New study proves global temp has been cooling for past two millenia!

[ishootblanks]

Despite the .8 degree C increase in temp over the last 130 years and increased CO2 in the atmosphere a new study shows that for the since 138 BC the average global temperature has been decreasing at a rate of .31 degrees C.. and that roughly every 1000 years there is a temperature spike of which the spike we are currently in the midst of is actually no worse than the spikes during the Roman times and the Medieval warm period.

here is the official study - http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate1589.html

here is the slightly easier to read study - http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/15491.php

and here's the pure evil extremist right-wing hate mongering website of pure death and destruction that actually made me aware of the study.. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...l-media-notice

to those of you who regularly watch TV news.. please respond if you actually see any mention of this!

[ptwonline]

In other words, anthropogenic effects on global temperatures is bigger than we thought.

[eriseis]

I'd be more interested if this were a serious discussion instead of a lOLOLSEE? IT'S NOT TRUE, SOCIALIST LEFTIES sort of deal.

That and for the life of me I can't tell what the hell the Nature paper says, lol.

[ishootblanks]

In other words, anthropogenic effects on global temperatures is bigger than we thought.

err.. no.. the opposite.. read the story!

or did the Romans have gas guzzling SUV's and a lot of dirty manufacturing that we didn't know about?

---------- Post added 2012-07-11 at 05:17 PM ----------

I'd be more interested if this were a serious discussion instead of a lOLOLSEE? IT'S NOT TRUE, SOCIALIST LEFTIES sort of deal.

That and for the life of me I can't tell what the hell the Nature paper says, lol.

that's why I posted the other link to the gutenburg university.. it summarizes it a bit more.. and aside from my final link and comment that I put in there as a joke.. where in any of it does it show a political bias?

[Gheld]

It was aliens...

That's my guess. They are running out of episode ideas by now.
EDIT:
Plus, studies don't prove, they conclude. I'm not an anthropogenic global warming believer by any stretch of the imagination, but this too is a misuse of the word prove.

[eriseis]

err.. no.. the opposite.. read the story!

or did the Romans have gas guzzling SUV's and a lot of dirty manufacturing that we didn't know about?

What does

The forcing is substantial over the past 2,000 years, up to four times as large as the 1.6 W m−2 net anthropogenic forcing since 1750

mean?

I interpret that as "hey, guise, people HAVE been increasing the temperature of the planet, but the change is not as big as the galactic orbit rawr rawr science talk we're talking about in the paper".

[Dundebuns]

More information for the pot but I doubt many rational people will get a look in as people start screaming about warmists or deniers

[ptwonline]

err.. no.. the opposite.. read the story!

If the study is correct, then the earth is in a natural cooling period and has been for 2 millenia.

However, temperatures since the Industrial Revolution have definitely increased, and even more dramatically in the past century.

If the Earth's climate was in a NEUTRAL temperature state, then an X increase in temperature means that humans affected the climate by X amount.

If the Earth's climate is in a COOLING temperature state of amount Y, then an X increase in temperature means that humans affected the climate by X + Y amount.

[Tzalix]

I interpret that as "hey, guise, people HAVE been increasing the temperature of the planet, but the change is not as big as the galactic orbit rawr rawr science talk we're talking about in the paper".

Denial. It's a powerful thing.

[ptwonline]

Here's a rational response to this study.

http://abstractengineer.blogspot.ca/...-and-tree.html

[ati87]

If scienes where ever so conclusive.........................then half the discusions would be gone by now.

But until the day that I will believe the majority of the scientist and the fact that year after year to many countries are breaking record heat during periods where they shouldn't.

And the moment we don't get freaky weathers during both the summer and winter then I can start the other story.

[TJ]

If the study is correct, then the earth is in a natural cooling period and has been for 2 millenia.

However, temperatures since the Industrial Revolution have definitely increased, and even more dramatically in the past century.

If the Earth's climate was in a NEUTRAL temperature state, then an X increase in temperature means that humans affected the climate by X amount.

If the Earth's climate is in a COOLING temperature state of amount Y, then an X increase in temperature means that humans affected the climate by X + Y amount.

If I'm not mistaken, temperatures actually decreased during the Industrial Revolution.

[Socialhealer]

who cares? we should lower pollution and bad gases anyway regardless of global or not global warming.

[Korru]

It was aliens...

No! It was the PIRATES!

[Deleted]

Despite the .8 degree C increase in temp over the last 130 years and increased CO2 in the atmosphere a new study shows that for the since 138 BC the average global temperature has been decreasing at a rate of .31 degrees C.. and that roughly every 1000 years there is a temperature spike of which the spike we are currently in the midst of is actually no worse than the spikes during the Roman times and the Medieval warm period.

here is the official study - http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate1589.html

here is the slightly easier to read study - http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/15491.php

and here's the pure evil extremist right-wing hate mongering website of pure death and destruction that actually made me aware of the study.. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...l-media-notice

to those of you who regularly watch TV news.. please respond if you actually see any mention of this!

Look at the graph, it did the same jump at around 750AD but that didn't seem to matter for the line they put in.
Also, the jump at 0AD was bigger than it is at current time.

To be honest, without the line that graph looks completely flat with some fluctuations here and there.

[ptwonline]

If I'm not mistaken, temperatures actually decreased during the Industrial Revolution.

Well, at the start of it there may not have been enough CO2 being put into the air to offset natural cooling. It's not like billions of tons of CO2 were pumped into the air on day 1 of the Industrial Revolution. Carbon sinks like oceans and rainforests still had more capacity to absorb extra CO2. And of course there are other variables that can have effects over relatively short periods of time.

Anyway, since it only relies on one source of data--tree rings--you need to take results cautiously. The same is true with any secondary measurement system (since they are not measuring actual temperatures but secondary effects--in this case growth amounts/wood density), and so they need to use other measurements to help corroborate the data.

[Gheld]

If the Earth's climate was in a NEUTRAL temperature state

Then pigs would fly, because the sun is the earths primary source of heat, and it doesn't have a uniform energy output.

EDIT:

Anyway, since it only relies on one source of data--tree rings--you need to take results cautiously. The same is true with any secondary measurement system (since they are not measuring actual temperatures but secondary effects--in this case growth amounts/wood density), and so they need to use other measurements to help corroborate the data.

Really? Because it's the same type of proxy data used by pro AGW scientists to infer that the planet is heating up. You don't seem to be taking those results cautiously.

[starlord]

yeah, it just means the global warming occurring is that much worse.

In addition to the cold and warm phases, the new climate curve also exhibits a phenomenon that was not expected in this form. For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years. Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.

"This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant," says Esper. "However, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."

[eriseis]

Denial. It's a powerful thing.

Who's in denial? Did you read the quote I posted? Can you refute my interpretation of the quote?

[Cthulhu 2020]

I think the most telling thing about this study and the sensationalism around it is that these blog and news sites keep using the word "proves" to make it sound like this thoroughly and completely debunks anthropogenic global warming... which if you actually read the study from beginning to end, you will find it doesn't.

In fact, if you read the paper, you will see that like any good scientists, they have proposed an alternate theory of a historic climate model FOR FURTHER TESTING. They used tree ring data from sweden and scandanavia to create this new climate model. What they didn't mention in the paper is possible conflicting studies (which any good paper should) where tree ring density has been used from other parts of the world that shows differing results. However, they do open up for further study.

Anyone worth their salt knows that there is no proving or disproving anything in science, only bringing new light upon a subject. The scientific community works on a consensus, where emerging ideas are disagreed upon when a lot is still not known about it. As more studies are conducted, a consensus emerges among the scientific community, and generally a consensus means that something is accepted as being the truth, even if there are a few conflicting studies. For instance, there are still scientists out there that will, every now and again, publish papers about how evolution isn't real, the earth is flat, or that aliens really have visited earth before. For now, global warming being real and human caused is the consensus. No one study is going to change that. It's going to take a lot of overwhelmingly convincing studies to change it.

Sensationalist journalism and a lot of uneducated people believe that science somehow works like the judicial system, where one piece of evidence can suddenly acquit the defendant... when it doesn't work that way at all.

Also, if you bothered to read the study, you'd notice that the study itself shows that the earth has been in a cooling period for the last 2k years... and is suddenly in a rapid warming period, which they never really explained in that paper.