Scientists say that during the "Younger Dryas Event" the Earths temperature changed by 18 degrees in a decade?
How is this possible if the proponents of global warming claim that there has never been a faster change in the climate than the .6 degreese C we have had over the last 40 years?
I meen how can The History Channel make these statements that are contradictary to what the proponents of global warming say?
Come on people the debate is over(I was told). There is a consensus, and a consensus is all the proof we need.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/younger_dry...
Answer:
Grizz...I think you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Jack's point is that so many proponents of man-made global warming claim that mankinds actions have made the current warming "faster than any natural warming" throughout earth's history. The younger dryas event clearly dispels this falsehood told by man-made global warming fanatics.
As far as the wikipedia link that Jack put up, it states that "Nothing of the size, extent, or rapidity of this period of abrupt climate change has been experienced since." This proves Jack's point completely. The current warming (whether caused by man or not) is minute compared to the natural changes in the past. It also says "The transitions each occurred over a period of a decade or so." So it appears that Jack is correct.
However, if that does not convice you, look at the link provided below. This study (from Columbia University) indicates "that the annual-mean temperature increased by as much as 10°C in 10 years." 10°C in 10 years dwarfs the 0.6°C rise in 100years that the earth has recently experienced, and nature, not mankind, was responsible for that warming.
They want to have a lot of laws changed to gain power they can't admit it's not man made or admit that it's happened before and thats if indeed it really is happening.
Sigh, we may find an answer to Global Warming, but an answer to stupidity will take longer.
Your Wiki link doesn't say temperature went down 18 deg over ten years. It says O-18 isotope concentration went down over 10,000 years. Get the terminology and the scale correct before you quote something you don't uinderstand.
"The prevailing theory holds that the Younger Dryas was caused by a significant reduction or shutdown of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation in response to a sudden influx of fresh water from Lake Agassiz and deglaciation in North America".
That is exactly the same reason that scientists believe the current Global Warming could trigger an Ice Age ... thank you for making the case for GW even stronger!
The fact that there have been natural climate changes before does not mean the present change is natural.
And the scientific data clearly shows that this change is not natural, but is caused mostly by us, mostly by burning very large amounts of fossil fuels, rapidly.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/ima...
This is science, not politics:
"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”
Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command
The data is why:
"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."
Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA
Good websites for more info:
http://profend.com/global-warming/...
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"
The Younger Dryas was not a global event. It appears to have been confined primarily to North America and Europe, with a smaller signature in South America, an no sign at all in Antarctica, New Zealand, and Oceania.
Further, it is believed that the cause of the Younger Dryas event was the rapid emptying of Lake Agassiz (the precursor of today's Great Lakes) which disrupted the North Atlantic thermohaline conveyor. This would have brought abrupt and rapid cooling to the North Atlantic region (as has been observed) but would not have changed the overall mean temperature of the globe.
I should also note that the temperature change you cite is in Fahrenheit, not the standard Celsius used in science. (Divisible by 9: a dead giveaway.)
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: