“Caution should be exercised when describing modern climate changes as unprecedented”

The heck you say!

Rates of ancient climate change may be underestimated

The pace of past episodes of climate change is likely to have been underestimated, according to research carried out by scientists at the University of Aberdeen and Friedrich-Alexander University (FAU) in Germany.

In a paper published in Nature Communications, the research team demonstrate how geological archives do not capture the full variability ofclimate change likely to have occurred in ancient times. The result, they argue, is that maximum rates of climate change in Earth’s history are systematically underestimated.

Dr David Kemp from the University of Aberdeen School of Geosciences is the lead author of the study.

He explained: “Our work shows that rates of temperature change through Earth’s history scale with the timespan over which the changes are measured, meaning that the rates of recorded change are inevitably slower when measured over longer and longer time periods.

“When you look at geological changes in temperature, which can typically only be measured over thousands to tens of thousands of years, you inevitably don’t capture the detail and full variability of changes that we know from more modern records occur on much shorter timescales.”

Huh. Imagine that. Well, that’s nothing a bit of massaging to the data by Warmists won’t erase. Anyhow

He added: “While there is little doubt that the current rate of climate change is unusual and something that causes understandable concern, caution should be exercised when describing modern changes as unprecedented in the context of Earth’s history, since this doesn’t take into account the clear bias that complicates the assessment of ancient rates of climate change.”

There it is in a nutshell: are the minor changes to the climate unprecedented, unusual, strange, extreme, etc? Or are these tiny changes well within the bounds of normality? We don’t have the actual hard data to make these comparisons.

Of course, hard data, history, historical norms and so forth are meaningless to the Cult of Climastrology, as this is, at its very heart, a political movement, not a scientific one.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

4 Responses to ““Caution should be exercised when describing modern climate changes as unprecedented””

  1. john says:

    Whether it has happened before is less important as is it happening NOW and what the ramifications are to the 7 billion human beings now on the planet.
    That graph the you are always posting done by your Lord Monkeyshine never shows 2014 as being the hottest year. Why is that?

  2. gitarcarver says:

    Whether it has happened before is less important as is it happening NOW and what the ramifications are to the 7 billion human beings now on the planet.

    You are kidding, right john?

    For years you and people of your ilk have used the claim that AGW and temperature increases are “unprecedented” and that man can be the only thing that is causing the increase.

    Now that your claim is being debunked by you know, actual science, you want to walk away from the very foundation of the desire to control people’s lives and livelihood.

    In another thread john writes on people that don’t agree on his position: “Narcissism? self centered? lack of empathy ?”

    Many would (rightfully) argue that those who are hell bent on imposing their misguided wills on others are the ones who lack empathy as we have seen in underdeveloped nations the catastrophic results of warmists who don’t want people to have power for fresh water, housing, electricity, transportation, etc.

    Once again, john has been and always will remain a member of the party of slavery. His positions reflect those roots.

  3. jl says:

    John-“Whether it happened before is less important…” You really didn’t say that, did you? Actually, nothing could be more important in that if and why it happened before(which it did)could be the same processes causing it now. “Shows 2014 as the hottest year.” Again, John, what’s the significance of a “hot” year out of only 135 years? Figuring in the fact that satellite data shows no warming and that the degree of alleged warming is at times outside the error bars of the instrument doing the recording. Also the fact that between 50-60% of the earth’s surface is not recorded as far as temperature readings. Thank you in advance, again.

Pirate's Cove