Slashdot Mirror
20th Century Warmest In 1200 Years
gcranston writes "Research from the University of East Anglia in Norwich, U.K. shows that the 20th century was the warmest for the northern hemisphere since approximately 800AD. Historical climate data were calculated from weather 'proxies' such as tree rings, ice cores, and seashells from Europe, Asia, and North America, and attempted to address the shortcomings of earlier studies. The findings support the argument for global warming as a result of human interference rather than natural climate change."
Let me know when you have some of this "actual science" for me to blindly and foolishly reject. So far, it's been a lot of fudged data poured into computer models which don't stand up to simple validation QA.
You can't even tell me what the temperature was in my home town of Minneapolis on this day in 1830, and you expect me to believe that you've charted the whole northern hemisphere back to 800 AD?
I call shenanigans.
Research from the University of East Anglia in Norwich, U.K. shows that the 20th century was the warmest for the northern hemisphere since approximately 800AD. (stuff deleted for brevity) The findings support the argument for global warming as a result of human interference rather than natural climate change.
Huh?
It's the warmest year since approximately 800AD and it's definitely because of Human efforts?
Then why was it warmer BEFORE 800AD?
Where there MORE people then? Did they put MORE CARBON in the atmosphere back then?
Goofy, Geeky Gifts and More!
It's impossible that things were warmer in the 8th century than in the 20th.
There were no SUVs in the 8th century, so in order to believe this headline, I'd have to accept that the temperature of the planet can vary a few degrees even without 20th century technology, which is against my core tenants as a Green.
Further, the 8th century did not destroy all life on the planet, which means that high temperatures a fraction of a degree above normal are tolerated by the ecosystem. This is also in conflict with a principle of my ideology.
Therefore it can not be true.
Unless there is a distinct and pronounced rise in the mean temperature that can be shown to begin with the industrial revolution, I don't see this to be anything significant.
From the data in TFA, it only shows that there is currently a spike in the median temperature, and that there have been previous spikes and lulls.
In geological terms, IIRC we are between ice ages - 10K years into a 20K cycle. Guess what, I expect it to be warm right now & then start cooling off in the next 1K years or so.
I see lots of proof of global climate change, but I have seen very little data showing it starts with the industrial revolution and the increased production of greenhouse gasses by humans.
Compare 100 million cubic metres of gas of CO2 from 1 lake (184K Metric Tons) with 5652 Metric tons for the US in 2000. 30X the CO2 output of the US in it's worst recorded year - almost 8 times the entire worlds output. You think those numbers are bad? 1,800 tons per day of SO2 from a Hawaii volcano - with even more CO2.
Am I anti-polution control, heck no. I like breathing. But when it comes to claiming that humans are having a huge influence, I just think people are underestimating Mother Nature.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You're wrong. Please read the article before trying to sound all educated and scientific, because you're neither.
There must be something we can do about the shitty moderation taking place around here. Over the last few weeks I've seen more instances of downright BAD moderation than in the past several years.
This post is actually quite good. The writer could have gone into more depth but he certainly is correct in his assesment that we are currently in an inter-glacial phase. However if we are going to go back into a glacial period then a better guesstimate might be that it is more than 5,000 years away.
The simple fact is that we have gone through at least 20 ice cycles in the last 2 million years and that the earth has been cold for about the last 20-30 million years. Prior to this recent cooling - earth was warm continuously throughout the Triassic, Jurasic and Cretaceous which is a period of over 200 million years. By warmer I mean an average global temperature of about 20 degrees warmer.
It should be noted that the poles were not ice covered until the present cooling which seemed to get going during the miocene.
At some point the planet in all likelihood will warm up. The reason is that for over 85% of the history of the planet since the end of the Precambrian - the planet was warm (say about 570 million years). There have only been a couple of times in the geological past when it has been as cool as now - so it does make sense that at some time the planet will probably revert back to normal.
Furthermore, if one compares the Ordovician ice age to the present, one finds that CO2 levels were about 13x to 17x higher than now and still the planet cooled into an ice age - then warmed back up. So it would appear that CO2 levels back then were not the deciding factor. If CO2 was not the deciding factor back then - then one would be wise to question if it has any significance today. In fact the Ordovician cooling is correlated with the Taconic orogeny just as the present cooling is correlated with the mountain building which has occured since the end of the Cretaceous. This includes the Rockies, Pyrannenes, Andies, Himalain, two hellenic mountain ranges, the tibetian and colorado plateaus... Ie - a large amount of land pushed to high elevation. It is perfectly obvious that mountain tops reflect energy back into space just as it is perfectly obvious that moist air at sea level tends to hold solar energy.
This is ESPECIALLY so when one checks the absolute humidity (H2O) which we KNOW is responsible for the earth being about 30 degrees warmer than it would be were the water vapour not in the atmosphere. Compared the the 50,000 to 80,000 PPM of H2O in the atmosphere at sea level in the tropics, the change of 70 PPM in CO2 over the last few hundred years is totally negligable. One cannot even add the CO2 measurements to the water vapour measurements because the uncertanty of the water vapour measurments masks the total CO2 by several times.
What is truely amasing is that H2O is not even counted as a green house gas by many of the folks who are most conserned about global warming. Yet we literally would be freezing our butts off were it not for H2O in the atmosphere.
The oceans have a moderating effect on a thousand year time scale. Since it was warmer during the medieval warm period by this guestimate it makes sense that earth would warm up now.
People who really want to know what is going on mind you should study paleoclimatology. The geological record of climate does shed light on how the earth functions.
Another thing that is truely amasing is how little perspective most climate change people have of the scale of geological time. If we were to map say the Encyclopeadia Britannic to the time since the beginning of the Cambrian - then each book in the set would represent something like 30 million years and each page would represent about 3,000 years. On this scale the climate warming people are looking at day usually contained on the last page and normally within the last couple paragraphs of the lsat page of the last book. Meanwhile they ignore
Sorry, but it's hard to take anything seriously from anyone who uses CE/BCE instead of AD/BC. Regardless of your views on religion, ignoring 2,000 years of history and tradition to fit your own world view is just as bad as the neocons ignoring science. You accuse anti-global warming people of ignoring historical facts, then you ignore history, yourself. Time to take a little bit of your own medicine. Or are you one of those people who make up words like "vlog" and "meme" to make up for a lack of vocabulary and life experience?
-- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."