Warm periods in the 20th century are not unprecedented during the last 2,000 years

cancel2 2022

Canceled
Naturally our very own barrack room lawyer McAwful will tell us that we couldn't possibly comment on this as it's far too complex for anyone but a climatologist not even a rocket scientist. Indeed, to use the pompous prick's own words, it is beyond the ken of laity.


acde409372e4f42ad92305b51199569e.jpg


A great deal of evidence relating to ancient climate variation is preserved in proxy data such as tree rings, lake sediments, ice cores, stalagmites, corals and historical documents, and these sources carry great significance in evaluating the 20th-century warming in the context of the last two millennia.

Prof. Quansheng Ge and his group from the Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, collected a large number of proxies and reconstructed a 2000-year temperature series in China with a 10-year resolution, enabling them to quantitatively reveal the characteristics of temperature change in China over a common era.

“We found four warm epochs,” says Prof. Ge, “which were AD 1 to AD 200, AD 550 to AD 760, AD 950 to AD 1300, and the 20th century.

“Cold periods occurred between AD 210 and AD 350, AD 420 and AD 530, AD 780 and AD 940, and AD 1320 and AD 1900. The temperature amplitude between the warmest and coldest decades was 1.3°C.”

Prof. Ge’s team found that the most rapid warming in China occurred over AD 1870-2000, at a rate of 0.56 ± 0.42°C (100 yr)?1; however, temperatures recorded in the 20th century may not be unprecedented in the last 2000 years, as reconstruction showed records for the period from 981 to 1100, and again from 1201 to 1270, were comparable to those of the present warm period, but with an uncertainty of ±0.28°C to ±0.42°C at the 95% confidence interval.

Since 1000 CE—the period covering the Medieval Climate Anomaly, Little Ice Age, and the present warm period—temperature variations over China have typically been in phase with those of the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.

Prof. Ge’s team also detected some interactions between temperature variation and precipitation change. The ensemble means of dryness/wetness spatial patterns in eastern China across all Centennial warm periods illustrate a tripole pattern: dry south of 25°N; wet from 25°-30°N; and dry to the north of 30°N.

For all cold periods, the ensemble mean drought/flood spatial patterns showed an east to west distribution, with flooding east of 115°E and drought dominant west of 115°E, with the exception of flooding between approximately110°E and 105°E.

The general characteristics of the impacts of climatic change historically were negative in the cold periods and positive in the warm periods. For example, 25 of the 31 most prosperous periods in Imperial China during the past 2,000 years occurred during periods of warmth or warming.

A cooling trend at the centennial scale and social economic decline run hand-in-hand. The rapid development supported by better resources and a better environment in warm periods could lead to an increase in social vulnerability when the climate turns once more to being relatively colder.

The study is published in Advances in Atmospheric Sciences.

http://principia-scientific.org/war...not-unprecedented-during-the-last-2000-years/[
 
Last edited:
lol...

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...zombie-climate-sceptic-theories-newspapers-tv

Then there's The Australian newspaper which earlier this month concocted a story of a fake debate between scientists about a coming ice age.

The newspaper quoted a Russian physicist who is a member of Principia Scientific International – a group of contrarian scientists led by a man who claims CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.

Advertisement

A 2011 study of opinion columns appearing in The Australian found that climate change contrarians outnumbered four-to-one those authors calling for firm action to reduce fossil fuel emissions.

In the US, the Union of Concerned Scientists has looked at climate change coverage in the Wall Street Journal and on Fox News over a six-month period. In the case of Fox, UCS classified 37 out of 40 segments as "misleading" on climate change science. In almost a year of Wall Street Journal articles, just nine out of 48 articles were deemed to accurately reflect the state of the science.

Then there is the near omnipresence of free market conservative think-tanks – funded variously through secretive channels or the largesse of fossil fuel
 

Another dopey prat that can't even be bothered to discover that this is a peer reviewed paper published in Advances in Atmospheric Sciences! What is even funnier is he uses the Guardian, which has no credibility on climate whatsoever, to announce yet again the findings of the arch charlatan John Cook, founder of the execrable and crazily named website Skeptical Science.

Here is a link to the PDF.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-017-6238-8
 
Last edited:
Are you borrowing real science obtained from real climate scientists who do real climate science to forward your false narrative again?

Argument by selective observation. Next.

Maybe you should provide your new information to the 97 % who know you are a sack of ignorant shit instead of pajama bloggers of a obscure message board. You might nudge it down to 96% of real climate scientists published in august peer reviewed journals who KNOW that AGW is real, worsening and dangerous to humanity.
 
lol, Principia Scientific:

http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/website.htm

Take a look at this chart, from your Chinese guy's study. What does it tell you? What's that big line going up on the right?

6xrToUh.jpg

So when did I ever say that there hadn't been any warming fuckwit? I say, and so does the Chinese study, that there have been several periods of warming over the last 2000 years. I suspect there is some racism here as you're implying that the Chinese are incapable of writing a believable climate related paper, am I right? Ate you making a okay for the title of biggest climate moron on JPP, currently held by McAwful?
 
Are you borrowing real science obtained from real climate scientists who do real climate science to forward your false narrative again?

Argument by selective observation. Next.

Maybe you should provide your new information to the 97 % who know you are a sack of ignorant shit instead of pajama bloggers of a obscure message board. You might nudge it down to 96% of real climate scientists published in august peer reviewed journals who KNOW that AGW is real, worsening and dangerous to humanity.

Are you going to post your skeptical science site as proof again PackD? Fucking idiot.
 
Are you borrowing real science obtained from real climate scientists who do real climate science to forward your false narrative again?

Argument by selective observation. Next.

Maybe you should provide your new information to the 97 % who know you are a sack of ignorant shit instead of pajama bloggers of a obscure message board. You might nudge it down to 96% of real climate scientists published in august peer reviewed journals who KNOW that AGW is real, worsening and dangerous to humanity.
I bet you couldn't even name two real climate scientists?
 
It's strange. I noted two distinct sources of BS climate science 1. Oil and 2. Australian sources of academia. It's funny. Good for you looking it up.

Holy fuck, a rubbish article from the Guardian way back in 2013, are you bloody serious? Looks like Cadillac Man is giving you a run for your money for the title of biggest climate dope on JPP. You're so effing stupid that you don't even know that the University of Queensland funded the John Cook 97% consensus bullshit study!!
 
Don't worry about that line on the right going straight up and surpassing any for a thousand years or more.

That's their case. That's what they provide.
 
Sailor
Verified User
This message is hidden because Sailor is on your ignore list.

Go away, gnat.

Good old PackD. You can always rely on him kicking his own ass with his own stupidity. Can you imagine is this asshole were a real lawyer? What kind of "expert" witnesses he would get? LMAO!
 
Holy fuck, a rubbish article from the Guardian way back in 2013, are you bloody serious? Looks like Cadillac Man is giving you a run for your money for the title of biggest climate dope on JPP. You're so effing stupid that you don't even know that the University of New South Wales funded the John Cook 97% consensus bullshit study!!

Why is the study bullshit? They surveyed peer reviewed journal papers which make a conclusion that AGW is true, count the skulls, and that's the number. You got a different number for me based upon some survey you've done of peer reviewed scholarly journals?
Seems like a bean counting task to me. Feel free to count the money yourself, dick lips.

97
 
Don't worry about that line on the right going straight up and surpassing any for a thousand years or more.

That's their case. That's what they provide.
It also says, you dopey cunt, that the rate of increase is 0.56c/century!! That is truly terrifying, I should move away from the coast immediately!!
 
Is there a climate scientist here who has ever published a single study to peer review published in an august high impact scholarly journal regarding global warming who said other than the 97 percent who fit that description who say it's real?

10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-21 No? Bueller...Bueller? Ok then....

Consensus wins. Checkmate. Yatzee, King me, gin, QED and fuck off.
 
Back
Top