• 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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

OS

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
15,581
1
76
Originally posted by: Jmman

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. "
If there's anything I've learned while being in education so damn long, it's that educated views are not necessarily correct. I've seen freaking physics professors who do all their research in cold fusion.

New Look at Satellite Data Supports Global Warming Trend

The amount of increase is relatively small, but data has only existed for 20 years or so. It's definitely something we need to keep an eye on, to write it off so quickly is a grave mistake.
 

Phuz

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2000
4,349
0
0
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
Wow now. I'd like to see some proof of that. We weren't raping forests back then with the power and precision we are now.
 

OS

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
15,581
1
76
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
How in the f*ck could you possibly know that? Most of US wasn't even explored in 1775, much less mapped AND surveyed by qualified people. Hell, there weren't even organizations for that sort of thing in 1775. Much of the mappings for vegetation we get today are through airplanes and satellites. Don't even try to tell me that sh*t existed in 1775.

Seriously STFU if you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

Jmman

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 1999
5,302
0
76
Let me see, the EPA readily admits that there are a lot of uncertainties in their data......

"What's Likely but not Certain?
Figuring out to what extent the human-induced accumulation of greenhouse gases since pre-industrial times is responsible for the global warming trend is not easy. This is because other factors, both natural and human, affect our planet's temperature. Scientific understanding of these other factors ? most notably natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, and the cooling effects of pollutant aerosols ? remains incomplete.


Nevertheless, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated there was a "discernible" human influence on climate; and that the observed warming trend is "unlikely to be entirely natural in origin." In the most recent Third Assessment Report (2001), IPCC wrote "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."



And look at the last part of that little statement. They quote the IPCC again. Wow, their view is based upon something that has readily been changed to suit the current political climate. Imagine that.

And as far as the petition referenced earlier, the names are clearly posted for you to verify to your heart's content. A large percentage of them have PHD's in meterology and climatology as well, but don't let that influence your "chicken little" mentality.....

And when I question the concept of "global warming", I am questioning the role that we play in it, not the fact that the Earth has warmed by a whopping 1 degree or so in the last century.....


Just one more little piece of info. The IPCC commitee that started this whole thing is mainly comprised of scientists that specialize in climatology or meteorology, right? Not even close.........only a very small percentage......



And in case you guys overlooked it, here are a few statements that were approved by the IPCC commitee that the "politicos" removed. Maybe you can see a theme here...

The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.

The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:


"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."


"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."


"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."


Sure looks like they are trying to arbitrarily remove any references doubting the science, huh? I guess they wanted to fool some people, and by reading this thread I would say that they have succeeded........:confused:

I just wanted to add something about my "half-baked links." One was from the Wall Street Journal, one from the Washington Times, one from the Harvard Gazette, and a petition started by Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., President Emeritus, Rockefeller University.
Yep, half-baked all right........
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,250
3,349
126
EPA: What we Know

Using Ice core studies, we(humans) are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than has ever been expelled through Natural Occurences. We do this every year! Most Natural CO2 rises were one time events, Volcanic eruption, asteroid, or such. CO2 events take Centuries to be absorbed from the Atmosphere and we are a Century long CO2 event already. The time to wonder if we have an affect on the Environment is over, the time to wonder if it is already too late to avoid catastrophe is here.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
If suddenly all man-made CO2 emissions stopped, how long would it take for the earth to register the change and how long until a new equalibrium was reached? If we start losing cities to the oceans is it possible to reverse the trend in a timely manner?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,250
3,349
126
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
If suddenly all man-made CO2 emissions stopped, how long would it take for the earth to register the change and how long until a new equalibrium was reached? If we start losing cities to the oceans is it possible to reverse the trend in a timely manner?
The EPA site has a report on PDF that discusses how long it would take, but I'll go from memory:

It's not just CO2 that is the problem, it merely is the worst problem. There are a number of manmade pollutants that cause Global Warming, a few only takes days to be nullified, others take months-years, CO2 takes Centuries. Though CO2 will take Centuries to be nullified, it was noted that improvements would be noticed in advance of those centuries, but even those improvements would take decades to appear.
[/end memory]

[imo] Even if we stop Cold Turkey, we still are on the brink for a longtime to come. It is known that in times past, major Volcanic events had profound impacts on the Earth's Climate, Ecosystems, and even Human Societies. If a major event occured after we took action, it's impact would be amplified. At the EPA site, they show statistics of the atmospheric CO2 content through hsitory(using Ice core samples), during history, CO2 levels through Natural events only reached into the 280 PPM range, however, the current CO2 PPM range is upto 380 PPM and rising some 1.x/year. It is the 1.x+ that Kyoto is trying to eliminate, so in effect Kyoto doesn't even go far enough! It is just one step towards solving a major problem.

The problem with Global Warming is not that there is "Warming", it is the effect on Climate. Though Climate changes are not fully understood as to what exactly affects them, we do know that temperature variations are a factor which affects where rain will occur or where Jetstreams occur and other Climatic phenomena. If Climatic changes to a different Norm, then we could see previously Dry Regions becoming Wet Regions, and vice-versa with awhole lot of other variations/changes in between. Prairie regions where we grow our food could become unable to produce or may only be able to produce certain foods that are not traditional to those regions. On the flipside, Desert Regions may become more able to produce food. From a distance one could surmise that that would be a good thing, perhaps Africa could become more self-sufficient or what not, but what of the adjustment? How many years or decades would such a change take to occur? Can we just stop growing Grains(or other foods) in one Region 1 year then start in another Region the next? Can Geo-Political or Economic sensibilities react to such a change without severe trauma?

I don't want to be over dramatic, but these are all very real possibilities that need to be taken seriously. We know what we have done, we could choose to ignore the possible outcomes, but the nature of an unknown is that for it to be a known you have to wait for the result to occur. What if that result is tragic? Would we then wish we would have done something earlier? Probably.

edit: speeling, clarity
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,187
3,878
126
Sad to say, but as a Republican I can tell you, it's much too expensive to save the world. We will just have to write it off and move on.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,250
3,349
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Sad to say, but as a Republican I can tell you, it's much too expensive to save the world. We will just have to write it off and move on.
hehe :)
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Just to pour a little salt in the wound -- or CO2 in the atmosphere -- did anyone else see this:
From the UK Independent, US says CO2 is not a pollutant

By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles

31 August 2003

The Bush administration has decreed that carbon dioxide from industrial emissions - the main cause of global warming - is not a pollutant.

The decision by the Environmental Protection Agency - announced with minimal fanfare on the eve of the Labor Day weekend - reverses the stance taken under President Clinton and allows industry to increase emissions with impunity.

It is also part of a pattern of casting doubt on scientific evidence, going back to the US's rejection of the Kyoto Protocols in 2001. Earlier this year, the Bush administration excised a 28-page section on climate change from an EPA report. It also ignored a report by the US Academy of Sciences that argued that the evidence of climate change could not be ignored.

"Saying that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming is like refusing to say smoking causes lung cancer," said Melissa Carey, a climate change expert with the advocacy group Environmental Defense.

Environmental groups are now considering suing the EPA to force the regulation of greenhouse gases.

The Bush administration appears to be guided by a leaked memo by the political consultant Frank Luntz, which advised: "Should the public believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."
Note: cynically slipped out late Friday, before the holiday weekend. More dishonesty and destruction from the Bush administration.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: OS
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
How in the f*ck could you possibly know that? Most of US wasn't even explored in 1775, much less mapped AND surveyed by qualified people. Hell, there weren't even organizations for that sort of thing in 1775. Much of the mappings for vegetation we get today are through airplanes and satellites. Don't even try to tell me that sh*t existed in 1775.

Seriously STFU if you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
How in the f*ck could you possibly know that? Most of the World wasn't even explored in 1775, much less had the climate surveyed by qualified people. Hell, there weren't even organizations for that sort of thing in 1775. Much of the mappings for climage we get today are through airplanes and satellites. Don't even try to tell me that sh*t existed in 1775.

Seriously STFU if you don't know what the hell you're talking about
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,399
5,438
126
oh, sorry, the claim was 1492, and it turned out to be false according to forest service estimate. no need to be a complete asshole tho. jerk.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Loss Of Forest Cover Linked To Regional Climate Change

"...
The new study, which appears in the June issue of the Journal of Climate, is the first to document the link between regional climate change and a major change in temperate forest cover.
...
"

But the result is not what you would expext.

Read it for yourself.

edit/
The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in Russia and Elsewhere

"What was done
The authors present an impressive review of what is known about the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, both throughout the world in general and within Russia in particular. The review is based upon written historical evidence, glaciological evidence, hydrologic evidence, dendrological data, archaeological data and palynological data.
...
What it means
The authors began their paper by noting that "an analysis of climate variations over 1000 years should help ? reveal natural multicentennial variations possible at present but not detectable in available 100-200-year series of instrumental records." In this endeavor, they were highly successful; and their efforts have helped expose the bankruptcy of the climate-alarmist claim that the warming of the 20th century is outside the realm of natural variability and must therefore be due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Indeed, their work reveals that much larger temperature changes have occurred naturally over the past millennium than what occurred over the 20th century, which latter rate and degree of change is typically described by climate alarmists as "unprecedented" over the past millennium. Last of all, and in contradiction of another of Mann et al.'s contentions, the authors unequivocally state, based on the results of their comprehensive study of the relevant scientific literature, that "the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age existed globally."
..."



 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
37
91
who cares? So it's getting warmer, just wear something lighter or rev up the good old A/C.
 

KenGr

Senior member
Aug 22, 2002
725
0
0
Relative to the amount of forests in the US, there is some validity to the statements that there are more forests now than there were at certain historical times. These things can actually be determined fairly accurately both by historical surveys in areas that were settled and by archeological techniques like pollen records that provide good estimates of the vegetation mix.

I couldn't find integrated data for the US, although I know it exists. However for a good example I found data from the state of Maine. In 1600 Maine had an estimated 18.2 million acres of forests. This declined rapidly in the early 1700's, reaching a low of 10.0 million acres in 1872. Currently Maine is estimated to have 17.7 million acres of forests. Throughout the US, this pattern of deforestation and recovery has been repeated. There are interesting local effects. The upper midwest (Michigan, Wisconsin) has experienced a net loss due to agriculture but the lower midwest and great plains have seen a significant increase in forest land due to suppression of prairie fires. The traditional logging areas have remained constant or gained in forests due to replanting, forest management, and fire suppression. Many of the areas which were farmed in 1775 (i.e. Shenandoah Valley) have been reclaimed by forests.

We may have a bit less forest than 1775 but not significantly so. Serious forest environmentalists are not concerned about the amount of forest in the US but about non-native species and loss of biodiversity.

 

OS

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
15,581
1
76
Originally posted by: ElFenix
oh, sorry, the claim was 1492, and it turned out to be false according to forest service estimate. no need to be a complete asshole tho. jerk.
yeah ok sorry.

 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,212
126
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
So they're making a claim about 2000 years based on 20 years of study. Woot for science!
Let me guess, you are against the big bang theory because we didnt start studying it 14 billion years ago.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
Warmest in 2000 years.

How many tons of greenhouse gases was man putting into the air 2000 years ago?
No the real question is how many tons of greenhouse gases mother earth has been expelling over the past 2000 years. Which would be, many many many times more than man. Heck mother earth has probably expelled more green houses gases in the last decade than man has in the last decade.
 

Jadow

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2003
5,962
2
0
so it was really hot when Jesus was walking around. Weren't many factories or automobiles around back then.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,187
3,878
126
I don't know about CO2 and global warming, but I can guarantee you that years and years of scientific studies conducted by the tobacco industry shows conclusively that there's no link between smoking and cancer. And why would a cowboy worry about CO2? It's looking bold and decisive that impresses people, not being right. We just want him reelected. And we always honor our donors as they honor us.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,212
126
Originally posted by: Jadow
so it was really hot when Jesus was walking around. Weren't many factories or automobiles around back then.
As has been pointed out, the study terminated looking back 2000 years. It is not that it was as hot as this 2k years ago, but that in this time frame studied, it is hotter now than at other times within that period. It could be that it would still hold if the study went back 100k years. No one knows, because the work has not been done for that far back.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY