• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Not just warmer: it's the hottest for 2,000 years

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1032980,00.html
The earth is warmer now than it has been at any time in the past 2,000 years, the most comprehensive study of climatic history has revealed.
Confirming the worst fears of environmental scientists, the newly published findings are a blow to sceptics who maintain that global warming is part of the natural climatic cycle rather than a consequence of human industrial activity.

Prof Philip Jones, a director of the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit and one of the authors of the research, said: "You can't explain this rapid warming of the late 20th century in any other way. It's a response to a build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

The study reinforces recent conclusions published by the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC). Scientists on the panel looked at temperature data from up to 1,000 years ago and found that the late 20th century was the warmest period on record.

But the IPCC's report was dismissed by some quarters in the scientific community who claimed that while the planet is undoubtedly warming, it was warmer still more than a thousand years ago. So warm, in fact, that it had spurred the Vikings to set up base in Greenland and led to northern Britain being filled with productive vineyards.

To discover whether there was any truth in the claims, Prof Jones teamed up with Prof Michael Mann, a climate expert at the University of Virginia, and set about reconstructing the world's climate over the past 2,000 years.

Direct measurements of the earth's temperature do not exist from such a long time ago, so the scientists had to rely on other indicators of how warm - or not - the planet was throughout the past two millennia.

To find the answer, the scientists looked at tree trunks, which keep a record of the local climate: the rings spreading out from the centre grow to different thicknesses according to the climate a tree grows in. The scientists looked at sections taken from trees that had lived for hundreds and even thousands of years from different regions and used them to piece together a picture of the planet's climatic history.

The scientists also studied cores of ice drilled from the icy stretches of Greenland and Antarctica. As the ice forms, sometimes over hundreds of thousands of years, it traps air, which holds vital clues to the local climate at the time.

"Drill down far enough and you could use the ice to look at the climate hundreds of thousands of years ago, but we just used the first thousand metres," said Prof Jones.

The scientists found that while there was not enough good data to work out what the climate had been like in the southern hemisphere over that period, they could get a good idea of how warm the northern hemisphere had been.

"What we found was that at no point during those two millennia had it been any warmer than it is now. From 1980 onwards is clearly the warmest period of the last 2,000 years," said Prof Jones.

.........
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,157
3,850
126
This needs more study. We'll get started just as soon as I've sold all my oil.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I'm sure it's due to all that heat Bill and Monica stirred up in the White House.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,697
0
76
What can we do about it since we've got a nation of people that only gets outraged when gas goes up 10 cents, and a president that doesn't even acknowledge theres an ozone layer.

edit: I know there will be dittoheads that will say us tree hugging hippies are crying over that the sky is falling. To you I say, ignorance must be bliss.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Warmest in 2000 years.

How many tons of greenhouse gases was man putting into the air 2000 years ago?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: etech
Warmest in 2000 years.

How many tons of greenhouse gases was man putting into the air 2000 years ago?
I believe the appropriate response to this is: WTF?

Did you read the article, or is this a knee-jerk, Bush-is-God-so-you're-stupid reply? They looked at the last 2000 years. They didn't go back farther than that. "'From 1980 onwards is clearly the warmest period of the last 2,000 years,' said Prof Jones."

They learned that it was NOT this warm 2000 years ago. It may not have been this warm any time in the last ten million years, but they didn't go back that far. They therefore limited their report to the evidence they had. Make sense now?
 

Jmman

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 1999
5,307
0
76
The Harvard study disagrees with their findings.......Harvard

"The study is significant because it refutes the notion that current temperatures are the warmest ever and calls into question much of the warming effect caused by the so-called greenhouse gases from industrial plants and automobiles."

I just wanted to add one more link that discusses the "IPCC" and their obvious agenda when it comes to global warming nonsense.



Link

Look what was edited out of the IPCC study upon which the Kyoto Treaty was based........
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

Wow, I wonder why some "politicians" wanted this edited out of the study? They didn't have a political agenda, did they??
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
It might be a good idea to look at the original sources of both the harvard and guardian citations and their date as well.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,626
3
81
On a time-frame of 2,000 years, yes, we are probably warmer. You cannot judge this on a human time-frame.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,157
3,850
126
Probably the differences is where the thermometers were located. The new study may have stuck it in the ostrich's ass.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
I haven't had a chance to read either paper. Knowing that people like to pick and choose what they report without an understanding of the methods employed, I remain skeptical of "scientific" claims. Neither the Guardian nor the site you reference are without bias. I know where I weigh in on this from the preponderance of evidence I have seen, but I cannot leave myself closed to new data. I just want to see something not second hand.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Probably the differences is where the thermometers were located. The new study may have stuck it in the ostrich's ass.
And all along I thought it was an emu :D
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
1
0
Originally posted by: etech
Warmest in 2000 years.

How many tons of greenhouse gases was man putting into the air 2000 years ago?
Yeah, I have to say that the global warming skeptics won't believe any science on the matter until the entire North American continent is on fire. Until then, don't bore them with any "questionable evidence" to the contrary of their opinions. Jobs are more important than the environment. Bush said so. :p
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,626
3
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yeah, I have to say that the global warming skeptics won't believe any science on the matter until the entire North American continent is on fire. Until then, don't bore them with any "questionable evidence" to the contrary of their opinions. Jobs are more important than the environment. Bush said so. :p
This study is finding evidence but has done nothing to attribute causation. The real issue here is aerosol forcing, the amount of substances being put into the atmosphere that most humans have some control over. It has already been established that the total amount of climate forcing by humans is actually slightly negative; what we do not yet understand is whether aerosol forcing has something to do with the long-term fluctuations in the Earth's climate or whether this is simply a natural process.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
I'd like to see a study done of the effects of on global warming from burning dealerships full of Hummers and other ridiculously large SUVs. :)
 

da loser

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,037
0
0
Originally posted by: Orsorum

This study is finding evidence but has done nothing to attribute causation.
that's the problem with this study, it's available through the ipcc website. it takes all this trend data, which is very small imo in terms of world history. then says ok co2 increasing, yadda yadda. and says well there's no other explanation, therefore bam it's our fault.

so it's very shady... that's a very bad and dumb thing to do. especially if you're going to start playing with numbers through regulation and you don't know what effect that will do. i'm more concerned with local levels of pollution.

also scientists against kyoto doesn't mean they're against this notion of global warming or even that we have caused it. they're against the fvcked regulations it made. you could grow trees, burn them for fuel, and get energy credits (why? because that's biosmass, it's renewable). the treaty was dumb.
 

Jmman

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 1999
5,307
0
76
Originally posted by: da loser
Originally posted by: Orsorum

This study is finding evidence but has done nothing to attribute causation.
that's the problem with this study, it's available through the ipcc website. it takes all this trend data, which is very small imo in terms of world history. then says ok co2 increasing, yadda yadda. and says well there's no other explanation, therefore bam it's our fault.

so it's very shady... that's a very bad and dumb thing to do. especially if you're going to start playing with numbers through regulation and you don't know what effect that will do. i'm more concerned with local levels of pollution.

also scientists against kyoto doesn't mean they're against this notion of global warming or even that we have caused it. they're against the fvcked regulations it made. you could grow trees, burn them for fuel, and get energy credits (why? because that's biosmass, it's renewable). the treaty was dumb.
Ummmm, wrong!

Maybe you should read what the petition that they individually signed says......Petition

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. "

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
We are creating "Scorched Earth".

You can't expect to clear cut every tree in site and build subdivisions and shopping centers and expect it to stay cool.

The "Heat Island" phenomenom is no longer "Heat Islands" within the Continents but becoming the entire Continents themselves as Heat Islands.


 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,414
5,435
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
We are creating "Scorched Earth".

You can't expect to clear cut every tree in site and build subdivisions and shopping centers and expect it to stay cool.

The "Heat Island" phenomenom is no longer "Heat Islands" within the Continents but becoming the entire Continents themselves as Heat Islands.
theres more trees in the US today than what would become the US in 1775
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
We are creating "Scorched Earth".

You can't expect to clear cut every tree in site and build subdivisions and shopping centers and expect it to stay cool.

The "Heat Island" phenomenom is no longer "Heat Islands" within the Continents but becoming the entire Continents themselves as Heat Islands.
theres more trees in the US today than what would become the US in 1775
Where did you get that from?

That is certainly not the case here in Georgia.



 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
1
0
My question to the pro-industry skeptics out there: Do you really want to risk being wrong about global warming and environmental problems in general? To err on the side of caution seems like the best policy IMHO. By the time everyone can agree, it may be too late.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,697
0
76
Originally posted by: Jmman
Harvard Gazette article on study.......LINK

Major Deception

15,000 scientists protest Kyoto


Yeah, I guess there is no debate.....global warming is a fact.......:confused:
Global warming is a fact...

EPA website

climate change chart

the second link I'm afraid... is a freakin joke! ;)

The list of scientists doesnt mention whether they are specialized in climate or enviromental studies. Would I expect a doctor or an psychologists to know about the earth's climate? Absolutely not. Just because they have a PHD doesn't mean they know what they know about the earth's climate.

Not to mention...


Please sign here ______________________________________

My academic degree is B.S. ___ M.S. ___ Ph.D. ___

in the field of _______________________________________

Please enter your name and address here:

_______________________________________________________
Name

_______________________________________________________
Street

_______________________________________________________
City, State, and Zip

Please send more petition cards for me to distribute.__
Anyone could get on this list, I'm thinking of filling a petition out and sending it to them. Lord knows I have no B.S, M. S, or PHD, but they don't ask for any references. Any unqualified ignoramus ;) could potentially get on.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY