• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Europe's summers are the warmest they've been in 2100 years

1) Each color is a named proxie. The thick black line is their average.

2) Recent proxies are unnamed, and have a higher resolution.

3) The older proxies are low resolution, so short term spikes are smoothed out. In 50 years, if we have cooling, the newer proxied smoothed to low resolution would no longer appear as they are now.

Please accept and understand the scientific facts. You need to be able to explain the graphs you find, and you obviously can not.

Simply being condescending does not one authoritative, it just makes them think they are.

No where in the graph does it imply that the resolution is less than 50 years. It looks closer to 300 years. From the description of the graph:

The main figure shows eight records of local temperature variability on multi-centennial scales throughout the course of the Holocene, and an average of these (thick dark line). The records are plotted with respect to the mid 20th century average temperatures, and the global average temperature in 2004 is indicated. The inset plot compares the most recent two millennium of the average to other high resolution reconstructions of this period.
At the far left of the main plot climate emerges from the last glacial period of the current ice age into the relative stability of the current interglacial. There is general scientific agreement that during the Holocene itself temperatures have been quite stable compared to the fluctuations during the preceding glacial period. The average curve above supports this belief. However, there is a slightly warmer period in the middle which might be identified with the proposed Holocene climatic optimum. The magnitude and nature of this warm event is disputed, and it may have been largely limited to summer months and/or high northern latitudes. [1]
Because of the limitations of data sampling, each curve in the main plot was smoothed (see methods below) and consequently, this figure can not resolve temperature fluctuations faster than approximately 300 years. Further, while 2004 appears warmer than any other time in the long-term average, an observation that might be a sign of global warming, it should also be noted that the 2004 measurement is from a single year (see Image:Short Instrumental Temperature Record.png for comparison to other years). It is impossible to know whether similarly large short-term temperature fluctuations may have occurred at other times but are unresolved by the resolution available in this figure. The next 150 years will determine whether the long-term average centered on the present appears anomalous with respect to this plot.

File:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art

As I stated earlier, anytime you have several different models or data sets, you take the average or median - particularly when you have data-sets that represent differing scales.

You made the implication that 2100 years ago was globally warmer than today, there are no studies to support such a contention.
 
Simply being condescending does not one authoritative, it just makes them think they are.

No where in the graph does it imply that the resolution is less than 50 years. It looks closer to 300 years. From the description of the graph:
this figure can not resolve temperature fluctuations faster than approximately 300 years

Yes, 300 years.

First, the "recent proxy," again, are thermometer measurements. The maker of the graph is lying. If the next 150 years decline, the 300 year resolution nullifies most of the peak.

You guys simply don't understand how all that works. That why recent thermometer readings cannot properly be spliced into proxy records.
 
You made the implication that 2100 years ago was globally warmer than today, there are no studies to support such a contention.

No, the thread title says today has become as warm as 2100 years ago in northern Europe, and your graph in post 44 agreed with that contention for more than northern Europe! Look at the thick black line above the 2000 PB point on the X axis compared to the far right.
 
Yes, 300 years.

First, the "recent proxy," again, are thermometer measurements. The maker of the graph is lying. If the next 150 years decline, the 300 year resolution nullifies most of the peak.

You guys simply don't understand how all that works. That why recent thermometer readings cannot properly be spliced into proxy records.

They can as long as you normalize data. Any IT guy does this with performance metrics all the time. As long as you normalize temperature records to the resolution of proxy reconstructions, you can graph them together.
 
They can as long as you normalize data. Any IT guy does this with performance metrics all the time. As long as you normalize temperature records to the resolution of proxy reconstructions, you can graph them together.

And what does that peak from the thermometer data become if the next 150 years swings colder? Is the peak the same? What if it becomes much colder? That data can become flat when then added to proxy data. We need the next 150 years to see.
 
And what does that peak from the thermometer data become if the next 150 years swings colder? Is the peak the same? What if it becomes much colder? That data can become flat when then added to proxy data. We need the next 150 years to see.

And that is pure speculation on your part. The fact is we know from alpine glaciers from across the globe that we are warmer today than in at least the last several thousand years.
 
And that is pure speculation on your part. The fact is we know from alpine glaciers from across the globe that we are warmer today than in at least the last several thousand years.
No, we don't know that as fact.
 
No, we don't know that as fact.

Actually we do. There have been numerous studies where plant matter revealed at the terminus of retreating alpine glaciers was carbon dated to determine the last time that glacier had retreated to that extent. Its a reliable measure as plant matter exposed by a retreating glacier does not even survive a single summer. For example, if plant matter at the terminus of Glacier A carbon dates to 4500 years ago, then we know that the location of Glacier A has a degree of warming not seen in 4500 years - otherwise that plant matter would have been exposed earlier and lost. Such studies have been conducted across the globe.
 
Actually we do. There have been numerous studies where plant matter revealed at the terminus of retreating alpine glaciers was carbon dated to determine the last time that glacier had retreated to that extent. Its a reliable measure as plant matter exposed by a retreating glacier does not even survive a single summer. For example, if plant matter at the terminus of Glacier A carbon dates to 4500 years ago, then we know that the location of Glacier A has a degree of warming not seen in 4500 years - otherwise that plant matter would have been exposed earlier and lost. Such studies have been conducted across the globe.
I see you don't understand what a glacier does when it flows.
 
I see you don't understand what a glacier does when it flows.

When a glacier grows in size, it tends to preserve organic matter at the expanding terminus. As a glacier recedes that preserved organic matter is exposed during the summer melt cycle at the terminus. You can carbon date that organic matter that is exposed during that summer melt cycle to determine when that glacier had last receded to its current extent.

For example, there is a glacier in the Beartooths Wilderness in Montana (I have been out on this one) that is called Grasshopper Glacier. It is called this because during the summer melt cycle you can find the carcasses of grasshoppers. These particular grasshoppers are from the 1820s, which indicates that the local climate went through an unusually cold spell then.

In the Andes, plants found at the terminus of high altitude glaciers carbon date to between 11,000 and 13,000 years ago, which indicates the climate there is warmer than it has been in that time.

A previous post in this thread linked to some research finding wood at the terminus of a glacier in Switzerland that carbon dated to about 4000 years ago which indicates the climate there has not been this warm for 4000 years (otherwise the wood would have been revealed much earlier and long lost to the elements).

This is Glaciology 101 here. The movement of a glacier has nothing to do with this.
 
When a glacier grows in size, it tends to preserve organic matter at the expanding terminus. As a glacier recedes that preserved organic matter is exposed during the summer melt cycle at the terminus. You can carbon date that organic matter that is exposed during that summer melt cycle to determine when that glacier had last receded to its current extent.
When a glacier flows, it scrapes the ground under it, moving anything on the surface. When it retreats, that organic matter is downstream from its original location except for deep roots.

For example, there is a glacier in the Beartooths Wilderness in Montana (I have been out on this one) that is called Grasshopper Glacier. It is called this because during the summer melt cycle you can find the carcasses of grasshoppers. These particular grasshoppers are from the 1820s, which indicates that the local climate went through an unusually cold spell then.
But they are found downstream of the location they were originally at.

In the Andes, plants found at the terminus of high altitude glaciers carbon date to between 11,000 and 13,000 years ago, which indicates the climate there is warmer than it has been in that time.
I'm not disagreeing with the dating. Only pointing out that the organic matter has moved.

A previous post in this thread linked to some research finding wood at the terminus of a glacier in Switzerland that carbon dated to about 4000 years ago which indicates the climate there has not been this warm for 4000 years (otherwise the wood would have been revealed much earlier and long lost to the elements).

This is Glaciology 101 here. The movement of a glacier has nothing to do with this.
If you say so...
 
When a glacier flows, it scrapes the ground under it, moving anything on the surface. When it retreats, that organic matter is downstream from its original location except for deep roots.


But they are found downstream of the location they were originally at.


I'm not disagreeing with the dating. Only pointing out that the organic matter has moved.


If you say so...
An interesting idea, I wonder if there would be any residual matter from the massive brush piles
that would have existed at the southern edge of the ice age ice shelves.
There would be Glacial striations where the glaciers had been, and none beyond that.
Think if all the trees in Ontario, were piled up and shoved into Ohio, even
many thousands of years later, it might leave signs.
 
When a glacier flows, it scrapes the ground under it, moving anything on the surface. When it retreats, that organic matter is downstream from its original location except for deep roots.


But they are found downstream of the location they were originally at.


I'm not disagreeing with the dating. Only pointing out that the organic matter has moved.


If you say so...

Glaciers certainly pick up rock and debris as the terminus as they move, but organic matter is every bit as likely to be held in suspension in the ice itself. Yes, it does move about some still, but that is largely irrelevant as to dating.
 
An interesting idea, I wonder if there would be any residual matter from the massive brush piles
that would have existed at the southern edge of the ice age ice shelves.
There would be Glacial striations where the glaciers had been, and none beyond that.
Think if all the trees in Ontario, were piled up and shoved into Ohio, even
many thousands of years later, it might leave signs.

There isn't anything like that, at least that I know of. However, there are small remnant ecosystems from the last ice age preserved in some karst environments, notably the Ozarks where some boreal plants are found in sinkholes where the climate is considerably cooler than the surrounding area.
 
Glaciers certainly pick up rock and debris as the terminus as they move, but organic matter is every bit as likely to be held in suspension in the ice itself. Yes, it does move about some still, but that is largely irrelevant as to dating.
Yes, it remains suspended. And glaciers flow. It is difficult to determine how far downstream this material gets deposited from it's original location.

Glaciers grow when snowfall exceeds flow and melting.

Flow-rate changes with upstream mass and geothermal heat changes.

Glaciers recede when past buildup is low, and slows the flow-rate. Temperature is also a factor, but no as much as flow-rate changes.

Other factors also change what a glacier does. The terminus is always melting and sublimating. The balance between flow, melting, and sublimation determines if the terminus advances or retreats. Precipitation can be hundreds or thousands of years old, and in such large systems, anyone understanding physics accepts that none of these past events affect the immediate years.
 
Yes, it remains suspended. And glaciers flow. It is difficult to determine how far downstream this material gets deposited from it's original location.

Glaciers grow when snowfall exceeds flow and melting.

Flow-rate changes with upstream mass and geothermal heat changes.

Glaciers recede when past buildup is low, and slows the flow-rate. Temperature is also a factor, but no as much as flow-rate changes.

Other factors also change what a glacier does. The terminus is always melting and sublimating. The balance between flow, melting, and sublimation determines if the terminus advances or retreats. Precipitation can be hundreds or thousands of years old, and in such large systems, anyone understanding physics accepts that none of these past events affect the immediate years.

This discussion just keeps getting broader.

Yes snowfall is of course very important in glacial formation and in whether its growing or receding, but temperatures are very important as well. For example, there are no glaciers in the Michigan UP despite the fact that some areas there get upwards of 360 inches of snow a year. The reason for this is summer temperatures are warm enough to put the area's annual mean temperatures around 40 degrees F which is too warm for glaciers to form. In contrast you can find glaciers at high altitudes in the Central Rockies in areas that get around 250 inches of snow on average a year, but remnant glaciers remain due to annual mean temperatures averaging in the upper 20s (very short summers). Temperature and to a less extent albedo (particularly particulate pollutants settling on the surface of snow) are the biggest drivers on whether a glacier is growing or receding and it has every bit to do with whatever the current climate is.
 
There isn't anything like that, at least that I know of. However, there are small remnant ecosystems from the last ice age preserved in some karst environments, notably the Ozarks where some boreal plants are found in sinkholes where the climate is considerably cooler than the surrounding area.
The internet is wonderful, I learn something new every day.
It looks like drumlin is close to what I am thinking about.
 
Forest fires are perfectly natural. Does that mean that man cannot cause a forest fire? Since they are perfectly natural, if man causes a forest fire is that a bad thing?

No, it's not. Apparently you missed BLM, FWS and others who do backfires all the time.
 
No, it's not. Apparently you missed BLM, FWS and others who do backfires all the time.

I think you missed the point. For someone to say that past climate change is natural thus man cannot cause climate change is like saying that since forest fires can be natural, man cannot cause a forest fire.
 
Back
Top Bottom