It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mwood
 

And that's one of the problems with using tree-ring -- it's not the best paleo-climate data. The idea of reconstructing ancient temperatures from tree-ring I don't think would give you a true reconstruction of paleo-climate temperatures because, for one thing, temperature must be measured on an absolute scale whereas tree-ring data exist only on a relative one and, for another, tree-rings vary according to an indeterminate number of unknowable individual, species-specific and environmental factors of which ambient temperature is only one. Similar considerations apply to the proxy ice-core-data for CO2. But CAGW-advocates have used tree-ring data. Climategate revealed that Jones et al were well-aware that tree-rings are not valid as proxies for global mean temperature-readings after 1960 and therefore they should also know that they are also invalid as temperature-proxies for times for which no reliable thermometer-readings are available, i.e. pre-1850. But I think the amount of paleo-climate data confirming that the MWP was warmer than today makes this study no surprise to anyone. The ice-core data used by the IPCC even shows that the last 3 intergacials were warmer than today, and the last interglacial period, the Eemian is estimated to have been about 3C warmer -- which is the IPCC's prediction from a doubling of CO2 by 2100. Polar bears survived the Eemian period, and so did we, speices did not die-off en masse. On the contrary, life thrived.
edit on 16-7-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
[Double-post]
edit on 16-7-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Horse. Long dead. Still whacking at it.

Who cares if your climate has warmed or cooled or whatever to the point of being uninhabitable when your rivers and streams are so polluted that they can not support life or carry drinking water?

Who cares about global warming when your oceans are nearly depleted of fish and all life that is left carries high amounts of heavy metals and pollutants in their blood?

Who cares about carbon tax when all the old growth forests have been leveled and replaced with empty and lifeless rows of trees waiting to be cut down again?

Who cares about a scientific consensus on anything when the soil is so depleted and polluted that it needs to be soaked with chemicals before anything will grow in it?

Give it a rest already, and I'm talking to both sides of this argument. Just shut the hell up and focus on something that actually matters.

Global warming is irrelevant, and is only a distraction from the real problems facing the ecological systems of planet Earth. God damn I'm so tired of this crap.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD THIS IS NOTHING NEW



The "Medieval Warming Period" was a REGIONAL and NOT GLOBAL warming. Nor does it in any way disprove the more-than-satisfactory evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Stop rehashing this crap, you anti-science (or only-convenient-science) folks are just desperate and harmful to logical thinking everywhere.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 

According to 686 scientists from 401 institutions in 40 countries the MWP was a global event. See the various paleo-climate studies here.
edit on 16-7-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


This is reassuring, the carbon taxes should be repealed any day now. HA! I kid, I kid, that's clearly never gonna happen.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 




So now that we have tree rings showing us that the Earth has been hotter than it is now, does that mean we will stop on the anthropogenic global warming talks and just realize that the Earth has cycles in it's climate?


No, we can't.

No one is denying that the Earth's climate shifts and changes even without mankind's influence. What is being proposed is that emissions caused by humanity are exacerbating the warming, even driving it as a major factor. It's common sense to think that seven billion industrious humans can have an impact on the climate. The only area left open for debate is just how much damage we're doing and what we can do to reverse it, the issue of whether or not we're contributing to the warming is well and truly settled and has been for quite some time.

Let's say we decided to teleport back in time to the Medieval warm period and give the people back then some new technology, including cars and pollution spewing factories. I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that if they started spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere the Medieval warm period would have gotten even hotter.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 

According to 686 scientists from 401 institutions in 40 countries the MWP was a global event. See the various paleo-climate studies here.
edit on 16-7-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)


Here ya go, buddy:




posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
AEMAZING INFOP!! Just threw you some kosher points



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 

You're going to debunk all of those paleo-climate studies I showed you with a YouTube video?

In the immortal words of John McEnroe, 'You cannot be serious'.

Please, click on the link above in my previous post and you'll see hundreds of different paleo-climate studies from around the world. Are they all wrong?
edit on 17-7-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrchusGhule
[...]rivers and streams are so polluted that they can not support life or carry drinking water[...]oceans are nearly depleted of fish and all life that is left carries high amounts of heavy metals and pollutants in their blood[...]all the old growth forests have been leveled and replaced with empty and lifeless rows of trees waiting to be cut down again[...]the soil is so depleted and polluted that it needs to be soaked with chemicals before anything will grow in it[...]the real problems facing the ecological systems of planet Earth.


Wow. Exaggerate much?

I agree that the environment should be respected, and care should be taken to maintain it proactively(resource management, as opposed to resource depletion), and where applicable, to repair it retroactively(if possible) or at least minimize and contain damage until a viable repair is feasible. It is undeniable that both individuals and businesses are taking more and greater steps every day to minimize our ecological impact without dumping us all back into the stone age.

Some people will throw beer cans out the car windows, and dump the dirty oil from their car in the dirt. Some people will buy property in rural areas to get out of the city and into the country, then cut down all the trees, bulldoze everything flat or into terraces, put up a house and surround everything with a fence, lay down sod for manicured lawn grass, hire exterminators on a regular basis as air support in the constant war against insects, and erect a streetlight or two because holy crap, its dark, and all those stars are creepy.

Some people will buy a vehicle that uses electrical power on a semi or constant basis, crow about how much they are saving on gas, and unabashedly cultivate an attitude of moral superiority over the unwashed masses still proto-human enough to be using gas-guzzling polar bear killers, while their car is charging by being plugged into an electrical grid primarily supplied with energy from coal plants, with an appreciable amount from nuclear plants, and a bit from hydroelectric plants; hardly an 'environmentally friendly' mix. Not to mention the fat battery pack in the car, which are filled with all kinds of interesting and complicated materials requiring mining and refining operations that make the average environmentalist go all pale and trembly. (I speak from experience here, a cousin of mine did this, and hasn't spoken to me since I showed her what the batteries were made of and how it was acquired).

Some people say we're 'destroying the planet' (I include you in this, based on the snipped quote above, you were much more eloquent about it in a cynical, jaded fashion). By 'planet' they probably mean 'biosphere' because no one in their right minds really thinks humans are about to turn Earth into another asteroid belt. It is intimated that we, the scourge of Terra, are well on our way to turning our Eden into Gehenna(or in your case, we've pretty much succeeded). Our greed has destroyed all that Nature hath wrought, etc..
Its interesting, seeing as how Nature, in her lovely benevolent kindness, has for one reason or another wiped out 99.99999% of all species of life that has ever existed on this planet...but even after her most volatile temper tantrums(such as the many massive impacts from space in the past), the biosphere has refused complete extermination, regrouped, adapted, and proliferated.
One gets the idea that perhaps what environmentalists are really saying is that we might destroy ourselves. To prevent this, we should 'go back to Nature.' Immediate effect of that? Some 6.5 billion people perish, citing lack of resources.

But don't worry! Nature will take care of the survivors. Just like she has all those other species....right?



God damn I'm so tired of this crap.


As am I. Stay off the environmentalist doomporn blogs for a while. You know you've been on them too long when you are capable of poo-pooing the world's favorite scientific-consensus-supported environmentalist doomporn because you have a nice long list of even more doomish doomporn.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 

You're going to debunk all of those paleo-climate studies I showed you with a YouTube video?

In the immortal words of John McEnroe, 'You cannot be serious'.

Please, click on the link above in my previous post and you'll see hundreds of different paleo-climate studies from around the world. Are they all wrong?
edit on 17-7-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)


I did click your link, it's another obvious case of CHERRY-PICKING a few sites around the world to say "YEP, IT WAS GLOBAL" but NO, it was not global. During the MWP there were periods in Asia, North America, and the Southern hemisphere of BOTH warming AND cooling. Parts of the northern hemisphere warmed considerably during the MWP, but Eurasia, for instance, experienced abnormal cooling.

Also, not sure where you're getting the "686 scientists" figure, but something tells me they aren't Climatologists, nor are most of them claiming (if they are actually reputable scientists) that their studies refute, in any way, Anthropogenic Global Warming, or the notion that the MWP was regional.
edit on 17-7-2012 by NoHierarchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Nice that you buried "Koch Brothers" in your list of Big Foot. WE actually have tracked the Koch's to funding a lot of "grass roots" websites that attacked Global Climate change science -- in the early days, it wasn't as sophisticated and a lot of their bogus claims were easily caught -- now they've gotten better but the goals haven't changed.

Human carbon output is 100 times what natural sources are (like Volcanoes). We have an island of trash in the sargasso sea of the Pacific that is twice the size of Texas. We have moved mountains, we have dredged swamps. Rome used to actually be densely wooded until the Romans burnt it down to smelt iron ore out of the ground. You can see the giant lake created by multiple dams in China from space. And in about 30 years time, many glaciers will be gone.

Before the industrial age, the atmosphere generally hovered at 330 PPM for CO2 and now it's around 390 PPM, the last time it was above 350 PPM -- we had very different creatures on the planet and a lot of pete bogs were starting to create what would be the massive coal deposits we use today.


These "warming and cooling periods" that people are tracking with tree rings, don't cover the whole globe. And our ice core samples for atmosphere are probably a good indicator that the basic composition of the air has changed.

>> So human activity can definitely change the landscape -- I can see it all around me. And 3 million miles of roads not to mention asphalt on rooms has to have an impact. The idea that humans are NOT affecting our planet is ridiculous on it's face -- even before we look at climate models and ice core samples.

The support for a change is basic and fundamental and cherry picking a few locations like Europe or Rome isn't going to give you the picture for the planet. It's not as if Climatologists aren't looking at this data as well -- they just are crunching a lot more data than a few Koch funded websites are.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 

There are a lot of studies there, from different corners of the planet. If it's cherry-picking, it's pretty impressive cherry-picking, I must admit. I doubt they are climatologists too - I expect they would be paleo-climatologists. But I don't know myself. Also, not all the studies cited above show warming, as you say, some show cooling, but I believe the average given from all the studies combined works out at about 1C globally warmer than today. Of course, even if the MWP was regional or global, I think we can all agree, it neither disproves or proves CAGW. It's neither here or there.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 



Human carbon output is 100 times what natural sources are (like Volcanoes).

You sure about that? The IPCC's own figures (in AR4) show that natural yearly CO2-emissons are 27 times greater than human CO2-emissons. The figures given are: Natural CO2-emissions/year = 771 gigatonnes. Human CO2-emissions/year = 29 gigatonnes. Natural sources are far greater.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. These guys can't predict what this weekend's weather is going to be like, yet they want me to believe they can predict what it will be in 30 years?
No thanks!



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
There are two things going on here and they are separate independent events.

There is global warming in the 19th and 20th century - we can believe what we want to believe about this (and I sit on the fence).

And then there is the climate changes that have occurred prior to this date. There is a fair amount of evidence for this:
- Grapes grown in Britain during Roman times
- Documented mini ice age in Britain in 1700 ( when Celia Feinnes wrote of the |Thames area being covered in snow for over half the year)
- Also worth looking up latest evidence why Greenland was so called - because it was actually green in the Viking times

So we should not be surprised at these climate changes and the dendrochronology (tree rings) seem to back up the evidence from elsewhere.

So its a thumbs up from me for the extra evidence.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tsurugi

Originally posted by OrchusGhule
[...]rivers and streams are so polluted that they can not support life or carry drinking water[...]oceans are nearly depleted of fish and all life that is left carries high amounts of heavy metals and pollutants in their blood[...]all the old growth forests have been leveled and replaced with empty and lifeless rows of trees waiting to be cut down again[...]the soil is so depleted and polluted that it needs to be soaked with chemicals before anything will grow in it[...]the real problems facing the ecological systems of planet Earth.


Wow. Exaggerate much?

I agree that the environment should be respected, and care should be taken to maintain it proactively(resource management, as opposed to resource depletion), and where applicable, to repair it retroactively(if possible) or at least minimize and contain damage until a viable repair is feasible. It is undeniable that both individuals and businesses are taking more and greater steps every day to minimize our ecological impact without dumping us all back into the stone age.


Wow, way to inject a bunch of b***s**t into my post. You obviously missed the point, which is not surprising considering your offended, over-reactionary tone.

Nice wall of talking points though. You assume very much about me, when you know absolutely nothing. You might be surprised to find out that this computer is 1 of only 3 electronic devices I own, and that it runs on power generated from the sun, collected from a 10 year old solar array. I do not own a car, I grow almost all of my own food, and I could go on but it would probably be wasted on you. I've not burned fossil fuels in over a decade. You're barking up the wrong tree kid.

I hate environmentalist for the exact reasons you mention. They bitch and moan about destroying the planet and then go jump in their electric cars. But again you assumed I was one of those, didn't you?

Where did I say we've turned the planet into a wasteland already? All I said is that by the time we determne whether or not anthropogenic global climate change is real, we will probably have destroyed everything else to the point where it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. And if you don't believe we are well on the way to doing this, you clearly don't get out enough. In fact, considering all the jibberish you posted about street lights
and whatever else, I don't think you have any idea of what exactly is going on. I've been to many environmentally depleted areas of the planet. Where have you been? In your living room, I'm sure. Just because you deny these things are being done, or don't know about them, does not indicate that they are not being done. It just means you're ignorant of the facts, or just ignorant in general, I'm not sure which but I'm leaning toward the latter.

I never said nature was a kind mistress. Its often brutal and often hostile, and holds a great deal of power over us. This is no excuse to mindlessly destroy the ecosystems which support us, but you certainly seem to be using it as an excuse. Personally, I would like to see our species continue beyond the very near limits of industrialized civilization with something left of nature other than depleted ecosystems. And you're correct in saying returning to some sort of equilibrium will require a reduction of human population. This can be done quickly and violently or slowly over time. I really don't give 2 s***s how it happens to be honest. Nature has cleansed itself several times already, so who cares how its done. Right? At this point its really a question of what will be left to sustain our species when the end of industry finally comes. Looking at our current relationship with ecology, I would say probably not much. Could our ecological systems wipe us out after we work so hard to save them? Sure could, but again I don't see that as an excuse to preempt that event. I also love where you say something to the effect of "even if we destroy ourselves, nature will continue." I see this all the time, and it makes laugh, because you don't realize what you're saying, which is that you're OK with the idea that humans may exterminate themselves and that it doesn't matter because nature will be fine. I like humans, despite our rampant idiocy, and like I said, I would like to think the human species will last for many millennia to come.

I know full well the only things becoming green by way of the "green" movement are the wallets of the businessmen pushing that tripe. I also think that some level of technological advancement can be achieved while coming into balance with our ecosystem, but you didn't bother to ask that, did you? Nope, you just assumed I meant we should go back to the stone ages, just like every other lunatic on here speaking against environmental awareness.

All I was saying is that global climate change is useless to argue about, because it acheives nothing to do so. But here you are making a list of assumptions about s**t I didn't even mention. Good job smartass.

edit on 17-7-2012 by OrchusGhule because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-7-2012 by OrchusGhule because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-7-2012 by OrchusGhule because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-7-2012 by OrchusGhule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
off course it was warmer back then, have you seen a wintercoat as thick as we use them these days ?


they wore silk sheets over there bodies

edit on 17-7-2012 by pheniks because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by predator0187
Sour ce


How did the Romans grow grapes in northern England? Perhaps because it was warmer than we thought.

A study suggests the Britain of 2,000 years ago experienced a lengthy period of hotter summers than today.

German researchers used data from tree rings – a key indicator of past climate – to claim the world has been on a ‘long-term cooling trend’ for two millennia until the global warming of the twentieth century.

This cooling was punctuated by a couple of warm spells.

These are the Medieval Warm Period, which is well known, but also a period during the toga-wearing Roman times when temperatures were apparently 1 deg C warmer than now.

They say the very warm period during the years 21 to 50AD has been underestimated by climate scientists.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... yEV7




So now that we have tree rings showing us that the Earth has been hotter than it is now, does that mean we will stop on the anthropogenic global warming talks and just realize that the Earth has cycles in it's climate?

I have never been one that believes we can have a large enough impact to affect the weather, I think we can harm the environment, yes, but as for changing the climate of Earth, No.

We should take care of our planet and not pollute tho oceans, land or air, but in any case, life will go on. Humans might not be part of it, but new life forms and plants will thrive and live it out.

I mean, really, we had a 6km rock crash into the Earth and somehow we are thriving today.


Anyway, I thought this was interesting so I thought I would share it with all of you.

Any thoughts?

Pred...
edit on 15-7-2012 by predator0187 because: (no reason given)


Well...you might have a point if temperature were the sole factor in determining how fast trees grew. Unfortunately, the growth rate of trees is ALSO affected by:

-Soil conditions
-Soil Ph
-Nutrient levels
-Atmospheric composition
-Precipitation Levels
-Disease
-Pressure from herbivores/insects
-The number of overcast days
-The other plants growing in the nearby vicinity
-Microbiotic activity

..and probably a whole lot of other factors too.

Basing your views that humans are not contributing to global warming off of tree rings alone is pretty foolhardy.

Remember...the scientists of the world AGREE with you that YES there ARE NATURAL CYCLES in the climate. However, what makes THIS cycle different is the specific rate/severity of the change and much more importantly...THE EFFECT IT IS HAVING UPON THE OVERALL GLOBAL ECOSYSTEM.

Yes..."the earth" will be just fine. However, I for one, would prefer to not have to experience a food chain collapse or mass extinction. Call me biased...but I really could care less if only lichen and algae survives and we must wait another 1 billion years or so for more complex life to re-evolve. It's the people I'm concerned about.




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join