PDA

View Full Version : Climate 'warmest for millennium'



Qtec
02-09-2006, 09:46 PM
Climate 'warmest for millennium'
By Paul Rincon
BBC News science reporter



The last 100 years is more striking than either the Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age
Timothy Osborn, UEA
In the late 20th Century, the northern hemisphere experienced its most widespread warmth for 1,200 years, according to the journal Science.
The findings support evidence pointing to unprecedented recent warming of the climate linked to greenhouse emissions.

University of East Anglia researchers measured changes in fossil shells, tree rings, ice cores and other past temperature records or "proxies".


CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm

Coincidence?
Q...... /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

eg8r
02-10-2006, 05:48 AM
There has not been any "warmth" tracking in in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 1200 years so how exactly is this guess being formulated?

Sounds like another "science reporter" whose agenda is more important than the truth.

eg8r

Qtec
02-10-2006, 07:20 AM
Climate 'warmest for millennium'
By Paul Rincon
BBC News science reporter



The last 100 years is more striking than either the Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age
Timothy Osborn, UEA
In the late 20th Century, the northern hemisphere experienced its most widespread warmth for 1,200 years, according to the journal Science.
The findings support evidence pointing to unprecedented recent warming of the climate linked to greenhouse emissions.

University of East Anglia researchers measured changes in fossil shells, tree rings, ice cores and other past temperature records or "proxies".

They also looked at people's diaries from the last 750 years.

Timothy Osborn and Keith Briffa of UEA analysed instrument measurements of temperature from 1856 onwards to establish the geographic extent of recent warming.

Then they compared this data with evidence dating back as far as AD 800.

The analysis confirmed periods of significant warmth in the Northern Hemisphere from AD 890 - 1170 (the so-called "Medieval Warm Period") and for much colder periods from 1580 - 1850 (the "Little Ice Age").

Natural records

The UEA team showed that the present warm period is the most widespread temperature anomaly of any kind since the ninth century.

"The last 100 years is more striking than either [the Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age]. It is a period of widespread warmth affecting nearly all the records that we analysed from the same time," co-author Timothy Osborn told the BBC.

Osborn and Briffa used 14 sets of temperature records from different locations across the Northern Hemisphere.

The records included long life evergreen trees growing in Scandinavia, Siberia and the Rockies which had been cored to reveal the patterns of wide and narrow tree rings over time. Wider rings related to warmer temperatures.

The chemical composition of ice from cores drilled in the Greenland ice sheets revealed which years were warmer than others.

Dear diary

The researchers used proxy data developed from the diaries of people living in the Netherlands and Belgium during the past 750 years that revealed, for example, the years when the canals froze.

"These records extend over many centuries and even thousands of years. We simply counted how many of those records indicated that, in any one year, temperatures were warmer than average for the region they came from," said Dr Osborn.

Professor John Waterhouse, director of the Environmental Sciences Research Centre Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge commented: "Although we're getting increasingly accurate measurements of present-day temperature, we've got nothing like that from the past to compare those with.

"There's much uncertainty in past reconstructions. You've got to look at the reconstructed data in the past in light of the likely errors that those data have."

But he added: "As we get more and more evidence in, it is looking as if the current period is the warmest for over 1,000 years."

In November, Science published a paper showing atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years.



Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

eg8r
02-10-2006, 08:36 AM
Keep on trying Q. I was a bit pleased to see that even if you don't the scientists at least mentioned there are likely errors in their data.

You just keep on believing everything one group of scientists has to say and ignore everything the other group refutes. I have no interest in discussing this as I know little and from what I am seeing you know even less. /ccboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

eg8r

supergreenman
02-10-2006, 08:49 AM
Global warming is an accepted fact in most scientific communities. Only people in denial (most likely slave to thier SUVs) would say global warming doesn't exist. These would be the same type of people that ran around yelling the world was flat even with evidence to the contrary.

James

eg8r
02-10-2006, 09:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Global warming is an accepted fact in most scientific communities. Only people in denial (most likely slave to thier SUVs) would say global warming doesn't exist. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, so those respected scientific communities that do not believe as you, are in denial? Even though they have adequately defended their position in the scientific community?

Just to be clear, no one doubts global warming has/is/will happen(ed) in the past, present and future. The temps are believed to have always risen and fallen. What is up for discussion in these communities is whether human intervention is causing this very normal activity to happen at an increasing rate. There are well respected scientific camps on both sides of the subject whether you like it or not. I am venturing to guess you are not exactly considered a swing vote. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r

Qtec
02-10-2006, 10:08 AM
Did you know that your OWN top scientists prepared a report on Gl Warming and the Govt ignored it?
Did you know that some guy [ who now works for Exxon] sat in an office in Washington and edited this report- toneing down the language?


..and no, he is not a scientist.
Q

wolfdancer
02-10-2006, 11:36 AM
While I, along with many others here, have been chastised for misreading your posts, in the past....this one seems quite clear?
[ QUOTE ]
no one doubts global warming has/is/will happen(ed) in the past, present and future. <hr /></blockquote>
So, unlike a couple of others here, you seem to be acknowledging that MAYBE we are now experiencing the beginnings of global warming????
Secondly, you know there are opposing scientific views on the causes, but you stand with the side that claims it is a naturally recurring phenomenom.
And lastly, you have no more compelling reasons to support your belief, then I do for supporting mine???


I thought the Republicans had some doctrinal rigidity regarding global warming as a liberal/environmentalist myth?
Given the fact that there seems to be overwhelming scientific evidence ?????? that global warming has begun, wouldn't it make sense to err on the side of caution, and do more then this admin has done, is planning to do...just in case....the environmental camp is correct?
AND, while I said that this time your message seems to be clear....I can't explain this..........

[ QUOTE ]
Only people in denial (most likely slave to thier SUVs) would say global warming doesn't exist.

LOL, so those respected scientific communities that do not believe as you, are in denial? Even though they have adequately defended their position in the scientific community? <hr /></blockquote>
since you followed with "no one doubts....."
Well, maybe you'll just have to "dumb down" your posts a bit, so that us unlearned readers, can figger out whatcher saying......

eg8r "What, me worry/"
http://www.notmilk.com/graphics/alfrede.jpg

moblsv
02-11-2006, 05:25 PM
could somebody please point me to these mythical "respected scientific communities that dispute global warming"?

There is a global scientific concensus on the fact that humans influence global warming and about seven well known critics. The fact that Global Warming is happening and is human influenced IS NOT a matter that is under debate or disagreed upon within the scientific community. Only the details and the predictions are under debate. Afterall, the future is always unknown and up for debate. That doesn't make the base fact a subject of dispute.

eg8r
02-13-2006, 05:21 AM
Hey NYC, how about that global warming B.S. Q keeps spewing. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Enjoy the snow.

I think the last time the left really started pushing this B.S. was when Gore went to NY (I believe it was NY) to preach about it, and they ended up cancelling because it was one of the coldest days on record. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
02-13-2006, 05:26 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Did you know that your OWN top scientists prepared a report on Gl Warming and the Govt ignored it?
Did you know that some guy [ who now works for Exxon] sat in an office in Washington and edited this report- toneing down the language?


..and no, he is not a scientist. <hr /></blockquote> Hey Q, any chance you are watching the news? Record snow in NY. How about that for global warming. Every time you nuts go trumping about global warming we get stuck with severe cold weather.

You would think these people would wisen up and start their speeches in Arizona on a warm summer afternoon. Nope, the nutcases decided they would attack during the winter.

eg8r

eg8r
02-13-2006, 05:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
So, unlike a couple of others here, you seem to be acknowledging that MAYBE we are now experiencing the beginnings of global warming????
<hr /></blockquote> Wrong. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Did you think otherwise. You stopped reading the second you "thought" you had something to grasp onto. Keep reading. My post did not stop there. No, I don't believe we are on the verge on global warming with respect to what Q has been talking about.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, you know there are opposing scientific views on the causes, but you stand with the side that claims it is a naturally recurring phenomenom. <hr /></blockquote> Sure I know that, I have even stated it here. What is your point you went no further? If there is not sufficient proof there is global warming then why believe it? Everytime the doomsayers say there is global warming there is a scientist that steps up and puts the info in its true context or refutes it. Since I am not a scientist, I stand to let the experts play it out.

[ QUOTE ]
And lastly, you have no more compelling reasons to support your belief, then I do for supporting mine???
<hr /></blockquote> I have not argued otherwise (I don't think). So again, what is your point?

[ QUOTE ]
since you followed with "no one doubts....."
Well, maybe you'll just have to "dumb down" your posts a bit, so that us unlearned readers, can figger out whatcher saying...... <hr /></blockquote> I refuse to drop to that level no matter how bad your spelling is at comedy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif It might do you good to keep reading after you hear the part you "think" is what you want to hear.

eg8r

wolfdancer
02-13-2006, 06:59 AM
eg8r, i'll stand by my interpretation of your post, thank you.
It's kind of odd, that only you, of all the folks that post here....only you have to keep telling them, they have misread your post.
I think i'll give up reading them, and save us both some time... it's only right wing narrow minded babble....
A final comment though....it's hard for me to fathom, that
any intelligent person, does not believe in global warming.
Perhaps I gave you way, way too much credit there, though

Qtec
02-13-2006, 07:47 AM
Its very simple Ed. Gl Wa will cause the weather to become chaotic. Extremes of all kinds of weather will be the first sign. Its already happening.

Enviromentalists are motivated to preserve the planet for future generations.
The only ones who deny GlWa are the oil companies and the politicians they control. Isnt their biggest problem with GlWa that it would cost them money to do something about it?

Q

eg8r
02-13-2006, 10:38 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Its very simple Ed. Gl Wa will cause the weather to become chaotic. Extremes of all kinds of weather will be the first sign. Its already happening. <hr /></blockquote> It is so simple and you know it all. By the way, any chance you are going to ice skate across the atlantic to play in the snow in NYC? You might have a captive audience, maybe you could even talk to them about global warming. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
02-13-2006, 10:41 AM
My guess is that they are weary of having to listen to you twist everything so they don't go any further. No such luck here, if you want to continue misreading things, then I will continue to agitate you by pointing it out.

[ QUOTE ]
I think i'll give up reading them, and save us both some time... <hr /></blockquote> Sounds like a plan. I also get a bit tired of you twisting everything around and then expecting to get away with it.

eg8r

wolfdancer
02-13-2006, 12:44 PM
Q, you might be wasting your time discussing this topic with Ed. A big snowstorm, some cold weather, and that's Ed's proof that the theory is flawed. It also however proves that he has no understanding of the concept. Since the idea infringes on big business, is supported by environmentalists....in his narrow-minded view....it's a myth.

Chopstick
02-13-2006, 03:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr> could somebody please point me to these mythical "respected scientific communities that dispute global warming"?

There is a global scientific concensus on the fact that humans influence global warming and about seven well known critics. The fact that Global Warming is happening and is human influenced IS NOT a matter that is under debate or disagreed upon within the scientific community. Only the details and the predictions are under debate. Afterall, the future is always unknown and up for debate. That doesn't make the base fact a subject of dispute. <hr /></blockquote>

OK, here's one: Pat Michaels (http://www.sepp.org/reality/michreviews.html)

A quote from this paper, "In a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Mr. Hansen explains why he was wrong:"

<font color="blue">Hansens model is flawed. The predictions it made have not come true. Every few years he publishes another paper with excuses why it isn't happening the way he predicted. The Kyoto Protocol is based on the same flawed model. That's why we didn't sign it. Hansen testified before Congress. So did a lot of other guys that did not agree with him.

First he says it's CO2. Then he says it not it's CFCs. James Hansen says in his own paper to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, "Why has the CO2 growth rate leveled out in the past two decades, despite increased emmissions and deforestation?"

I have read some of Hansen's papers and others that do not agree with him. I don't agree with him either mainly because after decades his predictions have been proven not to be true.

On the subject of CFCs, here's something for yall to chew on. Fifty five percent of all of the CFC emmissions in this country come from one place.

The uranium enrichment plant in Paducah, Ohio.</font color>

moblsv
02-14-2006, 09:02 AM
yes, I'm well aware of Pat Michaels. His name comes up frequently in the real meetings to discuss Global Warming as the main opposing voice. It's interesting how large conferences can be held to discuss the state of the science and the peer reviewed data and the Climate Models and yet the only thing that the media gets from it is that there is this one guy who questions it. That is todays definition of "fair and balanced". The overwhelming evidence states x but one person (usually a conservative recieving corporate money) opposes it and gets equal "fair" air time. This gives the impression that there is a debate when there really isn't anything to it.

same goes for the questioning of the validity of the science of evolution.

eg8r
02-15-2006, 06:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This gives the impression that there is a debate when there really isn't anything to it.
<hr /></blockquote> LOL, don't get your panties in a twist because of perceived media coverage, why don't you just stick to bashing his defense. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Isn't that what is really important here, what the scientist has to say rather than what the media has to say.

eg8r