You have to remember that this is just one point of data in my overall view of the subject. Hence the series. Is the warming anomalously rapid? If the coast of Antarctica didn't have ice 500 years ago then that would sort of be proof that the earth could cool, and warm rapidly would it not?
RE: My View on Climate Change Part 4 - The Maps!!!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
My View on Climate Change Part 4 - The Maps!!!
Yes, it's been warmer overall in the past but records show it's never increased so quickly.
500 years isn't especially rapid. Recent climate change is happening on the scale of decades.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is sort of my point of contention though. Our actual accurate records only go back maybe 170 years? Further then that and the temperatures are basically a best guess using other data like tree rings, coral growth, ice cores etc. So do we really know that the temperature changes are anomalous or are we just being told that due to a political agenda?
The people that create the temperature data from those sources also claim that the south pole has been covered in ice for tens of thousands if not millions of years. So if this area was charted 500 years ago or even several thousand years ago and didn't have full ice sheets then clearly something is wrong with their predictions.
Also, one of the strongest arguments against anthropogenic global warming is the Medieval Warm Period which had warmer temperatures then we do now. This weather during this period is well documented and there is a historical written record that it was very warm in Europe and North America.
The counter argument to this from the climate scientists is that this warming was only in the northern hemisphere and that during that time period the southern hemisphere was colder so global temperatures were still colder then now. However these maps would potentially debunk that theory, they seem to be proof that Antarctica was warmer as well. Which would mean that both northern and southern hemispheres were warm and therefor global temps were higher then they are today.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Only if AGW claimed it's never been warmer. But it doesn't. It only claims the most recent warming has been anomalously rapid. This is a common misunderstanding I see all over the place these days.
Do you recognize there exists a corporate agenda to confuse and mislead the public about this issue to prevent loss of profits? Remember how the tobacco companies did the same thing, misleading the public about the health effects of smoking by paying off corrupt scientists to say smoking is harmless? They did the same thing to conceal the health effects of leaded gasoline before that.
Why were they lying those times, but not this time? Why were the scientists they paid off to say smoking and leaded gasoline were harmless wrong then, but right about AGW?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit