Why does the historical and archaeological record show dramatic climate changes before industrialization?

Question

Why is this information left out of the "Global warming" discussion?

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html - agricultural patterns caused by climate change starting around 1200 AD.

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/ - History of the last days of the Vikings in Greenland around 1400 AD

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279a.html - a report about climate change between 1300 - 1850 AD

http://www.geotimes.org/feb04/NN_Mesopotamian.html - possible impact of climate change on Mesopotamia 6500 BC

Now I am not saying we Humans do not impact our environment. However I never see information like this presented with the "Global warming theory".

They say the debate is over, but history seems to stand behind the notion that Climate is not Static and is not or is minimally impacted by human endeavors.

Am I wrong? If so history is wrong... Can you disprove natural history?

I will watch out for the hat thanks.

I am aware of the little ice age (a few of the links are about events that happened during that time). I was a student of Archeology and History and it just surprises me no one discusses this in any real depth.

Bob: if you look at the graphs showing price variances for grain during the little ice age you will see troughs and spikes. Some are rapid spikes and gradual troughs. the prices seem to sky rocket near the 1500's. this is a clear indication something very dramatic had just happened to grain production. the answer is another climate shift.

No I don't think many scientists use historical records, because if they did they would use records more then 20-50 years old.

Were you around in the 70's early 80's? ever hear of global cooling? look it up. if the temperatures were unusually cool and then began to warm up again what kind of phenomenon would we be seeing? could it be interpreted as a "Warming trend"?

Ken: that is some interesting information I am going to look in to it further.

But it does not alter the fact that historical evidence shows severe and dramatic climate shifts beyond the levels we currently see long before industrialization and cars.

When I see Posts here or listen to speakers discuss the topic of global warming I never see them use any real historical information.

Dana: Mauna Loa is a volcano, a source of natural carbon emissions.... that actually credits more the idea of natural carbon emissions than human made ones.

so part of your evidence for man made global warming is atmospheric emissions taken from a volcano that spews out natural Carbon?

Also, if you look at this graph that was included in your link you see that there was a peak directly after the last ice age that is above the median and still higher than our current average which means it HAD been hotter long before human interference. in fact the rise in temperature seems to go up incredibly dramatically.

also the graph shows we have been below our average for some time so it would make sense that we would start to move towards it, would it not?

Dana: also can you show what we are seeing now is also not an anomaly?

Answer 1

Because global warming is just a political tool that has become a cult at the hands of the weak-minded who long to fit in somewhere. Most of the people who are screaming about the environment don't know anything about it.

Answer 2

Unfortunately I don't have time to go through each of the points you make. You could go back through my previous answers as I've provided explanations to each of your points a few times previously.

In short, all the points you mentioned are taken into account. We have 542 million years of climate date largely obtained by oxygen isotope analysis, more recently we have nearly 750,000 years of accurate climate data obtained from ice core sample anaysis and other methods.

Climate is not static and never has been. In the past there have been many periods where the climate has been very much different to that which we're experiencing now, times when the planet has been considerably warmer and considerably cooler.

The media may not pay too much attention to what's happened in the past but it's something that I and other climate scientists have studied in great detail and take into account. One of the fundemental differences between past and present changes is the rate of change, historically the sort of changes we've witnessed in recent decades would have occured over many hundreds or thousands of years. To give you a quick example of why there is so much concern: using the data for the last 25 years the world is warming 19 times faster than has ever before been known and 182 times faster than in the 10,000 years preceding the onset of the Industrial Revolution.

Answer 3

As a student of history and archeology, what do you think of the VERY convenient coincidence that the Earth was operating at it's maximum capability of cycling CO2 at he dawn of the Industrial Age? Knowing what you do about the variation of climate throughout the known records of civilized man, and likely having the fundamental knowledge that physical systems rarely behave linearly, do you find it odd that the current warming trend coincided with the Industrial Revolution?

Answer 4

You should also try to find information on what is called "The Little Ice Age". And "The Year Without A Summer". These were climate changes that you don't hear much about. No summer was in the north east US around 1814, and the little ice age, which was world wide, ended around that same time. Napoleon defeat at Russia was said to be because of the little ice age. And the year with no summer was said to have caused, or at least helped the great migration to the west, long before the gold rush.

Answer 5

"Now I am not saying we Humans do not impact our environment. However I never see information like this presented with the 'Global warming theory'."

The study of historic climate, paleoclimate, is part of the basic research that is done in the study of climate change. I find it hard to believe that you have never seen this information in talking about climate.

"But it does not alter the fact that historical evidence shows severe and dramatic climate shifts beyond the levels we currently see long before industrialization and cars."

The short answer: There are multiple components that influence climate. CO2 is one of them.

Answer 6

This stuff has been discussed here before. I usually show the following graph in response:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

As you can see, the Midieval Warm Period (MWP) was a minor perturbation relative to the current global warming.

Historically sure, the climate was minimally impacted by human endeavors. Then we reached the Industrial Revolution and started emitting more and more carbon dioxide:

http://www.john-daly.com/bull120.htm
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

Since then, warming has occured at a very rapid rate. Much more extreme than the MWP.

Answer 7

There have been natural changes before. But the data clearly shows that this particular change is not natural. Scientific proof below. Historical information is considered extensively in the scientific literature on global warming.

It's too rapid, and we were in a relatively stable period. Ten peer reviewed studies using different methods. The graph stops in 2004, if it went to 2006 it would be even more impressive.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

In past natural warmings CO2 lagged the warming by several hundred years, as it was released from warming ocean waters. This time CO2 and warming are going up together, because CO2 is the main cause.

Natural warming is thoroughly considered and rejected as an explanation here:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Did you think the world's scientists didn't know about climate history? Here's what they say (and note the source):

"While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258342,00.html

History is correct. And the present day data shows this change is not a natural one. More here:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/this-is-just-natural-cycle.html

EDIT: The Mauna Loa data actually shows volcanoes are not important as far as CO2 is concerned. No spikes from eruptions. Anyway, it's just good data. It's duplicated at hundreds of stations around the world. Here's one from Colorado (and the parent site has hundreds more of these):

http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/plot.php?file=co2/monthly/nwr440n1.dat&species=7/9&format=MON

Answer 8

Please don't bring up scientific facts against Global warming, it makes em (Global warming alarmists) all nervous, and fidgety, and that turns to feisty, and resentful. You see, its like making fun of the nerd in the back of the class that eats the paste, just makes us look bad. the poor kid can't help it. Neither can the Global warming crowd. They can't help the fact that they have no life, and hate those of us with one. Just sit back and silently laugh at their ignorance, and occasionally swat em down when they try to impose on your life.

Answer 9

Those who do not study history are damned to repeat it.That does not mean we have to be damned with them.Good links.(Watch out for Harry the Hat.)
Opooh rocks big time!!