What is "normal" temp for the planet???

[dottedmint]

With all this talk about global warming I had to ask a couple of very simple questions.

What is the "normal" temp for the planet?

What is the "normal" size of the glaciers on the planet?

What is the "normal" sea level of our oceans?

I know these questions might sound trivial but I think they are important to try to get a "baseline".

15,000 years ago where I am sitting now would be under a glacier.

Now it is a mix of some farmland and a sprawling urban area.

What is "normal" for my area?

The glaciers?

The farmland and city life?

In another 15,000 years will this area be sitting under another glacier?

This planet has had cold spells...

This planet has had warm spells...

This planet has had spells that were warmer than our current temps.

And NONE of these fluctuations between cold and warm were caused by man and yet they still happened.

So I'll ask again.....

What is the "normal" temp for the planet???

 

[jfuh]

With all this talk about global warming I had to ask a couple of very simple questions.

What is the "normal" temp for the planet?

What is the "normal" size of the glaciers on the planet?

What is the "normal" sea level of our oceans?

I know these questions might sound trivial but I think they are important to try to get a "baseline".

The questions in of themselves are missing some key points. #1 all the above are irrelevent to the planet. What they are relevant to is human civilization as is.
Hence normal would be the blue portion in this graph

Normal size of glaciers and ocean sea levels would be what the blue would allow for. In other words there being a frozen arctic ocean as opposed to an open waterway.

15,000 years ago where I am sitting now would be under a glacier.

Now it is a mix of some farmland and a sprawling urban area.

What is "normal" for my area?

The glaciers?

The farmland and city life?

In another 15,000 years will this area be sitting under another glacier?

This planet has had cold spells...

This planet has had warm spells...

This planet has had spells that were warmer than our current temps.

And NONE of these fluctuations between cold and warm were caused by man and yet they still happened.

So I'll ask again.....

What is the "normal" temp for the planet???

All of which are moot, the only relevant question is what is normal for humans and what have we done to create a climate outside of the 650,000 year norm.
Right now we have the highest concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere than at any point in the last 650,000 years all of which started at the beginning of the industrial revolution. There is no question any longer that we are the ones that are contributing to the global warming phenomena. Any variation from what the climate is today would not be good for humans in the future, aka, our decedents.
What's the optimum level of ozone in the atmosphere for the planet? Irrelevant, what is relevant is what is best for humans, our contribution of chlorofluorocarbons in freon gases contribute to the break down of ozone letting in carcinogenic uv radiation. Does it matter to the planet? No, does it matter to human and the current ecological system? Absolutely. Same with greenhouse gases and global warming.

 

[Sauwan]

Google

 

[dottedmint]

Re: Doesn't answer my questions

jfuh;500745]The questions in of themselves are missing some key points. #1 all the above are irrelevent to the planet. What they are relevant to is human civilization as is.
Hence normal would be the blue portion in this graph

But this only goes back to what 1890??? It doesn't really answer the bigger question of what is the "norm" for this planet.

Normal size of glaciers and ocean sea levels would be what the blue would allow for. In other words there being a frozen arctic ocean as opposed to an open waterway.

Except for the fact that in the past there hasn't always been a frozen arctic.

All of which are moot, the only relevant question is what is normal for humans and what have we done to create a climate outside of the 650,000 year norm.

650,000 year norm?????

As I said in my article. Just a short 15,000 years ago there was a glacier sitting over my head. So how exactly can you suggest that the current climate is the 650,000 NORM????

There is no question any longer that we are the ones that are contributing to the global warming phenomena.

Of course there are still questions.

Such as what the "norm" temp of the planet is.

The planet had cold spells and warm spells all before man was ever an issue. Why exactly can't this be just another natural cycle?

Any variation from what the climate is today would not be good for humans in the future, aka, our decedents.

This is true. And it is just as true if this was a natural cycle. IF in 15,000 years there was another glacier sitting over my head (as there was 15,000 years ago) then yes it would be bad for my decedents.

What's the optimum level of ozone in the atmosphere for the planet? Irrelevant, what is relevant is what is best for humans, our contribution of chlorofluorocarbons in freon gases contribute to the break down of ozone letting in carcinogenic uv radiation. Does it matter to the planet? No, does it matter to human and the current ecological system? Absolutely. Same with greenhouse gases and global warming.

Except this seems to be assuming that we can take steps to ensure that natural climatic cycles will never happen.

IF we wake up tomorrow and we were able to reduce mans influence on the climate to 0% what is to say that we still would not have global warming? or global cooling?

There were fluctuations BEFORE man ever became an issue so why are we so certain that fluctuations won't happen now?

So can you tell me what the "norm" temp of the planet is?

 

[Sauwan]

Re: Doesn't answer my questions

So can you tell me what the "norm" temp of the planet is?

Again. Google

 

[jfuh]

Re: your questions have no answer

But this only goes back to what 1890??? It doesn't really answer the bigger question of what is the "norm" for this planet.

Oh contrare. The graph shows that the current temps are not "norm" or at least, un-natural. You don't need to go back past 1890.

Except for the fact that in the past there hasn't always been a frozen arctic.

How far in the past, were there humans that far back? Hell in the past North America wasn't where it is today either.

650,000 year norm?????As I said in my article. Just a short 15,000 years ago there was a glacier sitting over my head. So how exactly can you suggest that the current climate is the 650,000 NORM????

Norm does not suggest that it is constant, but within a range. For the last 650,000 years we've been within this range. Greenland's glaciers melting is indicative that we are now outside of this range. Otherwise, as I also stated, there is no planetary norm.

Of course there are still questions.

Such as what the "norm" temp of the planet is.

The planet had cold spells and warm spells all before man was ever an issue. Why exactly can't this be just another natural cycle?

See the graph. The black portion is what is happening now. The blue is what should be, the red is what it would be with the addition of human intervention. Right now you can clearly see that the black and red overlap each other quite well. Hence we can say with good confidence that what is happening now is not the norm.
Otherwise as I've asked. What's natural about the divergence?

This is true. And it is just as true if this was a natural cycle. IF in 15,000 years there was another glacier sitting over my head (as there was 15,000 years ago) then yes it would be bad for my decedents.

Yes this would be true whether it be natural or un-natural. However as I posted in that graph, there's nothing natural about this current trend.

Except this seems to be assuming that we can take steps to ensure that natural climatic cycles will never happen.

IF we wake up tomorrow and we were able to reduce mans influence on the climate to 0% what is to say that we still would not have global warming? or global cooling?

There were fluctuations BEFORE man ever became an issue so why are we so certain that fluctuations won't happen now?

So can you tell me what the "norm" temp of the planet is?

If we stopped all contributions tomorrow, we will still not be able to "stop" the current warmings, there is simply too much CO2 in the atmosphere already, higher than at any level in the last 650,000 years.
But instead of an acceleration we should get a constant. Currently CO2 increases exponentially, if we continue on the current trend things will get much much worse, much much sooner, that is an absolute. Halting our current trend gives science and in turn technology to catch up to have the ability, hopefully, to reverse the trend.
As I've answered many times already, there is no planetary norm; what the planet was like 4 billion, 3 billion, 2 billion, 1 billion 1 million half a million years ago is clearly very different than what it is like today.
Today we also don't have giant insects or T-Rex's roaming the planet. Hence discussing the "norm" of the planet is quite irrelevant.

 

[dottedmint]

Re: your questions have no answer

jfuh;500865]Oh contrare. The graph shows that the current temps are not "norm" or at least, un-natural. You don't need to go back past 1890.

Actually your graph does NOT show that. In order for you to say that something is "un-natural" you need to go back farther than just 1890.

How far in the past, were there humans that far back? Hell in the past North America wasn't where it is today either.

No there were not humans that far back and yet we had periods of global warming. Of course we also had ice ages.

Norm does not suggest that it is constant, but within a range. For the last 650,000 years we've been within this range. Greenland's glaciers melting is indicative that we are now outside of this range. Otherwise, as I also stated, there is no planetary norm.

No we have NOT been within this range for the last 650,000 years. As I said before just a SHORT 15,000 years ago there was a glacier sitting over my head. So why did the glaciers melt 15,000 years ago? SUVs???

See the graph. The black portion is what is happening now. The blue is what should be, the red is what it would be with the addition of human intervention. Right now you can clearly see that the black and red overlap each other quite well. Hence we can say with good confidence that what is happening now is not the norm.

The problem is that you are not basing that claim on anything. Just because you say the "blue is what should be" does NOT mean that is what "should be". Especially if your graph only goes back to 1890. Show me a graph that goes back 15,000 years and shows the glaciers sitting over my head and then MAYBE we can start talking about what "should be" because then we would have a longer history to compare to.

Otherwise as I've asked. What's natural about the divergence?

The same thing that was natural when the glacier melted 15,000 years ago.

If we stopped all contributions tomorrow, we will still not be able to "stop" the current warmings, there is simply too much CO2 in the atmosphere already, higher than at any level in the last 650,000 years.
But instead of an acceleration we should get a constant.

A "constant"? Until when ? Until the next natural fluctuation starts? Until we have the next ice age? Until we have even more warming?

Halting our current trend gives science and in turn technology to catch up to have the ability, hopefully, to reverse the trend.

So if we were on the way to an ice age like we had just 15,000 years ago what would technology do to prevent it? Pump CO2 into the atmosphere??

As I've answered many times already, there is no planetary norm; what the planet was like 4 billion, 3 billion, 2 billion, 1 billion 1 million half a million years ago is clearly very different than what it is like today.

I'm only looking back a SHORT 15,000 years ago.

I'm basically trying to figure out what keeps the planet from shifting into conditions that are similar to those 15,000 years ago.

Today we also don't have giant insects or T-Rex's roaming the planet. Hence discussing the "norm" of the planet is quite irrelevant.

OF COURSE it is relevant. You claim that the current conditions are "norm" and yet you don't base that on anything other than a graph that only goes back to 1890. That is not a very long history to base what is or is not "norm".

 

[Kandahar]

Re: Doesn't answer my questions

But this only goes back to what 1890??? It doesn't really answer the bigger question of what is the "norm" for this planet.

What does it matter? Most people are primarily interested in how climate change will affect us as a civilization, not in how much it deviates from the "norm" of the earth.

Except for the fact that in the past there hasn't always been a frozen arctic.

There haven't always been enormous cities built on the coastlines either.

As I said in my article. Just a short 15,000 years ago there was a glacier sitting over my head. So how exactly can you suggest that the current climate is the 650,000 NORM????

Actually, glacial periods (commonly but erroneously called Ice Ages) are the "norm" for the past several hundred thousand years. Warming periods tend to be brief, lasting only for 10,000 years or so. We currently live in such a warming period.

Technically, we're still in an "Ice Age," and have been for 40 million years. In the grand scheme of things, the earth is quite cool by geological standards. However, that is hardly relevant to the consequences to human civilization of climate change.

IF we wake up tomorrow and we were able to reduce mans influence on the climate to 0% what is to say that we still would not have global warming? or global cooling?

Nothing. In fact, we almost certainly WOULD still have climate change. But it almost certainly wouldn't be happening at the current rate. If there was no global warming, we would probably enter another glacial period within the next thousand years or so (because we're overdue for one). However, that would happen over a much longer time scale by human standards. And it's also very likely that we'll have the technology to control our climate sooner than that.

 

[dottedmint]

Re: Doesn't answer my questions

Kandahar;502790]What does it matter? Most people are primarily interested in how climate change will affect us as a civilization, not in how much it deviates from the "norm" of the earth.

This is true. Most people don't care what the climate has been in the past or what it would naturally become in the future. We are on this global warming blitz and ignore any possibility that this current warming is completely natural.

There haven't always been enormous cities built on the coastlines either.

True. Nor have we had cities built where the next glaciers will form. As I said earlier 15,000 years ago there was a glacier sitting over my head. Curious what it would be like to see each night on the news how much closer the glacier has gotten to my house......

"Ooops...... There goes Mike's house......"

Actually, glacial periods (commonly but erroneously called Ice Ages) are the "norm" for the past several hundred thousand years. Warming periods tend to be brief, lasting only for 10,000 years or so. We currently live in such a warming period.

That's right. The planet has had cold spells and warm spells and no matter what we do will continue to have these cycles into the future.

Technically, we're still in an "Ice Age," and have been for 40 million years. In the grand scheme of things, the earth is quite cool by geological standards. However, that is hardly relevant to the consequences to human civilization of climate change.

True. Between 1500 and 1700 AD we had a "Little Ice Age" and the Thames River in England was froze solid.

Nothing. In fact, we almost certainly WOULD still have climate change. But it almost certainly wouldn't be happening at the current rate. If there was no global warming, we would probably enter another glacial period within the next thousand years or so (because we're overdue for one). However, that would happen over a much longer time scale by human standards. And it's also very likely that we'll have the technology to control our climate sooner than that.

We don't know if any "shift" in the climate would be happening at the current rate or not.

 

[Kandahar]

Re: Doesn't answer my questions

This is true. Most people don't care what the climate has been in the past or what it would naturally become in the future.

Nor do they need to, apart from scientific curiosity. What the climate would "naturally" become is irrelevant; we're interested in minimizing the damage to human civilization.

We are on this global warming blitz and ignore any possibility that this current warming is completely natural.

No we're not. That possibility is simply very, very slim. Global temperatures normally move in tandem with carbon dioxide levels. Human emissions are responsible for a big chunk of the carbon dioxide currently in our atmosphere. Logic would indicate that human emissions are therefore responsible for the change in temperature.

True. Nor have we had cities built where the next glaciers will form. As I said earlier 15,000 years ago there was a glacier sitting over my head. Curious what it would be like to see each night on the news how much closer the glacier has gotten to my house......

Glaciers move very slowly. Even if a new glacial period started tomorrow, you'd have plenty of time (hundreds of years) to move to a new location...unless your home is currently right on the edge of the glacier.

Many of the cities on the coastline, in contrast, will be flooded within 50-100 years as a result of global warming.

That's right. The planet has had cold spells and warm spells and no matter what we do will continue to have these cycles into the future.

Irrelevant. By that same logic: Asteroids "naturally" hit the earth from time to time...so it shouldn't matter if we humans start steering enormous space rocks into the earth.

True. Between 1500 and 1700 AD we had a "Little Ice Age" and the Thames River in England was froze solid.

This is a misnomer. The temperature change NOW is much more significant than that ever was.

We don't know if any "shift" in the climate would be happening at the current rate or not.

Yes we do. See above re: carbon dioxide levels and global temperature.

 

[jfuh]

Re: your questions have no answer

Actually your graph does NOT show that. In order for you to say that something is "un-natural" you need to go back farther than just 1890.



No there were not humans that far back and yet we had periods of global warming. Of course we also had ice ages.



No we have NOT been within this range for the last 650,000 years. As I said before just a SHORT 15,000 years ago there was a glacier sitting over my head. So why did the glaciers melt 15,000 years ago? SUVs???



The problem is that you are not basing that claim on anything. Just because you say the "blue is what should be" does NOT mean that is what "should be". Especially if your graph only goes back to 1890. Show me a graph that goes back 15,000 years and shows the glaciers sitting over my head and then MAYBE we can start talking about what "should be" because then we would have a longer history to compare to.



The same thing that was natural when the glacier melted 15,000 years ago.



A "constant"? Until when ? Until the next natural fluctuation starts? Until we have the next ice age? Until we have even more warming?



So if we were on the way to an ice age like we had just 15,000 years ago what would technology do to prevent it? Pump CO2 into the atmosphere??



I'm only looking back a SHORT 15,000 years ago.

I'm basically trying to figure out what keeps the planet from shifting into conditions that are similar to those 15,000 years ago.




OF COURSE it is relevant. You claim that the current conditions are "norm" and yet you don't base that on anything other than a graph that only goes back to 1890. That is not a very long history to base what is or is not "norm".

You're argument is one of time.
Very well

400 thousand years good enough for you? More than you asked for. We see an obvious jump in CO2 including your 150,000 year ago glacier over your head. Now we're obviously outside of the norm range.
With this established, now plz answer my former posted question. What's normal about the divergence in my former graph?

 

[Gill]

With all this talk about global warming I had to ask a couple of very simple questions.

What is the "normal" temp for the planet?

Excellent question!! As you can see, the AGW crowd doesn't know the answer and refuse to consider it. If we don't know the "normal" temperature, then how do we know if today's temperatures are above or below normal.

If you look closely at jfuh's faith based graph from a newspaper that he's posted ad nauseum, you will see that the temperatures are anomalies, not the actual temperatures. The question is... anomalies from what??? His graph is also cleverly crafted to only show temps from the 1890's. Well, guess what.... of course temps have risen since the Little Ice Age ended around 1850. That's like screaming that the world is ending in May because the temperature is higher than it was in January.

Sauwan glibly insults you by posting 'google', not once but twice. The only problem with that is that the ACTUAL temperatures are incredibly difficult to find. Almost all temperature records are based on anomalies from some selected temperature.

The sad thing is that "scientists" have massaged the historical record so much that the actual temperature record has been lost for many years and many locations. Believe it or not, the actual temperature record is not available for most weather stations, only "adjusted" temperatures. The adjustment method is also lost on most of these stations so it is impossible to determine if the temperature record was adjusted correctly.

AGW is based on massaged data and a lot of assumptions.

 

[Kandahar]

Excellent question!! As you can see, the AGW crowd doesn't know the answer and refuse to consider it.

Actually I did consider it. In fact, I addressed it fully. It is YOU who has refused to consider my response.

If we don't know the "normal" temperature, then how do we know if today's temperatures are above or below normal.

Normal compared to what? Relative to the entire history of the earth, the temperature today is quite low. Relative to the last 650,000 years, the temperature is extremely high.

Why does it matter what is "normal" anyway? The fact is that if the temperature increases from its current levels, coastal cities will be flooded, island nations will cease to exist, Africa will be faced with drought, Europe will become as cold as Canada, and most of the rest of the world will become warmer.

If you look closely at jfuh's faith based graph from a newspaper that he's posted ad nauseum, you will see that the temperatures are anomalies, not the actual temperatures. The question is... anomalies from what???

Actually his graph measures CO2 levels, not temperature. I posted one on another thread that compares CO2/temperature side by side.

His graph is also cleverly crafted to only show temps from the 1890's. Well, guess what.... of course temps have risen since the Little Ice Age ended around 1850. That's like screaming that the world is ending in May because the temperature is higher than it was in January.

Take a look at how sharply CO2 levels rose at the end of the last glacial period. Now take a look at how sharply they're rising today. The "Little Ice Age" you speak of is an insignificant blip compared to a REAL glacial period. Unless my history knowledge is mistaken, there wasn't an enormous glacier completely covering Canada and the northern United States in 1850.

Sauwan glibly insults you by posting 'google', not once but twice. The only problem with that is that the ACTUAL temperatures are incredibly difficult to find. Almost all temperature records are based on anomalies from some selected temperature.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/Envir...scientist-recants-gw-position.html#post504917

To find the temperature in any given year, just take the temperature in the current year and add/subtract. Why do you care if the graph measures the anomaly relative to the present, or the actual temperature? The CHANGE in temperature is what we're interested in, right?

 

[Gill]

Actually I did consider it. In fact, I addressed it fully. It is YOU who has refused to consider my response.

No, you did not address it at all, much less fully.

Normal compared to what? Relative to the entire history of the earth, the temperature today is quite low. Relative to the last 650,000 years, the temperature is extremely high.

And you know this how?? How about the normal temperature for a particular site since it began keeping records. That is if raw, actual records are still available and haven't been tainted by 'scientists' correcting them.

Why does it matter what is "normal" anyway? The fact is that if the temperature increases from its current levels, coastal cities will be flooded, island nations will cease to exist, Africa will be faced with drought, Europe will become as cold as Canada, and most of the rest of the world will become warmer.

If you don't know the 'normal' temperature, then how do you know if it is getting warmer???

Pure speculation... all of these events have happened in the past with no human intervention and will most assuredly happen again, no matter what man does.

Actually his graph measures CO2 levels, not temperature. I posted one on another thread that compares CO2/temperature side by side.

It does????

Sure looks like temperatures to me....

To find the temperature in any given year, just take the temperature in the current year and add/subtract. Why do you care if the graph measures the anomaly relative to the present, or the actual temperature? The CHANGE in temperature is what we're interested in, right?

Really?? What was the actual temperature in 1850, 1800, 1736, 1643?? Your graph is about as accurate as most of the pro AGW posts on this board.

If you actually took the time to research the subject, you would know that the pro AGW researchers selectively use temperatures or proxies that provide the results they are looking for. Jones, et al did it in 1994 and Mann, et al did it to produce their infamous and false hockey stick in 1999.

 

[Kandahar]

And you know this how??

I know that today's temperature is quite low by geologic standards because we've been in a major Ice Age for the last 40 million years, and we still are.

I know that today's temperature is quite high by the standards of the last 650,000 years because we're no longer in a glacial period and the earth is still warming.

If you don't know the 'normal' temperature, then how do you know if it is getting warmer???

By sticking a thermometer out in various parts of the earth and comparing them to the past results?

The earth has a volatile weather system that is constantly changing. What makes you think that a "normal" temperature even exists? At best, there are "average" temperatures over various time frames.

Pure speculation... all of these events have happened in the past with no human intervention and will most assuredly happen again, no matter what man does.

By the same logic: asteroids striking the earth have happened in the past without human intervention. Completely natural. Therefore it's OK for humans to steer large chunks of space rock into the earth.

It does????

Sure looks like temperatures to me....

Oh, I thought you were talking about a different graph.

Really?? What was the actual temperature in 1850, 1800, 1736, 1643??

The present earth temperature is about 58 degrees. You can get the temperature anomaly relative to the present day, and do the math yourself.

Your graph is about as accurate as most of the pro AGW posts on this board.

And you have what scientific credentials to make that assessment?

If you actually took the time to research the subject, you would know that the pro AGW researchers selectively use temperatures or proxies that provide the results they are looking for. Jones, et al did it in 1994 and Mann, et al did it to produce their infamous and false hockey stick in 1999.

And yet these "pro AGW researchers" somehow managed to convince nearly the entire scientific community - which almost always errs on the side of skepticism rather than credulity - that they're right. Quite the accomplishment for falsified data that has supposedly been disproven. :roll:

 

[OnionCollection]

I guess the pro-AGW researchers must be falsifying the satellites that show warming over the past 30 years, as well as the borehole proxies too (Borehole Data and Derived Climatic Parameters)...