Planet Earth, A severe weather epidemic?

[Bill O]

Hi I agree with this comment and wanted to confirm something. Quite often our local stations indicate that Weather records have only been kept for about one hundred years. Is that correct ? In terms of planetary evolution that seems a very small amount of data to extrapolate from. What do you think ? I do not mean to suggest that we should not take care of our planet and I am in firm agreement that we should. Many other issues involved as well such as over population etc. etc... If there is actual scientific evidence of more solar radiation does anyone dare predict the result ? Thanks

100 years would actually be a fairly long climate record. Many stations are much less than that. Most people don't know that the averages for high and low are based on a 30 year period. Currently, the climate normal period is 1970-2000. For the extremes they use the whole record period.

That being said, your point is right. The world is very old and 100 years is not much data.

If you want to guess what the weather is going to be like next July, then yes, the 30 year normal period is a fairly good indicator. Probably better than 100 million years of data.

So we all know what's causing the wild weather in America, but what about the rest of the world? I'm guessing it has more to do with satellites, internet, and foreign media bureaus than an actual increase in wild weather. 30 years ago who cared about a cyclone in Mozambique? Let alone had any idea where Mozambique was?

[Steve M]

I'm not ready to jump on the global warming bandwagon just yet. My understanding leads me to believe that weather patterns tend to fluctuate whether it be short term or long term. There is just not enough data to show longer term undulations. We have better tech. than we have ever had and this allows us to see more than we ever have. This has caused almost a panic that things are getting out of control. If an Ice shelf broke off 100 years ago, I'm sure no one knew about it, so it didn't cause any alarm. I think it will take a lot more time to tell if the earth is truly warming beyond it's normal fluctuations.

[WeatherKeeper]

I'm not ready to jump on the global warming bandwagon just yet. My understanding leads me to believe that weather patterns tend to fluctuate whether it be short term or long term. There is just not enough data to show longer term undulations. We have better tech. than we have ever had and this allows us to see more than we ever have. This has caused almost a panic that things are getting out of control. If an Ice shelf broke off 100 years ago, I'm sure no one knew about it, so it didn't cause any alarm. I think it will take a lot more time to tell if the earth is truly warming beyond it's normal fluctuations.

I remember an article coming out this past summer. The article had to do with evidence found by researchers that the North Pole was once very similar to our current day Caribbean setting. The indication was that our earth can go through radical changes. Its these radical changes that should be concerning all of us as it will affect almost every person on Earth. Although I believe these changes occur naturally, I also believe that humans and our non environmental habits are helping to influence these changes and promote them at a more rapid pace.

If anyone knows which article I am talking about, please post it here, I have tried to Google it and have had no luck finding it.

[SunMessenger]

100 years would actually be a fairly long climate record. Many stations are much less than that. Most people don't know that the averages for high and low are based on a 30 year period. Currently, the climate normal period is 1970-2000. For the extremes they use the whole record period.

That being said, your point is right. The world is very old and 100 years is not much data.

If you want to guess what the weather is going to be like next July, then yes, the 30 year normal period is a fairly good indicator. Probably better than 100 million years of data.

So we all know what's causing the wild weather in America, but what about the rest of the world? I'm guessing it has more to do with satellites, internet, and foreign media bureaus than an actual increase in wild weather. 30 years ago who cared about a cyclone in Mozambique? Let alone had any idea where Mozambique was?

Point well taken. The fact we have more knowledge of what is happening in our world via sophisticated communications is a good argument that the current weather may not be so radical after all. I hope this theory is correct. I hope there is nothing more to it. As usual the unknown elements of the equation are the most concerning. Be Well...

[SunMessenger]

I remember an article coming out this past summer. The article had to do with evidence found by researchers that the North Pole was once very similar to our current day Caribbean setting. The indication was that our earth can go through radical changes. Its these radical changes that should be concerning all of us as it will affect almost every person on Earth. Although I believe these changes occur naturally, I also believe that humans and our non environmental habits are helping to influence these changes and promote them at a more rapid pace.

If anyone knows which article I am talking about, please post it here, I have tried to Google it and have had no luck finding it.

One major factor is over population. Many of the earths changes seem to be affected by this situation. Deforestation for example. Along with the obvious draining of fossil fuels , air and water pollution, and even food shortages which are inevitable if we keep using up the land and polluting the waterways.

I caught a glimpse of the article you mentioned. There is no doubt that the earth has undergone radical natural changes . There is certainly no doubt they will continue. The shape of the continents seem to clearly indicate a continental drifting. The question is at what rate ? Further is the rate always the same ? I am sure such climate changes over millions of years would not be felt as noticeably by the earths population. The big question remains as to whether the changes were all consistently slow or periodically drastic in nature ? I know that the unknown values of this equation are also the most worry some at times. So much still needs to be learned...

[forestgnome]

It's very, very pleasing to read such a civil, sensible thread about this topic. There is so much hysteria.

The climate has never been static. Earth has frozen and melted at least seven times, and is now in the process of melting again. This is a good thing!!! Who wants a mile-thick sheet of ice covering the continent?!

The melting process also includes short periods when it seems to be getting colder in certain places, such as the Little Ice Age. In the 1970's, scientists told us that burning fossil fuels was causing the planet to get colder. The weather had been trending cooler for three or four decades so they deduced that we were causing an ice age. But, a warming trend has followed for the past few decades, so they now say we're melting the planet. I think the sun might have something to do with global temps. Look at Martian ice caps.

The worst part for me is when I get insulted as not caring about the environment when I tell someone I don't buy into the theory.

[Patrad Fischroy]

100 years would actually be a fairly long climate record. Many stations are much less than that. Most people don't know that the averages for high and low are based on a 30 year period. Currently, the climate normal period is 1970-2000. For the extremes they use the whole record period.

That being said, your point is right. The world is very old and 100 years is not much data.

If you want to guess what the weather is going to be like next July, then yes, the 30 year normal period is a fairly good indicator. Probably better than 100 million years of data.

So we all know what's causing the wild weather in America, but what about the rest of the world? I'm guessing it has more to do with satellites, internet, and foreign media bureaus than an actual increase in wild weather. 30 years ago who cared about a cyclone in Mozambique? Let alone had any idea where Mozambique was?

I might tend to disagree with you, but it is mostly a semantic one. I think that the record you speak of is not as much a climatic record as a record of weather. As you have said, these are just point records that vary over time. I would say that true climatic records which are direct measurements, have only started to be collected over the past 20 or so years with satellite technology. On the other hand through some indirect means, such as stable isotope analysis from ice cores, sediment cores, and even tree-ring studies have yielded up records that span over 10K years, and further albeit with considerably reduced resolutions.
As to the article claiming the poles were once tropical, I think I did see that in Nature magazine. From my recollection though, in that article there was no mention of what the paleolatitude was at that time. Not to get too pedantic, but with plate tectonic theory, what is the pole now was not necessarily at the pole in the past.

[SunMessenger]

It's very, very pleasing to read such a civil, sensible thread about this topic. There is so much hysteria.

The climate has never been static. Earth has frozen and melted at least seven times, and is now in the process of melting again. This is a good thing!!! Who wants a mile-thick sheet of ice covering the continent?!

The melting process also includes short periods when it seems to be getting colder in certain places, such as the Little Ice Age. In the 1970's, scientists told us that burning fossil fuels was causing the planet to get colder. The weather had been trending cooler for three or four decades so they deduced that we were causing an ice age. But, a warming trend has followed for the past few decades, so they now say we're melting the planet. I think the sun might have something to do with global temps. Look at Martian ice caps.

The worst part for me is when I get insulted as not caring about the environment when I tell someone I don't buy into the theory.

Your last statement just proves my theory that the true study of science has little or no room for emotion. It is always better to discuss these matters without judgement . I agree with You that this seems to be happening here and it is quite refreshing.