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 11:57 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..

    ...
    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?


    Did this little bit remind anyone of 'Thank You For Smoking'?

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

    Jul 13, 2012 12:17 AM GMT
    MsclDrew said4254681996_27b1ed7ff0.jpg

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

    Jul 13, 2012 12:22 AM GMT
    "The Little Ice Age tells the story of the turbulent, unpredictable, and often very cold years of modern European history, how this altered climate affected historical events, and what it means for today's global warming. Building on research that has only recently confirmed that the world endured a 500year cold snap, renowned archaeologist Brian Fagan shows how the increasing cold influenced familiar events from Norse exploration to the settlement of North America to the Industrial Revolution. This is a fascinating book for anyone interested in history, climate, and how they interact."

    littleiceage.jpg
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13999

    Jul 13, 2012 12:44 AM GMT
    I don't really understand how anyone can think that mankind can make so many changes to the natural environment and it will have no effect on naturally occurring weather and climate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 12:50 AM GMT
    MsclDrew said4254681996_27b1ed7ff0.jpg


    Omg yes! I was looking for this!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 1:38 AM GMT
    Ok, so maybe the climate data from one small area of the world circa 138 BC was incorrect. Maybe.

    But what about temp data from everywhere else in the world at that time? Are there more studies being done to verify previous findings?

    I still think the image MsclDrew posted says it all:
    4254681996_27b1ed7ff0.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 1:39 AM GMT


    Also, ever heard of these? Theyve only been around as far as we know, since after the industrial revolution...

    Jan-Koeman1.jpg

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

    They are basically "ice clouds"... all clouds have a tendency to form around particles in the air... the atmospheric particulate has increased dramatically from the industrial revolution on thanks to pollution... leading to an increase in global cloud cover... thus it is highly likely that the dramatic appearance and increase of these clouds has to do with human emission of particles into the atmosphere...

    now if cloud cover does not affect the climate... I would basically be sent into a stupor since all meteorology would be way off... HOW it would do so is controversial, but its clear that humans affect cloud cover... cloud cover affects climate...

    Thus... humans -> climate change

    And we're certainly not the only species, or the last to do so... in fact, every species on earth affects the climate.. here is a good example of an ancient change on earth caused by life:

    32a_proterozoic.jpg

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

    These little babies were around before oxygen was in the air.. in fact, they were the cause of oxygen being built up in our atmosphere in the first place.. thus, a living being completely altered the chemical make-up of the planet...

    And finally, the last example I can give of a living being altering the environment:

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

    220px-Coal.jpg

    And no, im not talking about humans altering the climate by burning fossil fuels....

    What I mean to say, very bluntly, is that the cause of fossil fuels existing in the first place, is because of living beings capturing Carbon from the air and binding it into a solid form, which then became trapped in the layers of the earth. This was extremely significant, as the loss of Carbon would have led a previously very hot earth to become gradually cooler, until we reach the current period, that of the Ice ages...

    thus, without living beings constantly altering the climate, there would be no oxygen in our skies, and it would be filled with carbon dioxide... in short, our world would look more like the planet Venus does, with 98% CO2 and no O2... and pretty much unliveable for a species like us...

    If that isnt proof enough of living beings affecting climate, I dont know what would be....

    Finally, biologists put this very neatly into the Gaia principle:

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

    This pretty much simply summarises everything I said above, and builds mathematical models of this "climate-regulating" aspect of living beings... that in short.. living beings regulate climate.. they control it... they are not solely a random victim to climate... and neither are we.. and Im sure you would be hard-pressed to find a biologist or meteorologist or even a geologist (who may study the soil, and know perfectly well that all of the existing soil isnt just randomly there , but is actually created and controlled by the organisms that live on the planet ) that would disagree with the perfectly accepted theory that living beings influence the non-living world around them in dramatic, dramatic ways.... to the point of pretty much controlling the entire chemical and physical make-up of our atmosphere and biosphere and earth crust

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

    Jul 13, 2012 1:42 AM GMT
    Snoop_Dawg_Cranky said
    Rowing_Ant saidLOL

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

    Yes, and that mini-Ice Age didn't end by degrees, it ended abruptly in (I think) 1844. Scientists now believe that the end of it was the effect of the first onset of the Industrial Revolution.

    In other words, this disaster has been building for 168 years.


    O wow, I did not think of that... thanks for pointing that out!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 1:55 AM GMT
    I certainly didn't need a PhD in Tree Rings to realize the world was a lot warmer 1,000 years ago. The Vikings obviously called it GREENLand for a reason and it certainly wasn't for the shade of the icebergs calving off the coasts!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 2:10 AM GMT
    gorgon.jpg

    awesome book...

    "The gorgons ruled the world of animals long before there was any age of dinosaurs. They were the T. Rex of their day until an environmental cataclysm 250 million years ago annihilated them—along with 90 percent of all plant and animal species on the planet—in an event so terrible even the extinction of the dinosaurs pales in comparison."

    http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Gorgon/Peter-Ward/e/9780143034711
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 2:15 AM GMT
    rareearth.jpg

    This book has a very interesting explanation for how the earth narturally keeps the atmospheric carbon dioxide in balance so the planet doesnt over heat.

    "What determines whether complex life will arise on a planet, or even any life at all? Questions such as these are investigated in this groundbreaking book. In doing so, the authors synthesize information from astronomy, biology, and paleontology, and apply it to what we know about the rise of life on Earth and to what could possibly happen elsewhere in the universe. Everyone who has been thrilled by the recent discoveries of extrasolar planets and the indications of life on Mars and the Jovian moon Europa will be fascinated by Rare Earth, and its implications for those who look to the heavens for companionship."

    http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Rare-Earth/Peter-Ward/e/9780387952895
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 2:33 AM GMT
    I'm not worried. I live in Canada. Today's tundra is tomorrows beachfront. icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 2:35 AM GMT
    YVRguy saidI certainly didn't need a PhD in Tree Rings to realize the world was a lot warmer 1,000 years ago. The Vikings obviously called it GREENLand for a reason and it certainly wasn't for the shade of the icebergs calving off the coasts!

    Actually according to the ancient written sources, the name was just to induce people to come settle.

    "There are two written sources on the origin of the name, in The Book of Icelanders (Íslendingabók), a historical work dealing with early Icelandic history from the 12th century, and in the medieval Icelandic saga, The Saga of Eric the Red (Eiríks saga rauða), which is about the Norse settlement in Greenland and the story of Erik the Red in particular. Both sources write: "He named the land Greenland, saying that people would be eager to go there if it had a good name." "

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 2:46 AM GMT
    Sometimes I feel the hype is way too much on "global warming" and not nearly enough on biodiversity and protected habitats.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 2:47 AM GMT
    minox saidIn 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...




    Well said. When I studied environmental chemistry over 10 years ago, I never once heard a professor talk about drastically cutting emissions as a viable approach. This is usually the goal of extremists and governments that have no intention of acting but want to appease the extremists. If policy even came up (since it was chemistry) it usually centred around the idea that supply and demand making fossil fuels progressively expensive opening the door for previously less appealing options (less appealing due to expense).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 2:48 AM GMT
    YVRguy saidI'm not worried. I live in Canada. Today's tundra is tomorrows beachfront. icon_smile.gif


    Except global warming has more to do with violent and extreme weather than it does about warm balmy days in northern latitudes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 2:51 AM GMT
    MuchoMasQueMusculo saidFrom my recollection, the Earth has been through about seven ice ages over the billions of years it has been in existence.


    Actually there are two types of ice ages... In geological terms we distinguish "Glacial ages" (true ice ages) from "glacial periods" ( cycles of glaciation within those periods... periods where there is more ice)...

    One "Ice Age" is the current period in earth geological history.. we are in the pleistocene-quaternaty period right now, in which we see cycles of cooling down and heating up (glaciations), which has been since about 3 million years....

    Beyond that there were indeed other "Ice Ages" but before that, it is postulated the entire planet was ice-free... Since we are currently in an Ice Age, in popular lingo, we tend to call instaed the glaciations (cycles of more ice) ice ages by themselves.. hence I specify there are two types... one is simply called "glaciation" in geology and the last one ended only 10,000 years ago ...thus it is not a true Ice Age, but we tend to think of it as such among the general public...

    in geological history, we are indeed IN a true Ice Age.. any age in which there is ice on earth (as opposed to the earth being ice-free like before) and these true "ice ages" have, like you said, existed over billions of years.. I believe

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

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

    So basically, we are currently in a glacial age.. but we are in an interglacial period (period of less ice) within that current glacial age

    Capiche? lol Tell me if I dont explain it well



  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Jul 13, 2012 2:55 AM GMT
    As many have pointed out, this article is nothing more than the usual Daily Mail conservative spin and propaganda. The fact remains that global warming, or more appropriately, human-caused climate change is a PROVEN scientific phenomena, with so much evidence documenting its existence and cause (humans' extreme CO2 generation) that there is ZERO doubt in the scientific community. Manhattan will be underwater and Australia's great barrier reef will be dead if we do not do something serious about it soon; "adapting" to a warmer planet (i.e., a planet we've destroyed) is not and will never be a viable option.

    To say you don't believe in human-caused climate change is like saying you don't believe in gravity... yes, you sound that brainwashed and stupid. The conservative sheep on here need to stop drinking the GOP Kool-Aide; they're brainwashed by greedy corporations who would rather destroy the planet for future generations than act responsibly and risk hurting their absurd profits.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 2:59 AM GMT
    Caslon20000 said
    YVRguy saidI certainly didn't need a PhD in Tree Rings to realize the world was a lot warmer 1,000 years ago. The Vikings obviously called it GREENLand for a reason and it certainly wasn't for the shade of the icebergs calving off the coasts!

    Actually according to the ancient written sources, the name was just to induce people to come settle.

    "There are two written sources on the origin of the name, in The Book of Icelanders (Íslendingabók), a historical work dealing with early Icelandic history from the 12th century, and in the medieval Icelandic saga, The Saga of Eric the Red (Eiríks saga rauða), which is about the Norse settlement in Greenland and the story of Erik the Red in particular. Both sources write: "He named the land Greenland, saying that people would be eager to go there if it had a good name." "

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


    LAUGH! The very next paragraph from the cited work:

    "At the time of the Norse settlement, the inner regions of the long fjords where the settlements were located were very different from today. Excavations show that there were considerable birch woods with birch trees up to 4 to 6 meters high in the area around the inner parts of the Tunuliarfik- and Aniaaq-fjords, the central area of the Eastern settlement, and the hills were grown with grass and willow brushes."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 3:08 AM GMT
    YVRguy said
    Caslon20000 said
    YVRguy saidI certainly didn't need a PhD in Tree Rings to realize the world was a lot warmer 1,000 years ago. The Vikings obviously called it GREENLand for a reason and it certainly wasn't for the shade of the icebergs calving off the coasts!

    Actually according to the ancient written sources, the name was just to induce people to come settle.

    "There are two written sources on the origin of the name, in The Book of Icelanders (Íslendingabók), a historical work dealing with early Icelandic history from the 12th century, and in the medieval Icelandic saga, The Saga of Eric the Red (Eiríks saga rauða), which is about the Norse settlement in Greenland and the story of Erik the Red in particular. Both sources write: "He named the land Greenland, saying that people would be eager to go there if it had a good name." "

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


    LAUGH! The very next paragraph from the cited work:

    "At the time of the Norse settlement, the inner regions of the long fjords where the settlements were located were very different from today. Excavations show that there were considerable birch woods with birch trees up to 4 to 6 meters high in the area around the inner parts of the Tunuliarfik- and Aniaaq-fjords, the central area of the Eastern settlement, and the hills were grown with grass and willow brushes."


    Funny, I had heard both theories... that the land was green... or that it was simply a ruse...

    Most likely, it was both... it probably was green.. and he called it that to get people to go there.. the two are not mutually exclusive events...

    That is, if you like to think logically lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 3:33 AM GMT
    t0theheights said...To say you don't believe in human-caused climate change is like saying you don't believe in gravity... yes, you sound that brainwashed and stupid. The conservative sheep on here need to stop drinking the GOP Kool-Aide; they're brainwashed by greedy corporations who would rather destroy the planet for future generations than act responsibly and risk hurting their absurd profits.


    I said nothing about the cause of global climate! I agree humans are changing the climate. The Aborigines did it in Australia thousands of years ago thanks to their massive forest burn offs so I have no doubt we can do it in the Industrial Age. My point is that I'm completely skeptical the world will end as we know it.

    Will we have warmer temperatures in the Arctic? Probably. Has that happened before? Yes. See above.

    Will deserts expand? Yes, they're already expanding. The existence of crocodiles in Saharan deserts is proof of that. Deserts also contract.

    Will biospheres shift? Yes. Northern countries are already seeing southern animals move north. About a year ago the Cdn Broadcasting Corp reported on the discovery of wasps up North. The local Inuit had no idea what they were. There was no Inuit word for them.

    Will storms get worse? I'm told so but I still raise one eyebrow everytime time a hurricane hits the Gulf Coast and people blame "climate change".

    Will people move around the planet as conditions change? Yes, we've been doing that for thousands of years. Will we need to do it instantly? No.

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

    Jul 13, 2012 5:32 AM GMT
    YVRguy said
    t0theheights said...To say you don't believe in human-caused climate change is like saying you don't believe in gravity... yes, you sound that brainwashed and stupid. The conservative sheep on here need to stop drinking the GOP Kool-Aide; they're brainwashed by greedy corporations who would rather destroy the planet for future generations than act responsibly and risk hurting their absurd profits.


    I said nothing about the cause of global climate! I agree humans are changing the climate. The Aborigines did it in Australia thousands of years ago thanks to their massive forest burn offs so I have no doubt we can do it in the Industrial Age. My point is that I'm completely skeptical the world will end as we know it.

    Will we have warmer temperatures in the Arctic? Probably. Has that happened before? Yes. See above.

    Will deserts expand? Yes, they're already expanding. The existence of crocodiles in Saharan deserts is proof of that. Deserts also contract.

    Will biospheres shift? Yes. Northern countries are already seeing southern animals move north. About a year ago the Cdn Broadcasting Corp reported on the discovery of wasps up North. The local Inuit had no idea what they were. There was no Inuit word for them.

    Will storms get worse? I'm told so but I still raise one eyebrow everytime time a hurricane hits the Gulf Coast and people blame "climate change".

    Will people move around the planet as conditions change? Yes, we've been doing that for thousands of years. Will we need to do it instantly? No.



    Thousand years ago, we were few and far between.

    Today we are 7 billions. And more than 1.5 billion live close to sea. When the sea rise (you forgot to mention that), I doubt surrounding nations will be willing (and able) to absorb billions of refugees.

    Today, most cultivatable area on earth are cultivated to feed us, so even a small percentage of farmland turning into desert will have significant impact on food availability.

    Adjusting to climatic change in the past meant lifestyle adaptation, migrations, competitions for resources between population.

    Of course humanity will do it just like in the past, but our of the size of today population, and out of today farming and fishing close to earth renewable potential, the casualties will be order of magnitude more important.

    Common sens is that the faster the change in environmental condition, the more difficult the adaptation.

    And it's possible to make the climate change slower, or faster, out of controlling or not how fast be burn fossil fuel.

    The timeline is hard to predict, but as we know don't have enough fossil reserve to use it at actual rate for centuries, and that we will then have to switch to other energy source in a non so distant future, life of our descendants can only be better if we make the switch sooner rather than later.



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

    Jul 13, 2012 5:44 AM GMT
    I have little doubt that significant scientific discoveries will be made in the next several hundred years that will impact energy production reducing our reliance on fossil fuels before they run out. As they say, necessity is the Mother of Invention. The real problem, as alluded to above, is quite simply overpopulation, particularly in the third world. Unchecked population growth is a far greater threat to our world than fossil fuel consumption.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 5:47 AM GMT
    minox said
    YVRguy said
    t0theheights said...To say you don't believe in human-caused climate change is like saying you don't believe in gravity... yes, you sound that brainwashed and stupid. The conservative sheep on here need to stop drinking the GOP Kool-Aide; they're brainwashed by greedy corporations who would rather destroy the planet for future generations than act responsibly and risk hurting their absurd profits.


    I said nothing about the cause of global climate! I agree humans are changing the climate. The Aborigines did it in Australia thousands of years ago thanks to their massive forest burn offs so I have no doubt we can do it in the Industrial Age. My point is that I'm completely skeptical the world will end as we know it.

    Will we have warmer temperatures in the Arctic? Probably. Has that happened before? Yes. See above.

    Will deserts expand? Yes, they're already expanding. The existence of crocodiles in Saharan deserts is proof of that. Deserts also contract.

    Will biospheres shift? Yes. Northern countries are already seeing southern animals move north. About a year ago the Cdn Broadcasting Corp reported on the discovery of wasps up North. The local Inuit had no idea what they were. There was no Inuit word for them.

    Will storms get worse? I'm told so but I still raise one eyebrow everytime time a hurricane hits the Gulf Coast and people blame "climate change".

    Will people move around the planet as conditions change? Yes, we've been doing that for thousands of years. Will we need to do it instantly? No.



    Thousand years ago, we were few and far between.

    Today we are 7 billions. And more than 1.5 billion live close to sea. When the sea rise (you forgot to mention that), I doubt surrounding nations will be willing (and able) to absorb billions of refugees.





    Funny you should mention that.. during the last ice age the sea was lower... and many cities were built along the shore which are now submerged... many of these relate back to the "flood myths".. such as the ones about atlantis and the biblical one, which are likely to have been cities around the mediterranean and in the black sea.... Japan and India also have stories of submerged cities... and many ruins are found in their waters as well

    As for the farmland problem... that too has happened... many times over in history.. such as the great cities of Harappa and Mohenjo Daro and many of the cities of the middle east, once surrounded by farmland, now just ruins in the deserts
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 5:49 AM GMT
    YVRguy saidI have little doubt that significant scientific discoveries will be made in the next several hundred years that will impact energy production reducing our reliance on fossil fuels before they run out. As they say, necessity is the Mother of Invention. The real problem, as alluded to above, is quite simply overpopulation, particularly in the third world. Unchecked population growth is a far greater threat to our world than fossil fuel consumption.



    Hmmm tough... third world population growth does not consume anywhere near the amounts of resources that the first world does... the USA alone is 5% of the worlds population, but consumes 20% of its resources