Before scientists would take greenhouse effect warming seriously, they had to get past a counterargument of long standing. It seemed certain that the immense mass of the oceans would quickly absorb whatever excess carbon dioxide humanity might produce. Roger Revelle discovered that the peculiar chemistry of sea water prevents that from happening. His 1957 paper with Hans Suess is now widely regarded as the opening shot in the global warming debates. This essay describes Revelle's discovery in detail and places it in the context of Cold War and other contemporary concerns which gave him essential material support and intellectual stimulus. (1)
In the mid 1950s not many scientists were concerned that humanity was adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. The suggestion that this would change the climate had been abandoned decades earlier by nearly everyone. A particularly simple and powerful argument was that the added gas would not linger in the atmosphere. Most of the CO2 on the surface of the planet was not in the tenuous atmosphere, but dissolved in the huge mass of water in the oceans. Obviously, no matter how much more gas humanity might pump out, nearly all of it would wind up safely buried in the ocean depths. ... Revelle did not make much of his discovery in this 1957 paper, which described it only in passing and obscurely. Another two years passed before Bert Bolin and Erik Eriksson explained the sea water buffering mechanism in clear terms and emphasized what it meant. Unlike Revelle, they figured industrial production would indeed climb exponentially, and they calculated that atmospheric CO2 would probably rise 25% by the end of the century. Now the small community of geophysicists began to grasp that the oceans could not be relied upon to absorb all the emissions of fossil fuels.(28)
When New York had a big snow fall in April, and the entire East coast had a colder then usual winter, and spring DO YOU THINK THAT THE PINCO MEDIA WOULD SAY ENOUGH OF THIS BS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING?????????
Lenin's birthday, AKA Earth Day, was 2 days ago. You're 2 days late.
I remember 30 years ago reading that the earth was headed toward another ice age, so I figure global warming would be a good thing as it would cancel out the ice age.
He's all wet on energy and though I don't believe that we are causing global warming the statement itself is wrong.
First, I think it is somewhat less warm today than it was in the 1930's, because that's what the U.S. temperature records show.
Second, I think the atmospheres' temperature has pretty much not changed since 1979, because that's what weather balloon and satellite data says.
Third, I think it was significantly warmer about one thousand years ago than it is today, since that is what records from around the world indicate (farm records in Europe, trade records from Greenland and Iceland, Sargasso Sea sediments, etc, etc).
Fourth, I think we are in a general warming trend which began at least fifty years before the first Model T was built. Because every piece of available temperature data says this.
That's what I think. What do you think?
I'm sorry, but I have no confidence in any study done by Dr. Suess.
Water vapor is the most abundant green house gas. We need to get rid of the oceans. Won't somebody please think of the children?!!
Where did the glacier go that was parked in Kansas? Did the automobile cause it to recede North-- or natural processes so long ago?
FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
[ Browse | Search | Topics | Post Article | My Comments ]
Click to scroll to commentary.
Global Warming: Medieval Era Hotter than Today
The London Telegraph ^ | 06/04/2003) | Robert Matthews
Posted on 04/06/2003 11:04 AM PDT by Francohio
Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists
By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent (Filed: 06/04/2003)
Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages.
From the outset of the global warming debate in the late 1980s, environmentalists have said that temperatures are rising higher and faster than ever before, leading some scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases from cars and power stations are causing these "record-breaking" global temperatures.
Last year, scientists working for the UK Climate Impacts Programme said that global temperatures were "the hottest since records began" and added: "We are pretty sure that climate change due to human activity is here and it's accelerating."
This announcement followed research published in 1998, when scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia declared that the 1990s had been hotter than any other period for 1,000 years.
Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.
The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world.
The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today.
They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's temperature rise.
According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today's "unprecedented" temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period of time.
The study, about to be published in the journal Energy and Environment, has been welcomed by sceptics of global warming, who say it puts the claims of environmentalists in proper context. Until now, suggestions that the Middle Ages were as warm as the 21st century had been largely anecdotal and were often challenged by believers in man-made global warming.
Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history."
According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone."
In contrast, said Prof Stott, severe famines and economic collapse followed the onset of the Little Ice Age around 1300. He said: "When the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth."
The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the official voice of global warming research, has conceded the possibility that today's "record-breaking" temperatures may be at least partly caused by the Earth recovering from a relatively cold period in recent history. While the evidence for entirely natural changes in the Earth's temperature continues to grow, its causes still remain mysterious.
Dr Simon Brown, the climate extremes research manager at the Meteorological Office at Bracknell, said that the present consensus among scientists on the IPCC was that the Medieval Warm Period could not be used to judge the significance of existing warming.
Dr Brown said: "The conclusion that 20th century warming is not unusual relies on the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon. This is not the conclusion of IPCC."
He added that there were also doubts about the reliability of temperature proxies such as tree rings: "They are not able to capture the recent warming of the last 50 years," he said.
Other Telegraph Climate Stories:4 April 2003: English strawberries on shelves in record time 20 February 2003: Britain faces drier summers and flooding 4 February 2003: Climate change plagues hay fever sufferers 30 November 2002: Growth in flights will wreck climate, says commission
TOPICS: Announcements; Canada; Culture/Society; Germany; Government; Japan; News/Current Events; Russia; Technical; Unclassified; United Kingdom; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: GLOBALWARMING; HRVARD; SCIENCE; Click to Add Keyword
[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]
Memo to Al Gore and the Green Party
1 posted on 04/06/2003 11:04 AM PDT by Francohio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Francohio
Got a direct link?
2 posted on 04/06/2003 11:08 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Francohio
Am I mistaken in recalling that the Vikings settled Greenland when it was relatively "green", and disappeared after the "little ice age" set in, due apparently to isolation, disease, and possibly eskimo attack?
3 posted on 04/06/2003 11:10 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Francohio
bump
4 posted on 04/06/2003 11:11 AM PDT by RippleFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Sir Gawain
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixhome.html 5 posted on 04/06/2003 11:13 AM PDT by Francohio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: marron
On the money, marron. Nat Geo Special.
6 posted on 04/06/2003 11:14 AM PDT by Francohio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: marron
Available hard data supports just what you said.
Looks like it's going to be one of those "be nice to your liberalism impaired friends" times. Life is only going to be evermore stressful for them.
7 posted on 04/06/2003 11:31 AM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon liberty, it is essential to examine principles - -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Francohio
Interesting article. I'm under the impression that the information is more or less common knowledge, but I guess that doesn't stop the global warming grant seekers.
8 posted on 04/06/2003 11:32 AM PDT by Sam Cree (liberals are the axis of evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Francohio
A professor of mine summed up the greenies position as someone that's never been the beech taking tide measures every hour in the morning, and predicting that in two weeks the world will be underwater. When you're dealing with data from the last 100 years of the earth's billion year life span you shouldn't go out making predictions.
9 posted on 04/06/2003 11:51 AM PDT by lelio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Francohio
Global Warming is the biggest crock prepetuated on the World! And we can thank dear old Maggie Thatcher for it!
10 posted on 04/06/2003 11:53 AM PDT by Bommer (Tom Dasshole is a Domestic Enemy!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: blam
ping
11 posted on 04/06/2003 11:56 AM PDT by the-ironically-named-proverbs2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: marron
Am I mistaken in recalling that the Vikings settled Greenland when it was relatively "green", and disappeared after the "little ice age" set in, due apparently to isolation, disease, and possibly eskimo attack?
Your reference to eskimo attack implies that the Vikings were entitled to displace the local population (if any) and, reflects a strictly Viking/European view. A more balanced view would be "eskimos repelling an invader".
12 posted on 04/06/2003 11:58 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: GladesGuru
Eleanor of Acquitaine had vinyards in England.
13 posted on 04/06/2003 12:00 PM PDT by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: staytrue
It must've been miserable for the nuns--Europe under a hot spell and they had to wear those headdresses and robes.
14 posted on 04/06/2003 12:01 PM PDT by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: marron
Absolutely correct, but add starvation to your list of causes for the end of Viking settlement in Greenland.
15 posted on 04/06/2003 12:06 PM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: marron
You are more or less correct...Greenland was a open invitation and the Vikings found the region to be fairly decent. The 'little ice age' really hindered exploration of the Atlantic...if it had not occurred...then America would be common knowledge by late 1300s.
16 posted on 04/06/2003 12:06 PM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Francohio
"...today's "unprecedented" temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period of time."
This is the point I've been trying to make about this for a while, myself. I mean, tree-rings and all are very nice, but how many 500 year old trees are there, in Europe, especially. And you have to cut the tree down to study its rings, no? I mean, really, when was the thermometer invented, anyway? When did we start keeping regular records of weather, accurate or not? Were there monks who kepts logs, even without measuring devices, "it's hot today, it's cold today, it snowed today, etc."? My understanding is that weather "records" go back about 125 years at this point. I'm happy to be enlightened by any knowledgable freepers out there.
17 posted on 04/06/2003 12:06 PM PDT by jocon307 (The weather, everyone talks about it, no one does anything about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[ Browse | Search | Topics | Post Article | My Comments ]
FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
Powered by Focus Forum (working name), Copyright 2000-2002 Robinson-DeFehr Consulting, LLC
Ed conveniently ignores the facts that nature puts far more CO2 in the air than mankind.
Mankind's contribution is miniscule in comparison.
