seriously arguing that climate change doesn't exist or isn't caused by humans.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      This really should not be downvoted. It's absolutely true. Yes, there are good reasons politicians and news organizations would want to peddle fear. But in this particular case, the origin of the fear is the work of thousands of smart people who have made it their life's work to study this stuff, and they almost all come up with the same answers over and over and over again. The media wants to scare us? Sure. Politicians? No doubt. But tell me why (and how!) all these climate scientists would want to predict disaster when there isn't any.
      - midwest1 11y ago
        I used to evaluate the work of scientists for the US government. You would be surprised at the rampant amount of fraud in science. To answer your last question, job security. Many other reasons... adulation, professional competition. Generally the types who go into environmental science are true believers to begin with. In rare cases, there is some money to be made by whoring yourself out.
        mikeash 11y ago
scarmig 11y ago
"Reliable" is obviously a spectrum, and nothing beats a thermometer. However, there are multiple independent reconstructions of temperatures over the past 2000 years using a variety of proxy sources, from rings in trees to coral growth to bores in Antarctic ice [0]. They provide sufficient evidence that the IPCC thinks it's "likely" (a technical term) that temperatures are higher than anytime in the past thousand years. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperatur...
- jupiter90000 11y ago
  Thanks, I'll read up on some of the citations listed on that page, looks like a great resource for the information I was looking for.
sebringj 11y ago
I actually just posted about this -> http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-interme... the co2 lag in the ice core records indicates temperature rise prior to co2 emissions but 90% of the temperature rise then occurs AFTER co2 levels rise so its both natural cycles AND co2 where co2 is the more significant culprit. I was in your camp but got out.
- jupiter90000 11y ago
  Awesome, thanks! I'm going to check this out.
brc 11y ago
Yes, the central England temperature series (CET). Now run by the met office, it goes back to 1659. There is no scientific doubt about the roman and medieval warm periods being as warm or warmer than today. The anthropological evidence of this is abundant, and it shows up in most proxies as well. The most likely case is that the natural variations swamp whatever changes humans make. Based on evidence, it's unlikely that co2 is a major driver of climate, but more of a minor player that has a ceiling on how much effect it can make.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  Amply and persistently debunked. See e.g. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/seven-answers-to-c...
  - brc 11y ago
    Which part? Are you saying the roman or medieval warm periods dont exist?
    - orf 11y ago
      The "It was warm 1000 years ago, so climate change is a lie" bit. Choice quote from the link: > "Even if the world were incontrovertibly warmer 1,000 years ago, it would not change the fact that the recent rapid rise in CO2 explains the current episode of warming more credibly than any natural factor does—and that no natural factor seems poised to offset further warming in the years ahead."
      - brc 11y ago
        I didn't write any of that. You have inserted words into my argument and then gone on to debate something I didn't say. There is no scientific argument about the fact that the roman and medieval periods were as warm or warmer than today, because there is a lot of evidence. Even the linked article acknowledged this fact.
snowwrestler 11y ago
This is a good time to remind folks that the theory of anthropogenic warming doesn't rest on historical climate reconstructions. Past climate helps us understand the implications but without those reconstructions we would still have a clear and strongly supported theory.
mikeash 11y ago
There are plenty of motivated agendas on both sides, for sure. But if you strip that away by going back as close to the original sources as you can, to the scientists who gather the data and do the grunt work and make the best predictions they can, you'll find they overwhelmingly lead to one conclusion: the planet is warming and human activity is the major cause. If you try to trace back the "skeptic" positions, it just sort of peters out. You'll find some articles and a little bit of data, but there's little rigor or corroboration.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 11y ago

> but I get concerned I'm hearing lots of motivated agendas about it rather than facts. What motivation does anyone have to predict disaster?

TearsInTheRain 11y ago
power? Almost every issue has at least one of the parties predicting disaster
ekianjo 11y ago
Distract people from real issues and extract taxes, is usually how people use disaster predictions.
- moultano 11y ago
  The people making these predictions do not have the power to extract taxes. The people who do have the power to extract taxes (Congress) are ignoring the predictions.
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    The people making those predictions are PAID by the government.
    - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
      And? Are you trying to make a case for conflict of interest? Because, time and time again, it's a pretty weak one(unless you want to invoke some global conspiracy involving carbon credits).
  - brc 11y ago
    With respect, that simply is not true at all. People (activists and their politicians) are continually using the constant threat of disaster to try and gain power. Witness how many times have we heard a politician say 'we have (insert timeframe here) to save the planet'? The fact that the U.S. Congress has only done a little bit of tax and power extraction on the issue ignores the fact that most of the rest of the developed countries have extracted huge amounts of taxation by throwing around planetary doom. Personally I am thousands of dollars worse off from the application of this power, and my (enforced) sacrifices have not done anything at all to change the planets temperature.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      The activists and politicians are irrelevant to this particular question. You have to look at the origin of the information, which is the climate scientists who gather this data and make predictions. What's their motivation to make dire predictions? Sure, anyone with the slightest political awareness can see why politicians are motivated this way, but that doesn't matter to the question of "what is actually happening?" If you want to tell me that the climate change threat is made up, you need to tell me why all these climate scientists are either consistently wrong, or conspiring to hide the truth.
jupiter90000 11y ago
Here you go [1]. If you don't want to read the whole thing, a relevant part: "News media is tightly entwined with the attention economy. Newspapers try to capture people’s attentions through headlines. TV and radio stations try to entice people to not change the channel. And, indeed, there is a long history of news media leveraging fear to grab attention, often with a reputational cost." [1] http://www.poynter.org/2012/fear-undermines-an-informed-citizenry-as-media-struggles-with-attention-economy/192509/ http://www.poynter.org/2012/fear-undermines-an-informed-citi...
- DasIch 11y ago
  This argument ignores the overwhelming scientific evidence. There is no one who deserves to be taken seriously arguing that climate change doesn't exist or isn't caused by humans.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    This really should not be downvoted. It's absolutely true. Yes, there are good reasons politicians and news organizations would want to peddle fear. But in this particular case, the origin of the fear is the work of thousands of smart people who have made it their life's work to study this stuff, and they almost all come up with the same answers over and over and over again. The media wants to scare us? Sure. Politicians? No doubt. But tell me why (and how!) all these climate scientists would want to predict disaster when there isn't any.
    - midwest1 11y ago
      I used to evaluate the work of scientists for the US government. You would be surprised at the rampant amount of fraud in science. To answer your last question, job security. Many other reasons... adulation, professional competition. Generally the types who go into environmental science are true believers to begin with. In rare cases, there is some money to be made by whoring yourself out.
      - mikeash 11y ago

scarmig 11y ago

"Reliable" is obviously a spectrum, and nothing beats a thermometer. However, there are multiple independent reconstructions of temperatures over the past 2000 years using a variety of proxy sources, from rings in trees to coral growth to bores in Antarctic ice [0]. They provide sufficient evidence that the IPCC thinks it's "likely" (a technical term) that temperatures are higher than anytime in the past thousand years. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperatur...

jupiter90000 11y ago
Thanks, I'll read up on some of the citations listed on that page, looks like a great resource for the information I was looking for.

sebringj 11y ago

I actually just posted about this -> http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-interme... the co2 lag in the ice core records indicates temperature rise prior to co2 emissions but 90% of the temperature rise then occurs AFTER co2 levels rise so its both natural cycles AND co2 where co2 is the more significant culprit. I was in your camp but got out.

jupiter90000 11y ago
Awesome, thanks! I'm going to check this out.

brc 11y ago

Yes, the central England temperature series (CET). Now run by the met office, it goes back to 1659. There is no scientific doubt about the roman and medieval warm periods being as warm or warmer than today. The anthropological evidence of this is abundant, and it shows up in most proxies as well. The most likely case is that the natural variations swamp whatever changes humans make. Based on evidence, it's unlikely that co2 is a major driver of climate, but more of a minor player that has a ceiling on how much effect it can make.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
Amply and persistently debunked. See e.g. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/seven-answers-to-c...
- brc 11y ago
  Which part? Are you saying the roman or medieval warm periods dont exist?
  - orf 11y ago
    The "It was warm 1000 years ago, so climate change is a lie" bit. Choice quote from the link: > "Even if the world were incontrovertibly warmer 1,000 years ago, it would not change the fact that the recent rapid rise in CO2 explains the current episode of warming more credibly than any natural factor does—and that no natural factor seems poised to offset further warming in the years ahead."
    - brc 11y ago
      I didn't write any of that. You have inserted words into my argument and then gone on to debate something I didn't say. There is no scientific argument about the fact that the roman and medieval periods were as warm or warmer than today, because there is a lot of evidence. Even the linked article acknowledged this fact.

snowwrestler 11y ago

This is a good time to remind folks that the theory of anthropogenic warming doesn't rest on historical climate reconstructions. Past climate helps us understand the implications but without those reconstructions we would still have a clear and strongly supported theory.

mikeash 11y ago

There are plenty of motivated agendas on both sides, for sure. But if you strip that away by going back as close to the original sources as you can, to the scientists who gather the data and do the grunt work and make the best predictions they can, you'll find they overwhelmingly lead to one conclusion: the planet is warming and human activity is the major cause. If you try to trace back the "skeptic" positions, it just sort of peters out. You'll find some articles and a little bit of data, but there's little rigor or corroboration.