Tech | October 02, 2010 | 25 comments

An underwater hockey stick: 20th century warming unprecedented over past 1000 years

source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/underwater-hockey-stick.html

Image
JanforGore
A new paper adds another piece of the puzzle to our understanding of past climate change. This one is Twentieth century warming in deep waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence: A unique feature of the last millennium (Thibodeau et al 2010). In this paper, the authors reconstruct North Atlantic water temperature over the last millennium using oxygen isotopes from ocean sediment cores on the Canadian east coast. What they found is the warming over the 20th Century has had no equivalent over the last thousand years.

Figure 1: Temperature anomaly calculated from oxygen isotope composition. The grey lines to the right of the graph are shaded as that part of the core was disturbed by the coring process.

As the temperature record only represents one particular region, they also plot two reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperature which I've reproduced below (I use a colour version of the Moberg reconstruction with the instrumental record included).

Figure 2: Two reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperature from 1100 to present (Crowley 2000, Moberg et al 2005).

The growing body of evidence is strengthening the view that current warming is unprecedented over the past 1000 years, as confirmed by a number of temperature reconstructions.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Tech,   Green,   Current Tonight,   16 more
  2. tags:
    Environment,  Oceans,  Climate Science,  climate trends,  3 more
  3.     
    |

25 comments // An underwater hockey stick: 20th century warming unprecedented over past 1000 years

  • cjshaker
    • 0
      cjshaker  

    • It seems that the less technical a person is, the more they believe that 'science' has already 'proven' the AGW premise.

      It's a mistake to expect critical thinking out of someone who 'just knows' the answer.

      Whenever someone refers to 'consensus' as science, you know you're being told a story.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
  • cjshaker
    • 0
      cjshaker  

    • I presume that you're attempting to claim that Dr. Mann's work was vindicated?

      All I've seen so far is agreement from other climatologists, ie - other atmospheric modelers. I have yet to see any claims that he did it right from actual statistics experts. In contrast, I've seen more confirmation that he did it wrong, as Dr. Muller also says.

      I have seen criticisms from actual statistics experts, and from physicists. If I'm forced decide who to believe between a scientist from a 'hard' science profession like physics or astrophysics vs an atmospheric modeler, I feel safer believing a member of the 'hard' sciences. Especially after reading the emails released under Climategate.

      You'll find a lot of us in the computer science world less trusting of computer model results than the general public. And you'll find us a lot less trusting after reading the emails released during the Climategate scandal.

      Chris Shaker

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • 0
      IceKat  
    • cjshaker:

      "All I've seen so far is agreement from other climatologists, ie - other atmospheric modelers."

      And there's the problem. There are a lot less climate scientists around than people would have you think, and there are only a handful of them in the driving seat. As you say, they're climate modelers, and the only place where global warming and catastrophic climate change exists is in climate models. Real-world events rarely show any correlation to the models, and that's where the belief system comes in. People need to have extraordinary faith in those models because, so far, they've been proven wrong time and time again. The dangers of CO2 were born this way. When they ran models to study the modern warm period the only way they could get their models to reproduce the slightly elevated temperature was by giving CO2 more importance, they couldn't think of anything else (at that time) that would cause the warming.
      That was a couple of decades ago and real science has moved on. But people still cling onto the theory that CO2 is bad. It's false and outdated, it's time people moved on.

    • 1 year ago
  • cjshaker
  • cjshaker
  • cjshaker
    • 0
      cjshaker  

    • Typical knee jerk response. Claim that the professor is a tool of the fossil fuel industry.

      You didn't actually bother to respond about the other two Astrophysics professors. And it seems unlikely that you actually had time to read the URLs.

      Peer reviewed science? I still haven't seen Dr. Mann admit to his statistics errors.

      Professor Richard A. Muller is in the Department of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley, and Faculty Senior Scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, where he is also associated with the Institute for Nuclear and Particle Astrophysics. Muller has verified problems with Dr. Mann's work. Search for 'Global Warming Bombshell' at

      http://muller.lbl.gov/.

      "A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics". "McIntyre and McKitrick sent their detailed analysis to Nature magazine for publication, and it was extensively refereed. But their paper was finally rejected. In frustration, McIntyre and McKitrick put the entire record of their submission and the referee reports on a Web page for all to see. If you look, you'll see that McIntyre and McKitrick have found numerous other problems with the Mann analysis. I emphasize the bug in their PCA program simply because it is so blatant and so easy to understand. Apparently, Mann and his colleagues never tested their program with the standard Monte Carlo approach, or they would have discovered the error themselves. Other and different criticisms of the hockey stick are emerging (see, for example, the paper by Hans von Storch and colleagues in the September 30 issue of Science)."

      So far, I have not seen Dr. Mann admit to ANY problems with the statistics behind his work. I have a very hard time respecting someone who can't admit their mistakes. And it's hard to take any claims of 'peer reviewed science' seriously from someone who can't admit their mistakes.

      The facts, science, and math DO NOT CARE who used to work for which fossil fuel industry. True science is repeatable, reproducible, and can be verified by hostile parties.

      Chris Shaker

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • -1
      JanforGore  
    • cjshaker:

      Perhaps that is because his work was vindicated regardless of the political witch hunt enacted against him. And that was no kneejerk reaction regarding Lindzen, that is fact. And I've read thousands of links over the years with the same MO. So in all honesty I really don't care about what you have to post here. It is well known who is backing the anti-AGW movement now, and THAT is the real hoax.

    • 1 year ago
  • cjshaker
    • 0
      cjshaker  
    • Image

    • The belief in AGW has all of the hallmarks of a religion. They accept on faith that CO2 in the atmosphere actually has a large effect on the climate, when they have not been able to prove a small one. They cling to anecdotes to try and reinforce their claims. Unbelievers are 'deniers'. They shout, 'kill the unbelievers'. Reminds me of the radical moslem faith.

      Indeed, some very reputable Astrophysicists dispute the AGW claim. The response of the believers is to call them 'deniers', 'tools of the fossil fuel industry', or 'senile'.

      Freeman Dyson is one of the most brilliant astrophysicists since WWII. He used to work in climate modeling. He challenges the belief in AGW:

      http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151

      So does Israeli astrophysicist, Nir Shaviv:

      "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist.

      The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

      Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant.""

      http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8...

      Nir Shaviv writes very clearly, and is easy to understand. He has a blog where he explains his thoughts. This one is about using the oceans as a calorimeter:

      http://www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter

      "The IPCC's small solar forcing and the emperor's new clothes.
      With the years, the IPCC has tried to downgrade the role of the sun. The reason is stated above - a large solar forcing would necessarily imply a lower anthropogenic effect and lower climate sensitivity. This includes perpetually doubting any non-irradiance amplification mechanism, and even emphasizing publications which downgrade long term variations in the irradiance. In fact, this has been done to such an extent, that clear solar/climate links such as the Mounder minimum are basically impossible to explain with any reasonable climate sensitivity. Here are the numbers.

      According to the IPCC (AR4), the solar irradiance is responsible for a net radiative forcing increase between the Maunder Minimum and today of 0.12 W/m2 (0.06 to 0.60 at 90% confidence). We know however that the Maunder minimum was about 1°C colder (e.g., from direct temperature measurements of boreholes - e.g., this summary). This requires a global sensitivity of 1.0/0.12°C/(W/m2). Since doubling the CO2 is thought to induce a 3.8 W/m2 change in the radiative forcing, irradiance/climate correlations require a CO2 doubling temperature of ΔTx2 ~ 31°C !! Besides being at odds with other observations, any sensitivity larger than ΔTx2 ~ 10°C would cause the climate to be unconditionally unstable (see box here).

      Clearly, the IPCC scientists don't comprehend that their numbers add up to a totally inconsistent picture. Of course, the real story is that solar forcing, even just the irradiance change, is larger than the IPCC values. "

      His writing is fascinating.

      Another reputable man of science who challenges their beliefs is Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT.

      http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monthly_report/sppi_monthly_co2_report_july.ht...

      http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d1...

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

      His conclusions seem to agree with that of the Isreali astrophysicist, Nir Shariv.

      Professor Lindzen seems like a solid and reputable man of science

      http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

      It was amusing to read the childish mud slinging and name calling that the AGW believers do in
      response

      http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/09/richard-lindzen-heartland-denier/

      How dare he challenge our assumptions? He's a denier!

      Chris Shaker

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • -1
      JanforGore  
    • cjshaker:

      Accept on faith? Sorry but it's science. And please, phony Leipzig Declaration exxon supported Richard Lindzen? Don't make me laugh. And I won't be going back and forth with you on this anymore either as you too are only regurgitating the same thing we have all seen over and over and over again. If you can't accept established peer reviewed science that's your problem.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • I'm not assuming anything. I know it. And one little difference now, or rather, two. The pace of the warming, and the fact that the survival of our species is now at stake. Also, the warning by scientists that temperatures by the end of century couldl climb by six degrees celsius, which would be unprecedented in the history of human civilization.

      Also from NatGeo:

      http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/six-degrees-could-change-the-world...

      "Global warming is already a fact: the snows of Kilimanjaro are melting away; massive boulders on the Matterhorn, snowbound for centuries, have begun to plunge in dramatic and dangerous rockfalls; and atoll nations of the Pacific are disappearing inch by inch under the waves.

      Basing his conclusions on peer-reviewed articles in leading climatology, geophysics, biology, and Earth system science journals, Lynas explains in unflinching detail the processes and effects of this unprecedented phenomenon, degree by degree. He draws on the latest research and sophisticated computer models as well as paleoclimatic reconstructions of the past that show conclusively that today’s climate change is a new and different challenge, not the routine swing of a slow climatic pendulum."

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/six-degrees/

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • 0
      IceKat  
    • Image
    • JanforGore:

      " I'm not assuming anything. I know it." You don't know it. You think you know it only because you read blogs and articles by lazy, misinformed journalists on the Internet. When presented with a scientific peer reviewed paper that disproved your argument in another discussion your only comment was that the graphs were "all over the place."
      You rely on your belief system, not scientific evidence. You rely on outdated, already debunked 'evidence' to prop up your argument, and a lot of people here buy that - another link from JanforGore, oh well it must be true, then.

      "Global warming is already a fact: the snows of Kilimanjaro are melting away..."
      As I said, outdated. Yes the snows have melted from Kilimanjaro, but because of 'global warming' or because the locals have chopped the trees down? Scientists from the University of Portsmouth discovered that deforestation was the main cause of snow loss on Kilimanjaro, not global warming.
      And there you go again, "global warming"! Everyone else has moved on. Even the alarmists are now looking for other names to label it; "climate change" is ok but we all know the climate changes anyway so now they're looking at "climate disruption" or "irritable climate syndrome". But let's not get too far from the point here. Yes, the globe did warm ever so slightly since the end of the little ice age, but you'd expect that, otherwise we would still be in a little ice age, or would you prefer that?
      So yes, the globe warmed - global warming did occur, we get that. The problem comes down to blame. Most people think no-one is to blame. Some people think man is to blame because he pumped CO2 into the atmosphere at an alarming rate which caused temperatures to sky-rocket. Rubbish, and you know it! Your main problem now is you have nowhere to go. You have to continue with your CO2 = dangerous global warming theory, because to back down now would put you into a very uncomfortable position.

      So, now that you've finally presented graphs that clearly show there was a Medieval warm period, maybe you can explain to us why that period, and earlier warm periods, were not caused by CO2 while this current one is?
      At first they denied that there even was a Medieval warm period. Then they said it was only a local affair, and even then, temperatures were insignificant. Now we know that period was global, and temperatures were significantly higher than current temperatures.
      Now look at the chart you presented below that shows clearly the Medieval warm period and little ice age. A better chart (Loehle 2007) is presented above.
      Clearly, you can see that temperatures during that period were at least as warm as they are today.
      The problem with the chart you present is that recent temperatures are obscured by the heavy lines of HADCRUT and CRUTEM which both mysteriously shoot off into space. The CRUTEM line shoots way past the 1.2C temperature anomaly - work that one out.
      We're mainly talking about the UK Met Office/Hadley centre for the red and brown scare spikes in the chart. Both these spikes rise unexplainedly upwards from a time that is impossible to determine. In a special supplement to the August Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, "the UK Met Office Hadley Centre, no less, confirmed that in the past ten years the HadCRUT3 temperature data shows no increase whatsoever. Their analysis showed that the world warmed by 0.07 +/- 0.07 deg C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 deg C expected by the IPCC."
      So even Met Office/Hadley admit to there being virtually no warming between 1999 and 2008, yet your chart shows a massive upward spike at around that time.
      Add the fact that Met Office/Hadley use ground stations for their temperature, and we all know how unreliable that record is, maybe it would have been better to substitute the satellite temperature record in place of Met Office/Hadley. Doing so would have given a much less scary looking chart and showed that today's temperatures are absolutely nothing out of the ordinary, and would even have shown a reduction in temperatures over recent years, as agreed by Phil Jones, one of the key players at Hadley. When asked "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically significant global warming," his answer was yes. So much for global warming, and hence the reason why "global climate disruption" is now the trendy, though misleading, term to be used.

      Take away the red and brown lines from that chart and what are you left with? A chart similar to the one I have presented here. A fairly non-scary reconstruction of past temperatures showing natural spikes and troughs, some rapid, some slow in formation. There is nothing unprecedented, unusual or dangerous about the climate we find ourselves to be in. In fact rather than complaining and looking for someone to blame, you might take time to be thankful that you are alive in what is probably one of the best climactic conditions this planet has experienced, although we could use a little more carbon dioxide, we would all benefit from a little more of that.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • -1
      JanforGore  
    • IceKat:

      Another long gelatanous mess of nothing. And I KNOW. Don't tell me what I know or don't know. You obviously don't know how to think beyond black and white. The same ridiculous question... Carbon is instrumental in such events naturally as well and is being exacerbated now by human activity. Please, can you just read something ( a real science book preferably) instead of continuing to post the same line of the American Petroleum Institute, The Heartland Institute, and all of the other bogus BS misinformation spewing accomplices that have done so much harm in mangling the truth? Again, it is also the PACE in which this is happening and our inability as humans to keep up with those changes. Now, I'm not going to go back and forth anymore with your regurgitations. You are wrong, and I don't have time to continue this same nowhere discussion with someone who actually has I love CO 2 as an avatar trying to explain they have no vested interest in spewing the muck they do.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • 0
      IceKat  
    • JanforGore:

      Simplified, just for you.
      The graph you presented is misleading. It shows rising temperatures where there are none.

      Once again JanforGore proves she is unable to discuss a scientific issue. Instead she resorts to insults and accusations, and attempts to link me to oil. It's sad.

      "Carbon is instrumental in such events naturally as well and is being exacerbated now by human activity. " And what percentage of CO2 is anthropogenic? And how much does CO2 (supposedly) add to temperatures? Read about that and come back with an answer. You'll find (as you already know) that man's contribution to CO2 is minuscule and CO2's contribution to warming is minuscule too.

      Unfortunately, just because you KNOW something doesn't make it real or something which exists in the real world.
      You will, I hope, have a nice day :)

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • -1
      JanforGore  
    • IceKat:

      You misrepresent yourself here and try to make people think you know things when you don't. You just posted another "graph" with no link. You say the graph above is misleading but you can't discuss why. So again, please don't waste my time here.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • 0
      IceKat  
    • JanforGore:

      I did tell you why the graph is misleading.
      The graph contains a number of temperature reconstructions. At the modern end (right) of the graph you have two lines, one red and one brown corresponding to CRUTEM and HADCRUT. These two datasets are from the UK's Met Office and Hadley Research centre. You can't separate the two of them so I refer to them as Met Office/Hadley.

      If you remove the data from Met Office/Hadley you end up with a graph showing temperature reconstructions. None of these show significant warming. Only the Met Office/Hadley data, which springs skywards, shows a significant warming.
      We're well used to the pro-global warming stance of these institutions so one has to take their temperature records with a pinch of salt.

      Now, if we replaced the Met Office/Hadley data with satellite derived data you would have a very different looking graph. The result would show no skyrocketing spikes and a more representative version of 21st century warming, i.e. none.

      The red spike (CRUTEM) exceeds the 1.2C temperature anomaly mark, yet the temperature anomaly never exceeded 0.8C, so where does the 1.2C figure come from?
      The surface temperature record is a mess, to say the least. We find a lot of thermometers parked beside airport runways (which is great for flight management as that's their real purpose) but they shouldn't be being used for climate monitoring. We also find thermometers parked near to barbecues, beside buildings and in other places that make their results inaccurate.
      The satellite record is probably the best we have as it is untainted by UHI or bad positioning.
      Irrespective of that, it is widely recognized that there has been no statistically significant warming for around fifteen years, and the warming that occurred naturally before then was in itself statistically insignificant.
      A temperature rise of 0.8C over more than a century is actually indicative of a stable climate, not a catastrophic one as you like to portray. Even then, the 0.8C figure was a bit of an anomaly in itself. The average temperature rise is something more like 0.4C, well within the margins of error.
      Not everywhere on the planet has warmed/cooled at the same rate, and land usage has varied enormously from region to region, and that's where most of your visible signs of change has occurred.
      And while it's obvious that the climate has changed due to solar and oceanic variances, it is now recognized that these two natural events are more responsible for climate change than anything man has done in the past two centuries.

      To address your complaint about the graph I posted with no link. The graph, as I mentioned, was attributed to Loehle 2007, do you really need more information than that? Does it have to have a link to make it valid? If you look at the graph you presented below you'll find an updated version, the pink line labeled Loehle 2008.

      You obviously missed the bit where I wrote:
      In a special supplement to the August Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, "the UK Met Office Hadley Centre, no less, confirmed that in the past ten years the HadCRUT3 temperature data shows no increase whatsoever. Their analysis showed that the world warmed by 0.07 +/- 0.07 deg C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 deg C expected by the IPCC."

      Basically, what it means is the graph you presented shows a massive rise in temperature at the end of the twentieth century, whereas Met Office/Hadley themselves state "that the world warmed by 0.07 +/- 0.07 deg C from 1999 to 2008" i.e. any warming was well either non-existent or barely detectable, yet your chart shows otherwise.
      If you want to rely on data to further your cause you need the data to be unblemished and reliable. The data you presented here is neither. If you have any self-respect you should re-think your belief system.
      As Mr Shaker's previous post states, "They accept on faith that CO2 in the atmosphere actually has a large effect on the climate, when they have not been able to prove a small one." and that is a fact. No-one has successfully proven that CO2 has even a measurable effect on the climate. It really takes a lot of blind faith to uphold your position, and just for the record, you're not doing too well so far.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • IceKat:

      I'm not here to uphold anything. I'm not in a contest with you to prove anything, especially something that has already been proven. The fact that you think that is what this is only shows your true intentions. I don't need to prove anything to you here. The information is here. If you don't agree take it up with the scientists who took the core samples. It is so obvious that because I have the name Gore in my name here that makes certain people here you included think you can vicariously whack at him through me. Again, this is not a stage or a contest. If you want a pissing contest to validate why you come here because no one else will even address your spin here, look elsewhere. The graphs are explained in detail and I will take the word of those doing these tests and making these graphs way before I take anything you say here even remotely credibly.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • 0
      IceKat  
    • JanforGore:

      My intentions, as you well know, are to present different opinions and evidence to yours. People should be given balanced information, not one-sided propaganda.
      As for Gore, I don't even waste my time thinking about him, he is of no concern to me. You, on the other hand, have already declared your love for them man, and can therefore never be taken seriously. You cannot be impartial or balanced, and can never shift from your position. That can never be a good thing. Conversely, I am free to change my position at any time, depending on the science and evidence, which is frequently changing.

      "...because no one else will even address your spin here"
      Oh don't worry, I'm fully aware of the lack of support I have here. It doesn't bother me because I know there are people reading what I write and agreeing with me, even though they may be afraid to say so publicly. There are also other places where I am taken very seriously, but I won't go into that here.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • IceKat:

      "My intentions, as you well know, are to present different opinions and evidence to yours"

      Well gee, I hope they're paying you well as we now know you are assigned to me. However in your case, different isn't right it's just different for the sake of being different. And my position on climate change is such because of the science behind it and the global consensus that exists, and the fact that I can see it for myself. So the low blow comment you made to try to discredit me because you know I'm right speaks volumes. You can deflect all you wish, but if I supported anyone else besides your guru's rival you wouldn't even address me here. There are others who post on this topic here and you never address them, so spare me once again your misrepresentations about your intentions. And you don't have any real evidence to prove your position. All you do is remove lines from the graphs already there to fit what you want to see. Just like your mentor Monckton who was already outted for the fraud he is.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
  • cjshaker
    • 0
      cjshaker  
    • Image

    • I'm not sure what that article is supposed to prove. How is that temperature rise incompatible with the ice age cycle? You start out assuming that CO2 in the atmosphere is to blame, when it seems more likely to be a natural part of the glacial cycle.

      According to this National Geographic web page, we know that temperatures during the PREVIOUS warming cycle were 4.5 C WARMER than today. Why would we not expect to reach that higher temperature during this warming cycle?

      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070705-antarctica-ice.html

      We have temperature records derived from deuterium measurements in the Antarctic ice cores going back for 800,000 years, and ELEVEN glacial cycles:

      Chris Shaker

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • An explanation was given in the post above: "The grey lines to the right of the graph are shaded as that part of the core was disturbed by the coring process." It is also of that one particular region, with the two graphs below it representing the Western Hemisphere which are complete.

    • 1 year ago
  • Future_America
    • 0
      Future_America  

    • The graph above is incomplete. See those squiggly right after 1900, those say that the graph jumps a large number of years into the future, but they don't say how far into the future they jump.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  

    • "Additional projected 21st Century warming will produce a climate unlike anything experienced in the history of human civilization."

      That says it all. But remember, this was done from the viewpoint of science. Not from the viewpoint of an oil executive or stockholder; not from the viewpoint of a jealous, bitter, myopic Al Gore hater; not from the view of a RW religious tea party zealot looking for votes.

      The window scientists spoke of that was closing is more than halfway shut, meaning there is still some time to do something concrete to decrease emissions to stave off the worst effects of climate chaos/climate change/global warming/global climate disruption, or whatever you wish to call it (the semantics of this is nothing but a distractionary issue to those looking to divert this discussion.) We have to have a definitive plan to decrease carbon as well as other GHGs in our atmosphere. We can no longer afford to continue to dump the millions of tons daily that we are now.

      Deforestation, carbon loss through peatlands, wetlands, forests, industrial agriculture alone accounts for about 30% of emissions as a whole. It doesn't take some huge technological fix ( such as atmospheric geoengineering that people like Bill Gates are hoping to score big from to fill his bank account while doing nothing to call for solutions like those we already have at our disposal) that is dangerous, unproven to be effective, and will take longer to bring to us than the time we have to work with.

      What it takes is for this tit for tat to stop and for people to finally come together to say
      hey, we can farm more sustainably to sequester carbon...let's do that! Hey,we can stop cutting down the rainforests and learn to live with less to preserve it for our children...let's do that! Hey, the sun is shining over our heads and it is hot and strong. We can use it to make electricity along with using the other natural elements of the Earth in a cleaner safer way like wind and Earth's heat, and the waves of the ocean...let's do that! Hey, those polluting our atmosphere are getting away with profits while our health is threatened... let's place a revenue neutral tax on the carbon they release in order to move them to cleaner energy and to benefit our economy so we can afford those safer cleaner ways and give jobs to our people... we can do that!
      Hey, our "leaders" are procrastinating on doing what is morally right for us and our future because they are bought and sold by greedy oil and coal companies... let's vote them out!

      See, it only takes us to stop thinking of this as so hard and impossible and to see that the solutions are within ourselves and the distance of our own hands if we only would come to our senses...before it really is too late. I really don't know what else there is to say. If we don't get it, we don't deserve this planet. Then we can hang our heads in failure while getting all excited at some distant planet found that we have no connection to.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • Image

    • http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-remperature-reconstruction-vindicates.html

      Here are those temperature reconstructions.

      From the link:

      'It's worth noting that all the reconstructions show the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and 20th-century warming (though Loehle 2008 only runs through 1935).

      Loehle's Medieval Warm Period is both warmer and earlier than the rest (and, as noted above, Loehle recognizes that his early peak circa AD 850 is probably incorrect). Loehle also shows a much colder Little Ice Age. All of the reconstructions diverge more in the period before AD 800, with Moberg being the coolest, Loehle the warmest, and Mann and Ljungqvist being in the middle of the pack.

      When comparing Ljungqvist 2010 to Loehle 2008, it's important to remember that Ljungqvist's reconstruction is for the mid- and high-latitude Northern Hemisphere only, while Loehle's was supposed to be global. In this light, the presence of relatively extreme temperatures in Loehle's reconstruction during both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age ought to be viewed somewhat skeptically. Whether or not these episodes were truly "global", they were certainly strongest in the Northern Hemisphere, particularly in the North Atlantic region. Ljungqvist 2010 suggests that his own reconstruction may have underestimated the magnitude of Northern Hemisphere cooling during the Little Ice Age, but Loehle's still appears to be an outlier if it is considered as a global reconstruction.

      Finally, it's worth noting that comparison to the instrumental record suggests that modern temperatures are significantly warmer than those during the height of the Medieval Warm Period. Additional projected 21st Century warming will produce a climate unlike anything experienced in the history of human civilization.'

    • 1 year ago
more from Tech:
from the community

top videos