Globe Warmer In Time of Vikings

SEWilco writes "A record of recent global temperatures has been assembled by piecing together the hundreds of studies with past temperature estimates [Discovery, Harvard]. The record shows there was a "Medieval Warm Period" warmer than the 20th Century. This was followed by the "Little Ice Age", which ended around 1900. We're having average climate now. Numerous sources indicated this, but apparently were not gathered into one document" This adds some more background reading to the previously linked Telegraph story.

Comments

Bush and Kyoto

[Ogerman]

If these increasing numbers of studies disproving man-influenced climate change turn out to be true, we can all thank Bush for not plunging our economy further down the toilet by signing the Kyoto treaty.

That being said, I am entirely in favor of *real* environmental protection laws and the promotion of cleaner technologies. By 'real' I mean factors that actually affect people--water and air quality, landfills, etc. And I also think we should switch to a hydrogen economy ASAP, not out of worry about so-called greenhouse gasses, but as the single most effective way to fight terrorism--shut off the money flow to the middle east!

Re:Bush and Kyoto

[derubergeek]

I'll start off by saying I predominately agree so that this doesn't look like an argument. I'm only quoting your one line because I'm feeling lazy...

And I also think we should switch to a hydrogen economy ASAP

The only concern I have with the push toward a hydrogen economy is concern about the source of all of this liberated hydrogen. Those who say H20 are going to have to deal with the idea that nuke's are our current best bet toward that economy, at least if it's going to happen in the near future.

Now, I'm not nuke bashing here. The problem I have is that, the current best source for H without using H20 is oil. It takes significantly less energy to get hydrogen from oil than from water. And the only byproduct is carbon (which I would imagine we'll find plenty of uses for if we have an abundance of it). Which means that it's much more likely that our hydrogen economy is going to be oil based.

I'm also not oil bashing here. The real crux of this is that O2 + HC => CO2 + H20. The cool thing is that plants take CO2 + H2O => O2 + HCs. So we've got at least a cycle here.

But what happens when we take HC => H + C, then toss the C, and recombine H + O2 => H2O? We start depleting oxygen from the atmosphere and don't provide a natural path back (although we do get a lot of extra water out of it).

Just something to think about.

For all the pedants out there: 1) Yes - I know my equations are totally unbalanced and 2) Yes - I know my HC oxidation reaction is ideal - in reality there are also NOx, COx, yadda, yadda, yadda, but the focus of this is on the CO2 issue.

Re:One Word: Bull

[GnarlyNome]

Wait a sec Mammoths found frozen in the Siberian Perma frost had undigested vegitation in their stomachs. Even if the Elephunt sized beast was instantly killed, the body's internal heat would have rotted the vegitation.So... does that mean that the tempiture plunged fast enough to flashfreeze a couple of tons of meat?

Pulling numbers out of my ass while drunk

[Unknown Poltroon]

Im just remembering back to a graph showing average earth temps for the past several million years. When you look at the graph, there are ice ages constantly, with little plataus of warmpth ever so often, in a regular pattern. We appear to be right at the start of one of these plateaus, and there are temperatre spinkes up and down on these. Very interesting.

THis time period also relates bact to the Anasazi indians and such in the southwest USA. In the warm period, they floursed with corn farming, and as the climate cooled, the resources became scarce, and they started fighting with each other. Current issue of discover has an article.

Re: What I don't get. . .

[elmegil]

Though personally, I'm not inclined to agree that environmentalism is a purely political issue.

I used to think that too. Then a conservative friend of mine noted that he had quit the Sierra Club after repeatedly having to sit through tirades about Republicans that had not one damn thing to do with actual environmental issues. Looking around, talking with him, reading some of what passed as "discussion" in environmental circles, it became quite apparent that the majority of "greens" have hooked their wagons to a particular rigid point of view about what is and what should be, and have stopped thinking about the general point of science, which is to be flexible and seek truth.

Of course this goes on in most scientific fields--an orthodoxy is established, moves some sort of progress forward, and eventually something comes along to break down or modify the orthodoxy in strange new directions--but in environmental science, and particular around the issue of Global Warming, the orthodoxy is particularly entrenched and fighting particularly hard to hold its position regardless of the facts.

I don't think any reasonable person is going to argue with you that the right thing to do is to modify human behavior to best balance between "progress" and the environment (my conservative friend is among those reasonable people). Unfortunately, most of the so called "environmentalists" have already made up their mind and don't want to discuss it any further. It's like trying to have a religious discussion with Jerry Falwell, and people are just as incensed when these people try to shove their environmental religion down our throats as they are when the (im)Moral Majority does.

Re:you are completely missing the point

[elmegil]

No, the real question is why you are assuming, a priori, that our greenhouse gasses are the sole cause of the current warming trend. Especially in light of evidence that in the past we had warming trends that were much more significant in the absence of the same greenhouse gas production you're trying to stop.

Show me the money. Show me the proof (not a computer model which can be jiggered any old way to fit your biases--and I don't mean that people are doing so consciously or with malice, but it does happen) that our own contributions to the climate are more significant than those of the sun or of other factors.

I think given that we don't even half understand all the things that influence climate (we can't predict weather reliably more than a day or two in advance even now) it is far too premature to say we know for a fact that this tempurature spike is our fault. Reality is, it would be good to limit things, but we have to negotiate from the standpoint of where we really are: we SUSPECT rather than we KNOW. People who run around saying we know are only damaging the credibility of anyone else who has honest concerns about our contributions to global warming.

Re:Liberate Vinland from Yoke of Canadian Oppressi

[Muhammar]

there were no vineries in Iceland (or Greenland) and Vikings had knack for blueberries anyway. (Having their teeth stained blue was a sign of good oral hygiene)

The vineries were in England at that time, though. The englishmen transition back to beer and whiskey coincided with the little ice age of 1200'.