German researchers: tree-rings suggest climate was warmer in Roman and Medieval times than it is now ...

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 11:33 AM GMT
    For the record, I think the world has been warming over the last hundred or so years but I'm skeptical that it's all attributable to anthropogenic warming but that even if it is, it's likely easier to adapt than it is to try to turn the clock back. Data points like this suggest that global climate has fluctuated fairly significantly over time and there remains a lot we don't know. It should be noted that despite not even signing onto the Kyoto protocol, the US is on track to meet its targets and then some - better than many of the signatories to the protocol.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html

    Lead author Professor Dr Jan Esper of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz said: ‘We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low.

    ‘This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant, however it is not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1 deg C.’

    In general the scientists found a slow cooling of 0.6C over 2,000 years, which they attributed to changes in the Earth’s orbit which took it further away from the Sun.

    The study is published in Nature Climate Change.

    It is based on measurements stretching back to 138BC.

    The finding may force scientists to rethink current theories of the impact of global warming.

    Professor Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC.
    In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling.


    Link to scientific journal:
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html which says that variations in the Earth’s orbit have 4 times more impact on climate than anthropogenic warming.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 12:01 PM GMT
    Any reason for it to get hot enough to not wear a shirt is good enough for me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 12:03 PM GMT
    Awesome, another Daily Mail "article".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 12:07 PM GMT
    MadExistence saidAwesome, another Daily Mail "article".


    As also shown in the OP -

    Link to scientific journal:
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html which says that variations in the Earth’s orbit have 4 times more impact on climate than anthropogenic warming.
  • Rowing_Ant

    Posts: 1504

    Jul 12, 2012 12:33 PM GMT
    LOL

    From the early Medieval Period to around the mid-19th cenutry Europe was in a "mini- Ice Age".

    There'd been another from the mid Bronze -Age to the Roman period when it got seriously cold and wet in Europe which is why the uplands were all abandoned as the soil podsolised after being waterlogged, forming the peat bogs and moors (e.g. Yorkshire Moors and Dartmoor) we know today.

    Climate fluctuates.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 2:16 PM GMT
    In Finland, not worldwide.
    The article you cite explicitly mention that
    Twentieth-century Scandinavian warming is relatively small compared with most other Northern Hemisphere high-latitude regions


    This article is about better calibration of past temperature record.
    It's not about any new finding on climate variability, which is well know, both on large and short term range, and not disputed by any climatologist.

    Now, those fluctuation mostly fall on 'fast and small', like the roman and medieval time, and 'slow and huge', like ice ages.

    Earth orbit variations generate those 'slow and huge' climate change.

    Greenhouse gazes, like CO2, allow planets to be warmer than they would be without atmosphere, just like a blanket keep you warm at night.

    We do put a lot of CO2 in air, temperature is rising on average (it means going up and down, but more often up than down).

    Now, earth is a very complex system, and there is tons of mechanism allowing it to cool itself when temp rise, but also tons of mechanism allowing it to accelerate warming all by itself.

    Unlike you, I think burned fossil energy is the main reason for recent warming.
    Like you, I don't think we can stop it, but 'to adapt' is likely to means millions of death by starvation, war for water/food etc...


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 2:27 PM GMT
    Global warming was just another yuppie neurosis and media event. I had to look no farther than my backyard to see that giant fern fossils could not have grown in the now cold climate. Obviously weather is always changing. I just wish San Franciscon would warm up just a bit. 60 degrees in July at night is warm for SF.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 2:30 PM GMT
    minox saidLike you, I don't think we can stop it, but 'to adapt' is likely to means millions of death by starvation, war for water/food etc..


    I think it's the opposite - trying to turn back the clock is what will cause massive starvation/war given the resources that will need to be consumed. Again, it's remarkable but the US is on track to reach 1991 CO2 levels - thanks in large part to the development of shale gas and coal getting cleaner.

    The people who are putting out more CO2 aren't the developed countries of the world but the developing ones. The best way for these countries to adapt is to have their people wealthier. How can we morally ask them to stay poor?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 2:58 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    minox saidLike you, I don't think we can stop it, but 'to adapt' is likely to means millions of death by starvation, war for water/food etc..


    I think it's the opposite - trying to turn back the clock is what will cause massive starvation/war given the resources that will need to be consumed. Again, it's remarkable but the US is on track to reach 1991 CO2 levels - thanks in large part to the development of shale gas and coal getting cleaner.

    The people who are putting out more CO2 aren't the developed countries of the world but the developing ones. The best way for these countries to adapt is to have their people wealthier. How can we morally ask them to stay poor?


    To be honest, the switch to shale gaze is driven by economic and autonomy needs, not by ecological goals, so it's a bit far fetched to make it look at the result of a reduction of CO2 level willingness.

    And the people who did burn fossil resources into CO2 to today level ARE the developed ones.
    Country like China will make it lot worse, as they have tons of coals and needs for it, but how could we morally ask them not to do what we did earlier.

    I don't see how being wealthier will help Bangladesh people relocate by hundred of millions when the see level will claim their land. But of course, it's not for today, I won't see it, don't think my kids will see it, may be my grand children. It's so far away, let the unborn kids handle the issues when they face it.

    More seriously, I think denying CO2 impact on climate change is absurd (but you don't do that), I also think it's very difficult to know when it will impact our economy/lifestyle, I don't think energy efficient light bulb will save the world.

    The vast majority of people on hearth struggle just to eat and drink clean water, minor change in food price, bad crop season etc... lead them to death.

    We are blessed with expensive classy lifestyle. For me, the moral dilemma is to consider my refusal to alter my comfort level just a little bit could lead to countless avoidable death. But most people don't care about consequence that are one or two centuries away from today.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 3:25 PM GMT
    What is your take on the near unanimous scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate-change?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    Rag on me for linking you a wikipedia article, but it's a great consolidation on the scientific opinion of climate change.

    I have no idea how humanity should face this issue, I'm honestly not qualified to make any kind of presumption on the best actions to take and I won't try to pointlessly argue that here. I will say, it is happening and it's not a political statement to say humans are causing it, but rather a credible scientific theory that is accepted nearly unequivocally among the scientific community.
  • ATXnative

    Posts: 240

    Jul 12, 2012 3:38 PM GMT
    You could have looked at a timeline from a grade school book any time in the last couple decades to see that our planet's environment is not static by any means. Do you have any new information?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 3:45 PM GMT
    " the simple fact underlying climate change is the same

    whether you’re talking a 2-liter bottle or the Earth’s atmosphere:

    if you add carbon dioxide to a mixture of gasses, the mixture will trap more heat. "

    from the current issues of Forbes, titled

    The Basic Science Of Climate Change Is Undeniable by Alex Knapp
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 3:46 PM GMT
    OP is always posting this type of garbage to promote the oil and natural gas industry's agenda.

    I laughed when I watched the lobbyists stunt on Fox News yesterday (this story was showcased), and I'm laughing again today after reading the OP.

    Here you go. At least this story is based on reality:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bob-ward/the-worlds-most-visited-n_b_1667338.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 3:48 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    minox saidLike you, I don't think we can stop it, but 'to adapt' is likely to means millions of death by starvation, war for water/food etc..


    I think it's the opposite - trying to turn back the clock is what will cause massive starvation/war given the resources that will need to be consumed. Again, it's remarkable but the US is on track to reach 1991 CO2 levels - thanks in large part to the development of shale gas and coal getting cleaner.

    The people who are putting out more CO2 aren't the developed countries of the world but the developing ones. The best way for these countries to adapt is to have their people wealthier. How can we morally ask them to stay poor?


    icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif

    Oh, yes, it's remarkable ... because it isn't true.

    Regarding the question of how we (e.g. Americans) can ask citizens of developing countries to stay poor, I'm wondering if you could ask the same of the Republican Party, who's fighting tooth and nail to form a plutocracy right here in the U.S. The poor class is growing by leaps and bounds while the middle class is shrinking and the top 2% are reaping more benefits today than at any other time in American history.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 4:16 PM GMT
    Great.. .you come up with one hundred studies demonstrating a rise in temperature, then somebody publishes one (which is to be statistically expected) in a single location that demonstrated the opposite, and everybody is talking about only that one....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 4:19 PM GMT
    Incidentally.. the past "2000 year cooling" is to be expected... as we are heading into a new ice age anyway... we are now in an interglacial... so nobody need be surprised at that

    Global warming is around since more recently... and is probably not natural, and it does not fit the normal ice age pattern
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 4:20 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    variations in the Earth’s orbit have 4 times more impact on climate than anthropogenic warming.


    No really? are you serious? Im so flabbergasted... I cant believe it... i thought us humans were omnipotent...

    Like wow man, seriously, what a scientific observation... and to try to use that as an argument against the existence of anthropogenic warming even.... sheesh
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 4:23 PM GMT
    GreenHopper saidGreat.. .you come up with one hundred studies demonstrating a rise in temperature, then somebody publishes one (which is to be statistically expected) in a single location that demonstrated the opposite, and everybody is talking about only that one....



    The point is it's all based on the baby boomer mind set that everything revolves around them . I remember when they "invented sex" in the 1970's. Now they are saying weather can't be vary from the mean at their day of birth. The deal is climatic always changes and does not give a fuck about humans. Mars ice caps are melting and it's not because we landed a few toys on the that planet.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 4:25 PM GMT
    ATXnative saidYou could have looked at a timeline from a grade school book any time in the last couple decades to see that our planet's environment is not static by any means. Do you have any new information?


    Pretty much no... all these studies so far that Ive seen seem only to want to mislead the readers....

    Here is one article like that

    http://zen-haven.dk/satellite-study-of-asian-mountains-show-that-glaciers-are-not-melting/

    Here I can show you the misleading statements already:

    "Huge glaciers in the area between Pakistan and China are puzzling scientists – and disproving the doom-laden predictions of some climate experts.

    The glaciers in the Karakoram Range between northern Pakistan and western China have actually grown, rather than shrinking.

    Unlike most mountain glaciers, the Karakoram glaciers, which account for 3 percent of the total ice-covered area in the world, excluding Greenland and Antarctica, are not shrinking.
    "


    1) Its not some experts... its most experts...

    2) And to try to "exclude" greenland and antarctica, is to be playing with that number, which then amounts to 3%, not to mention they did not even BOTHER to mention they were excluding sea-ice... so the whole statement of "ice-covered area in the world" is basically just toyed with in order to make it seem more significant than it is to an unwary reader
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 4:30 PM GMT
    Alpha13 said
    GreenHopper saidGreat.. .you come up with one hundred studies demonstrating a rise in temperature, then somebody publishes one (which is to be statistically expected) in a single location that demonstrated the opposite, and everybody is talking about only that one....



    The point is it's all based on the baby boomer mind set that everything revolves around them . I remember when they "invented sex" in the 1970's. Now they are saying weather can't be vary from the mean at their day of birth. The deal is climatic always changes and does not give a fuck about humans. Mars ice caps are melting and it's not because we landed a few toys on the that planet.


    But thats not what this study is saying sir. This one study up here wants to demonstrate the world is cooling... that does not fly with "ice caps melting".. if this one article is right about the temperature going down, then all those hundreds of studies saying the world is heating up, and the ice shrinking with it would b wrong.. if you now say that Mars ice caps are melting, you are also agreeing that the world is heating up, not that this article is correct about the world cooling

    And to address whether humans have an impact or not on the weather... biologically speaking, to say the weather does not give a fuck about humans... thats a bit naive... since any ecologist knows forests have an effect on rainfall, cut the forest, rainfall goes down... basically, the biosphere regulates the weather, this is pretty much non-controversial in both biology and meteorology
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 4:33 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    minox saidLike you, I don't think we can stop it, but 'to adapt' is likely to means millions of death by starvation, war for water/food etc..


    I think it's the opposite - trying to turn back the clock is what will cause massive starvation/war given the resources that will need to be consumed. Again, it's remarkable but the US is on track to reach 1991 CO2 levels - thanks in large part to the development of shale gas and coal getting cleaner.


    Massive starvation / war is already happening... and considering the climate change and its effects on the food sources (like the vast amounts of crops lost this year in North America due to the heat) it will increase anyway..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 4:47 PM GMT
    GreenHopper said
    riddler78 said
    minox saidLike you, I don't think we can stop it, but 'to adapt' is likely to means millions of death by starvation, war for water/food etc..


    I think it's the opposite - trying to turn back the clock is what will cause massive starvation/war given the resources that will need to be consumed. Again, it's remarkable but the US is on track to reach 1991 CO2 levels - thanks in large part to the development of shale gas and coal getting cleaner.


    Massive starvation / war is already happening... and considering the climate change and its effects on the food sources (like the vast amounts of crops lost this year in North America due to the heat) it will increase anyway..


    Actually, the good news is that nutrition levels have been rising and starvation is going down according to the UN. War and violence is also going down - ref: stephen pinker / violence
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 6:23 PM GMT
    4254681996_27b1ed7ff0.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 6:39 PM GMT
    GreenHopper said
    riddler78 said
    variations in the Earth’s orbit have 4 times more impact on climate than anthropogenic warming.


    No really? are you serious? Im so flabbergasted... I cant believe it... i thought us humans were omnipotent...

    Like wow man, seriously, what a scientific observation... and to try to use that as an argument against the existence of anthropogenic warming even.... sheesh


    Um when did I use it as evidence against anthropogenic warming? You might consider taking your own advice...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 11:46 PM GMT
    riddler78 asks

    "Um when did I use it as evidence against anthropogenic warming? "

    So Riddler, you aren't presenting evidence against man made global warming

    SO THEN, WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

    Just blowing smoke?

    Yes, we understand the Koch Bros. point of view: ' It's all very complicated-----so it's best to leave the Fossil Fuels Industry in charge. '

    Thanks for that reminder.