Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Not just warmer: it's the hottest for 2,000 years (whine alert)
Guardian ^ | 09/01/03 | Ian Sample

Posted on 08/31/2003 6:35:30 PM PDT by Pikamax

Not just warmer: it's the hottest for 2,000 years

Widest study yet backs fears over carbon dioxide

Ian Sample, science correspondent Monday September 1, 2003 The Guardian

The earth is warmer now than it has been at any time in the past 2,000 years, the most comprehensive study of climatic history has revealed. Confirming the worst fears of environmental scientists, the newly published findings are a blow to sceptics who maintain that global warming is part of the natural climatic cycle rather than a consequence of human industrial activity.

Prof Philip Jones, a director of the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit and one of the authors of the research, said: "You can't explain this rapid warming of the late 20th century in any other way. It's a response to a build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

The study reinforces recent conclusions published by the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC). Scientists on the panel looked at temperature data from up to 1,000 years ago and found that the late 20th century was the warmest period on record.

But the IPCC's report was dismissed by some quarters in the scientific community who claimed that while the planet is undoubtedly warming, it was warmer still more than a thousand years ago. So warm, in fact, that it had spurred the Vikings to set up base in Greenland and led to northern Britain being filled with productive vineyards.

To discover whether there was any truth in the claims, Prof Jones teamed up with Prof Michael Mann, a climate expert at the University of Virginia, and set about reconstructing the world's climate over the past 2,000 years.

Direct measurements of the earth's temperature do not exist from such a long time ago, so the scientists had to rely on other indicators of how warm - or not - the planet was throughout the past two millennia.

To find the answer, the scientists looked at tree trunks, which keep a record of the local climate: the rings spreading out from the centre grow to different thicknesses according to the climate a tree grows in. The scientists looked at sections taken from trees that had lived for hundreds and even thousands of years from different regions and used them to piece together a picture of the planet's climatic history.

The scientists also studied cores of ice drilled from the icy stretches of Greenland and Antarctica. As the ice forms, sometimes over hundreds of thousands of years, it traps air, which holds vital clues to the local climate at the time.

"Drill down far enough and you could use the ice to look at the climate hundreds of thousands of years ago, but we just used the first thousand metres," said Prof Jones.

The scientists found that while there was not enough good data to work out what the climate had been like in the southern hemisphere over that period, they could get a good idea of how warm the northern hemisphere had been.

"What we found was that at no point during those two millennia had it been any warmer than it is now. From 1980 onwards is clearly the warmest period of the last 2,000 years," said Prof Jones.

Some regions may well have been fairly warm, especially during the medieval period, but on average, the planet was a cooler place, the study found.

Looking back over a succession of earlier centuries, the temperature fluctuated slightly, becoming slightly warmer or cooler by 0.2C in each century. The temperature has increased by at least that amount in the past 20 or so years, the scientists report in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

"It just shows how dramatic the warming has been in recent years," said Prof Jones.

Scientists who do not believe that carbon dioxide is driving climate change are unlikely to run up the white flag just yet, however.

Dr Sallie Baliunas at the Harvard College Observatory in Massachusetts, for example, maintains that the recent warming could all be down to changes in the strength of sunlight falling on the planet.

She concluded that during the 20th century, earth went through a cycle of natural climatic change. According to her data, from 1900 to 1940 the planet warmed slightly, then cooled from 1940 until 1970, then warmed up again from 1970 onwards. Given that 80% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions have been produced since 1940, the expected effect, if carbon dioxide was causing global warming, would be higher temperatures not lower, she said.

Dr Baliunas's data also concluded that the period of warming between 1900 and 1940 must have been due to natural causes, most likely increased sunlight hitting the earth's surface, since carbon dioxide emissions were negligible at the time. The evidence, she said, pointed to variations in the sun's brightness being the cause of the planet's warming up, not carbon dioxide.

But other climatologists have welcomed the new study as the most conclusive evidence to date that the increase in temperature is a result of human activity.

"The importance of the finding is that it shows there's something going on in the climate system that's certainly unusual in the context of the last 2,000 years, and it's likely that greenhouse gases are playing the major role," said Prof Chris Folland of the Met Office's Hadley Centre. "If you look at the natural ups and downs in temperature, you'll find nothing remotely like what we're seeing now."

Cold water on climate claims

Not everyone agrees that climate change is largely driven by human activity. Some believe the warming the planet is experiencing now is part of a natural cycle. Historical anecdotes are sometimes used to support their case, but the new study debunks these claims.

· There were vineyards in the north of Britain

There were indeed vineyards in Britain in the 10th and 11th centuries, but only 50 to 60. There are now more than 350 in this country, with some as far north as Leeds.

· The Vikings went to Greenland

In AD980, Erik the Red and his crew headed from Iceland to Greenland, but it wasn't for the good weather. Erik had been kicked out of Iceland for murder so he took his crew westward where, they were told, they would find land.

· The Thames used to freeze over more often

The river's tendency to freeze over frequently in the 16th and 17th centuries is often cited as evidence that the climate used to be more erratic. But, according to the new study, the major cause was the original London Bridge, completed in the 13th century, which had very small spans between its supports for the Thames to run through. The result was that the river was tidal only as far as the bridge, causing the water to freeze over. When the bridge was rebuilt to a different design in the 1820s, the water flowed more easily and therefore became less prone to ice.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climatechange; environment; fud; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; mannmadewarming; scaretactics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-129 next last
To: palmer
"Drill down far enough and you could use the ice to look at the climate hundreds of thousands of years ago, but we just used the first thousand metres," said Prof Jones.

But--but--but I thought the polar ice caps were just about melted to the point that the area around the north pole was virtually a lake by now. Twits - they really need to do a better job of keeping their "facts" straight and plausible.

21 posted on 08/31/2003 7:18:04 PM PDT by Morgan's Raider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
The Vikings settled in Greenland because it was much warmer then today. When it got cooler they died off from disease and lack of food. This isn't an ancedote but well established fact.

When human beings can thrive and choose to live in Greenland with 10th century technology, then we can began to take about human induced global warming.
22 posted on 08/31/2003 7:23:19 PM PDT by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Earth MAY be the warmest it has been in the last 2000 years in SOME locations, but it is the coolest average in other areas. This article is further Doo-Doo put out by a bunch of talking sphinctors.....
23 posted on 08/31/2003 7:24:19 PM PDT by TheBattman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
These chaps are part of the research group that developed the METS model, one of the world's three foremost climate models.

How good is it? According to the computer, both the Central Sahara and northern Ireland have the same summer rainfall.

The last summer rain in the Central Sahara was generations ago. 'Nuff said.
24 posted on 08/31/2003 7:35:42 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon liberty, it is essential to examine principles - -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
I agree we should have a problem with "bunk" journalism. But don't lots of scientists believe that global warming really is going on? The question is, how do we convince them they're wrong. Otherwise they'll just keep coming up with this stuff.

The IPCC is a great example - their 2001 report said: "The 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the instrumental record (1861-2000). There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

I mean, what are these guys on?! I can't understand what the agenda is of the World Meteorological Organisation and the UN Environment Programme (founders of the IPCC) that makes them publish this stuff. More importantly, how do we stop them doing it?
25 posted on 08/31/2003 7:39:40 PM PDT by BigAndy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
its the hottest it has been for two thousand years? Gee, then why was it equally hot two thousand years ago? Roman SUVs?
26 posted on 08/31/2003 7:43:40 PM PDT by LadyDoc (AND)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigAndy
As far as I know, most climate scientists do not accept that it has been demonstrated that human actions have had an effect on global warming. I believe most of them attribute global warming, which has been going on for 300+ years, to solar activity, sunspots, etc.
27 posted on 08/31/2003 7:46:30 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BigAndy
btw, welcome aboard.
28 posted on 08/31/2003 7:47:49 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
University of East Anglia's climatic research unit

Of course it's hot in East Anglia.


29 posted on 08/31/2003 7:58:23 PM PDT by syriacus (Is Terri suffering from severe depression, on top of the insult to her brain?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
Here's a solution for global warming.

Have everyone in the warmest locales spread aluminum foil on their property. That will bounce those offensive rays right back at the Sun.

30 posted on 08/31/2003 8:01:42 PM PDT by syriacus (Is Terri suffering from severe depression, on top of the insult to her brain?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
· There were vineyards in the north of Britain

There were indeed vineyards in Britain in the 10th and 11th centuries, but only 50 to 60. There are now more than 350 in this country, with some as far north as Leeds.

This is laughable. The author apparently believes that the stated fact that there are now 350 vineyards in Britain, but there were only 50 to 60 of them a thousand years ago debunks the debunkers' claims and "proves" that it is warmer now than it was then. Of course, to believe that "analysis" you would have to believe that the count of vineyards is a natural phenomenon which is affected only by the climate, and not at all by other, human factors that have a bearing such as land use decisions and restrictions, ownership, distribution channels, markets, technology, population, advances in agriculture, tastes, ad infinitum, and that Britain today is little changed from what it was 1000 years ago. Of course that is hogwash.

31 posted on 08/31/2003 8:04:37 PM PDT by The Electrician
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Earth Track ­ June 2003 This temperature update presents the NASA satellite measurements of monthly temperature anomalies – the difference between the observed values and the 1979–1998 mean values. Global satellite measurements are made from a series of orbiting platforms that sense the average temperature in various atmospheric layers. Here, we present the lowest level, which matches nearly perfectly with the mean temperatures measured by weather balloons in the layer between 5,000 and 28,000 feet. The satellite measurements are considered accurate to within 0.01°C and provide more uniform coverage of the entire globe than surface measurements, which tend to concentrate over land.

June 2003’s global average temperature departure was -0.01°C. The Northern Hemisphere’s temperature departure was 0.167°C and the Southern Hemisphere’s -0.187°C.

Monthly Satellite Temperatures – Northern Hemisphere

Monthly Satellite Temperatures – Northern Hemisphere

32 posted on 08/31/2003 8:10:40 PM PDT by boris (Education is always painful; pain is always educational.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boris
Sorry; the bottom chart should say "Southern Hemisphere"

My bad.

--Boris

33 posted on 08/31/2003 8:11:26 PM PDT by boris (Education is always painful; pain is always educational.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: boris
Plus, we're sure not hearing much about the rough July winter weather Down Under, or the unusually cold conditions in the Indian subcontinent back in January.

After all, the Aussies are just descendants of convicts, and the teeming masses of India and Bangladesh are a threat to European sensibilities...
34 posted on 08/31/2003 8:28:52 PM PDT by petuniasevan (Do I really have to include a sarcasm tag?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
So, if that's the case, how do we stop the (presumably biased) World Meteorological Organisation and the UN Environment Programme from issuing statements, reports and documented research implying that the most respected international climate scientists DO believe that climate change in the last 50 years can be attributed to human activities, not solar activity or sunspots.

Why would they do that - and how do we stop them?
35 posted on 08/31/2003 8:29:36 PM PDT by BigAndy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: petuniasevan
,,, winter downunder, for the most part, has been pretty stable. In July we had the coldest day on record when a front came thru from Antarctica, but apart from that it's been good. Spring is the most unstable season here - cloudbursts, spring tides etc.
36 posted on 08/31/2003 8:37:15 PM PDT by shaggy eel (not just any eel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
It's all ways the hottest just before the coldest.

He'll be whistling a different tune, when winter arrives.
37 posted on 08/31/2003 8:51:47 PM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (Our enemies within are very slick, but slime is always treacherously slick, isn't it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NordP
"THat's a good thing."

Well, yes and no. It will be a good thing until those blue hairs and cubans start washing up on the shores of Minn.
38 posted on 08/31/2003 8:56:23 PM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (Our enemies within are very slick, but slime is always treacherously slick, isn't it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: boris
Careful Boris, getting your north and south mixed up, could start a war........oh, you're talking hemispheres.....never mind.
39 posted on 08/31/2003 9:05:08 PM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (Our enemies within are very slick, but slime is always treacherously slick, isn't it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BigAndy
IIRC, most climatologists, by a fairly strong margin, do not believe in human induced global warming. Most scientists, however do, but only if you include social scientists and the like.
40 posted on 08/31/2003 9:38:34 PM PDT by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-129 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson