Is the current rate of temperature change the hightest the Earth has ever seen?
Answer:
the temperature has been fluctuating but overall data shows the global temperature rising at a steady rate.
The current rate is no different than in times past:
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw...
The accurate global records kept by humans is only a few centuries old. And even then it is regional. That is the Achilles heel of the Global Warming theory. The planet is Billions of years old. And the modern human may be 180,000 years old as a species.
We only have global records of any certain accuracy and consistency since about 1890. So we seek the record in the environment itself. The problem here is that the botanical and geophysical records are limited in time length. Not only that a particular location's weather may change significantly. So this is a very short incomplete record to base long term climate forecasts on.
Fortunately tectonic activities are much slower. But the placement of geological features in space and time will effect the course and temperatures of atmospheric winds and ocean currents. All these factors are subtle and hard to model.
Presently data can come from archaeology, paleology, paleobotany, and botanical research. No the Bible is not a good record at anytime. The problem is that trees only live for some 500 years. The ice record and the core samples are localized at the poles and the ice is melting ironically and appears to be only 11,000 years old at best. And all this information must be codified and all over the planet. Again this problem is that less than thirty percent of the planet is dry. No one can for sure say what the
One must remember that this planet is a water planet covered by 75% percent water. This makes any weather model a significant act of guessing. The engine of this planet's weather environment is definitely the course and behavior of ocean currents.
These currents change course, temperature, and quantity. Even worse these currents do not leave much of a permanent record. Another factor is that the Sun is not a consistent producer. The orbit and spin of the earth is not a consistent as one would believe.
The fly in the ointment of any modeling is the relative randomness of volcanic action. Well known to humans is the dramatic impact of exploding volcanoes on the climate causing winter in Europe in both the 1880s and circa 1820.
Specific to Europe is the Gulf Stream current. Without it, Europe will have the same climate as Northern Canada. Indeed, some archaeological records have indicated some short periods of cooling in Europe especially in the late 1670's.
About 6300 years BC glacial remnants of the last ice age through a remnant chunk and or local permafrost of a moraine dam near LaChine (Montreal PQ Canada) had held back a rather large quantity of fresh water. In a great storm the record of which can be seen near Marathon Ontario Canada (Penn Lake) the moraine terraces indicate this sudden drop in water level approximating todays Lake Superior shoreline.
This outflow of water streamed out the present day St. Lawrence. Coinciding with this is the sudden rise and flooding of the Mediterranean and Black Sea
For instance Europe is on the same latitude as northern Canada but has a significantly warmer climate solely due to the direction and flow of the Gulf Stream. But in an instant the course of the Gulf Stream changed. And archaeologically proven that Europe endured a sudden inexplicable mini Ice Age.
Coinciding with these events is the emergence of Mesopotamia / Sumeria. The suddenly submerged civilizations around the Black Sea created a refugee movement of people south mixing with the agrarian people of the upper Euphrates. This set of events created a migration leading to a greater civilization, the Noah myth and the Babel myth all in one shot.
Here lies the problem. You asked about a specific small area of the planet. The USA. Climate change as we can see can be sudden dramatic and local. This year was an El Nino year with is a cyclic emergence of a mid Pacific warm current. This current makes for a significant short term change in the environment in the Americas but only negligible effect on Europe.
So what I wish to point out is that one cannot use a specific local or regional climate pattern to indicate the long term global environment specifically. On the other hand, every single model from an independent climate and environment research department points to global warming.
However global warming does not mean that a specific region of the planet will get warmer. On the contrary some regions like Europe may get colder.
For North Americans and the North American climate the direct change will be dramatically influenced by the probable disappearance of the ice floes from Hudson's Bay. You see the education system of the USA totally sucks. It is terrible.
Even your question shows that the deficient education system of the USA effects you too. There are glaciers in the USA. You appear to have completely forgotten about Alaska. Global climate change will effect Alaska. US textbooks end at the 49th parallel and consistently they apply this environment lesson templated on a map of the USA. To your credit, at least you have the wisdom to be a doubter and are looking beyond your borders and your restricting educational system at the larger world.
Like I said the largest influence on North America and Europe will be the seasonal ice on Hudson's Bay. During the winter season three significant and large permanent weather rotations occur.
One in the west is called the Idaho High or a rather active winter high pressure zone on the continent which moves north and south from California to Idaho. Its position and intensity is determined by the Equatorial currents one of which is El Nino. The other influence is the Hudson's Bay Low.
They both combine to funnel cold air from the Beaufort Sea into the heart of the North American Continent. It is why the east coast in cities like Richmond and Washington are colder than the west coast cities at the same latitude.
A warmer global climate can mean that with the shortening period of ice on Hudson's Bay and the increased frequency and intensities of El Nino events will mean that winters will be shorter but very much stormier with shorter intense periods of colder weather further south.
Summers will be hotter, drier, longer and stormier which points to a northerly movement of the desertification line. It means drought in the American West in areas like Texas will be the norm not the exception.
Two thousand years ago the regional climate around the North American geographic features and according to archaeological around the Great Lakes the North American Continent was warmer than today. What is not clear is the length and duration of the seasons.
Many point to this archaeological evidence as proof against the Global Warming theory. One can easily say that without the manmade pollutants generated by autos and human industry the air was far clearer. There was a lower carbon content in the atmosphere. So the model that anti-global warmists relying on this fact fails because of the absence of these critical factors.
It is entirely possible to have colder winters in North America while the global climate as a planet wide average actually endure increased temperatures. Again every single climate model from independent research bureaus points to severe adverse effects of climate. Indeed recent readings of climate point to this process to be ahead of forecasts and also accelerating.
Historically North America after the last Ice Age was sub arctic in the post glacial period as late as 7,000 years bpd warmed to 6300bpd mini-ice age for 300years warmed up to 2,000 bpd and colder after circa 1660 colder to 1890 and warming ever since and accelerating in warmth. But still not quite yet as warm as 2000years bpd.
I hope this helps... Good Luck.
No it is not. It is the highest rate seen since we began keeping temperature records, but based on temperatures inferred from ice core tritium ratios there have bee several periods in the past when global temperatures increased at a much greater rate than what we have seen in the past 50 years or so.
Hmmmmmmm.?
The Earth's Thermostat
A thermostat is a device for the automatic regulation of temperature. The earth has gone through many temperature changes and the earliest change recorded is the glacial period which occurred about 2.2 billion years ago[1]. It is assumed that a warming period followed. The period of temperature changes for the earth for the last several million years is in the neighborhood of 250,000 years. The present time period is an exception, being approximately 700,000 years. The current warming period will end with a magnetic reversal in a matter of a decade or surely within a few decades. After this time, we will be entering a glacial period which will last an undetermined length of time. The severity of this glacial period will be determined by the earth’s thermostat.
How does this thermostat work? It works by use of free electrons which have escaped from the atom by ionization and separation due to the internal heat of the earth. In addition relativity applies to motion of electrons relative to an observer who is at rest on the surface of the earth at the equator. For electrons that are at rest on the equator at the surface of the earth, the velocity relative to that observer is zero. For electrons at the center of the earth the velocity relative to that observer is 463 meters per second.
How does relativity affect magnetic fields produced by electrons in motion? Lets do an experiment with electrons traveling eastward in relation to an observer at rest. The observer will detect a measurable magnetic field. He measures it as 10 units of magnetism. Now let the observer move in the direction of the electrons at the same speed. Then the observer will measure 0 units of magnetism because there is no relative velocity. Now let the observer move westward with the same speed that the electrons were moving eastward previously. The observer will measure 20 units of magnetism of opposite polarity to the magnetism that the observer measured when he was at rest and the electrons were moving eastward. Now let’s apply this to rotational motion of electrons within the earth at the equator. Let’s suppose that electrons at the surface of the earth are moving eastward at the same velocity as the observer at rest at the equator, which makes their relative velocity zero, as well as makes the magnetic field zero. Likewise electrons located at half the radius of the earth would be rotating with half the velocity of electrons at the surface, i.e., 237.5 meters per second.
When electrons within the earth are separated from their atoms, they move radially outward from the center of the earth in order to escape the internal heat of the earth. This may not be true for individual electrons but it is statistically true for electrons within the earth. At the present time we are in a normal magnetic field. When it reverses we will then be in a reversed magnetic field. At the time of reversal, the positive charges are on average at a distance of r+ from the center of the earth. This location determines the relative velocity and also the magnetic field at the center of the earth[2] for that time.
Upon further examination of the current normal field, one can safely say that the internal heat is increasing and the magnetic field is decreasing. What causes the internal heat of the earth to increase? One theory is that the solid core is increasing its rotational motion by one revolution in 400 years[3]. It is true that the magnetic field, H, the velocity of rotation of positive charges, v, and the direction of the applied force, F, are mutually perpendicular. The field, H, is directed toward the south geographic pole. The velocity, v, of rotation is eastward. When the magnetic field reverses, H makes a 180-degree change in direction which causes F to also make a 180-degree change but the velocity of rotation of the positive charges remains the same. This causes a decrease in the rotation rate of the earth’s core due to the force F applied to positive charges in the core. With this switch of the earth’s magnetic field from normal to reverse, the rate of rotation of the core decreases, and the heat produced in the core also decreases. Therefore the earth will go through a cooling period instead of a warming period as is happening at the present time. This description of the geographical interaction of H, v, and F is simply the mass spectrometry formula applied to the earth. The force, F, acts on positive charges within the earth and not on neutral atoms.
Now back to the earth’s thermostat which has been working quite satisfactorily for at least 2.2 billion years. If it had failed once in that time, then all life on the earth would have frozen or burned to death. An aborted reversal would not be considered a failure of the thermostat.
In conclusion, one can assume the following statements are true:
Increasing energy causes the solid core to gain one revolution in 400 years.
Increasing energy causes the surface of the earth to experience global warming.
Lack of heat energy causes global cooling (glacial period).
The rotational energy loss of earth is 6.33 x 1019 Joules per year[4] which is sufficient to supply the energy for the magnetic field of the earth.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: