Yet another paper demonstrates warmer temperatures 1000 years ago and even 2000 years ago

Source

Yesterday I highlighted the paper "The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability", by B Christiansen of the Danish Meteorological Institute and F C Ljungqvist of Stockholm University which showed that using a multitude of proxy samples in the norther hemisphere, that:

"The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) in the second half of the 10th century, equaling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century warming, is in agreement with the results from other more recent large-scale multi-proxy temperature reconstructions."

Now another paper, by Esper et al published in the Journal of Global and Planetary Change, shows that not only was the summers of the MWP equal or greater than our current warmth, but that the summers of the Roman Warm Period of 2000 years ago were significantly warmer than today.

I like to share these sort of things because I am so tired of hearing about anthropogenic Global Warming.

The fact of the matter is that the Earth has shifting climates, it always has, humans or no humans.

Nature is in balance, the more Carbon in the atmosphere, the more Carbon 'eating' life there will be, the more oxygen, the more Oxygen 'eating'...

Why we have people panicking over something we cannot control, and happens naturally is beyond me.

People live at the bottom of active volcano's for Christ sakes, they live on the coast even though they know Tsunamis are possible, they live on fault lines they know are ready to rupture, yet the planet gets warmer, which is just as natural as an earthquake and people try and fear monger as well as make money off of it.

Anyway, enough of the rant, and just thought I would share some findings on the subject.

Any thoughts?

Pred...

This may be true, and I tend to think it is ..

The one big problem though is that we are biologically adapted to our current climate .. so large climate shifts can cause large die-offs.. I don't think it would be an extinction situation.. but it still is a bad situation for those living through it ..

There also used to be a lot more oxygen on this planet than there is now .. which led to larger creatures... eventually this planet will be rendered un-inhabitable.. just by consumption alone

Originally posted by miniatus
This may be true, and I tend to think it is ..

The one big problem though is that we are biologically adapted to our current climate .. so large climate shifts can cause large die-offs.. I don't think it would be an extinction situation.. but it still is a bad situation for those living through it ..

There also used to be a lot more oxygen on this planet than there is now .. which lead to larger creatures... eventually this planet will be rendered un-inhabitable.. just by consumption alone

edit on 10/19/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

We can biologically adapt to just about any climate. We lived in caves in the winter and made fire. We are one of the most adaptable species on the planet, life as a whole would adapt.

Hell, life made it through a 6pm asteroid impact, super volcanoes and ice ages, a couple degrees is more than easily adaptable.

That's why we beat out our cousins, it's because we can adapt better, we even made it through when there was only 70,000 or so of our species.

Pred....

The climate change would create more farmland, and it always fares well for the planet and species.

They don't like warmth because it ends scarsity, a very prized system by the SLAVERS. Personally I want my tropical fruit at my fingertips.

Originally posted by predator0187

Originally posted by miniatus
This may be true, and I tend to think it is ..

The one big problem though is that we are biologically adapted to our current climate .. so large climate shifts can cause large die-offs.. I don't think it would be an extinction situation.. but it still is a bad situation for those living through it ..

There also used to be a lot more oxygen on this planet than there is now .. which lead to larger creatures... eventually this planet will be rendered un-inhabitable.. just by consumption alone

edit on 10/19/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

We can biologically adapt to just about any climate. We lived in caves in the winter and made fire. We are one of the most adaptable species on the planet, life as a whole would adapt.

Hell, life made it through a 6pm asteroid impact, super volcanoes and ice ages, a couple degrees is more than easily adaptable.

That's why we beat out our cousins, it's because we can adapt better, we even made it through when there was only 70,000 or so of our species.

Pred....

We CAN adapt.. but that takes time.. and generations... it requires lots of die off for that adaptation to happen via evolution.. that's exactly what I was saying... for us to adapt to dramatic climate shift means death.. and lots of it .. This is precisely why I said it doesn't mean extinction ..

I don't disagree.. it's just not a great option.. and with modern science, I can see the push and desire to avoid it.

Originally posted by Unity_99
The climate change would create more farmland, and it always fares well for the planet and species.

They don't like warmth because it ends scarsity, a very prized system by the SLAVERS. Personally I want my tropical fruit at my fingertips.

edit on 19-10-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

Where do you get that idea? ... warmth tends to cause DROUGHT .. which tends to cause less farmland, ruined crops, and death... how does it help? .. in our hotter months.. we have repeatedly faced bad seasons when it comes to crops ...

I don't get what you're saying.. it's not backed up by what's actually happened historically... logic isn't siding with you.. and what has happened so far, unless I'm missing something..doesn't either.. so please support what you're saying with some statistical data showing that hotter earth = more farm land

Originally posted by miniatus
We CAN adapt.. but that takes time.. and generations... it requires lots of die off for that adaptation to happen via evolution.. that's exactly what I was saying... for us to adapt to dramatic climate shift means death.. and lots of it .. This is precisely why I said it doesn't mean extinction ..

I don't disagree.. it's just not a great option.. and with modern science, I can see the push and desire to avoid it.

edit on 10/19/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

Ahh, but that's the thing, even though it sounds mean, the weak ones of society would die; the blind, deaf, mentally challenged, physically challenged or anyone with a medical condition that required meds.

That's why don't see a lot of these conditions in the wild, because these animals die or get eaten, and a group would not sacrifice themselves for one that is weak. That is why mothers abandon their children sometimes.

It would inevitably strengthen humanities genetics, because physically weak and mentally weak people could not reproduce leaving only the physically and mentally strong to populate.

Sounds mean I know, but that's nature.

Pred...

I'm not saying this idea is real but I love to think along these lines. Dinosaurs had their day when conditions were favorable, when conditions changed the dino party was over. Enter the next act. Humans are having their day, conditions are changing, last call has come and gone and we are in the process of waiting for the nasty lights to be turned on by some big bouncer "Drink up folks" and we're outa here. Earth will receive its next party as the gracious host she is and whatever it is will thrive on the new cyclic conditions. Where humanity holds the cards is the possibility that we could introduce our legacy into the new conditions as AI, silicon based life. Unfortunately, we are helping our eventual demise along by self elimination by irreconcilable beliefs. The trillions we have spent on stupidity globally could have gone a long way to helping ensure our survivability...Curiosity cost a mere two billion. We can bow down to the "Gorites" use solar, wind what have you but at the end of the day, the cycle that gave us life is concluding and we have not done much more than amuse ourselves in the process. The piper must be paid!

Originally posted by predator0187

Originally posted by miniatus
We CAN adapt.. but that takes time.. and generations... it requires lots of die off for that adaptation to happen via evolution.. that's exactly what I was saying... for us to adapt to dramatic climate shift means death.. and lots of it .. This is precisely why I said it doesn't mean extinction ..

I don't disagree.. it's just not a great option.. and with modern science, I can see the push and desire to avoid it.

edit on 10/19/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

Ahh, but that's the thing, even though it sounds mean, the weak ones of society would die; the blind, deaf, mentally challenged, physically challenged or anyone with a medical condition that required meds.

That's why don't see a lot of these conditions in the wild, because these animals die or get eaten, and a group would not sacrifice themselves for one that is weak. That is why mothers abandon their children sometimes.

It would inevitably strengthen humanities genetics, because physically weak and mentally weak people could not reproduce leaving only the physically and mentally strong to populate.

Sounds mean I know, but that's nature.

Pred...

Mean isn't the issue.. that is precisely how evolution works.. of course I think humans will adapt.. but I think as our intelligence has also adapted, humans will naturally work to try to fight it.. nobody wants to DIE .. even if it's for the overall good of the species to adapt.. it's not in our mind set to obey .. so we will inact resolutions and polcies intended to preserve our current way of life.. at the expense of the populous .. and without any real effect in the long term.... of course.. the planet is much larger than we are, and it cares not about economics and political douchebaggery

Where do you get that idea? ... warmth tends to cause DROUGHT .. which tends to cause less farmland, ruined crops, and death... how does it help? .. in our hotter months.. we have repeatedly faced bad seasons when it comes to crops ...

That's not strictly true. Warmer weather means quicker evaporation of water which would lead to more rainfall. But higher temperatures lead to higher levels of dehydration and lower levels of photosynthesis.

The whole global warming debate appears to be filled with agendas. Evidence that the planet has actually warmed up in the last 15 years isn't convincing, and it seems even more strained when trying to place the accountability on human influence. All sorts of things can affect global temperature, the Sun goes through phases, volcanic eruptions, and El Nino always raised global temperatures.

What I find particularly concerning is the political lobbying by groups who are trying to create awareness for renewable energy, despite the fact that most of them are un-economical and damaging to the landscape. I'm still not convinced that the global warming argument isn't massively exagerrated in the media in an attempt create higher oil prices, which create a weaker economy but more profits for those associated with energy companies.

Originally posted by twfau

Where do you get that idea? ... warmth tends to cause DROUGHT .. which tends to cause less farmland, ruined crops, and death... how does it help? .. in our hotter months.. we have repeatedly faced bad seasons when it comes to crops ...

That's not strictly true. Warmer weather means quicker evaporation of water which would lead to more rainfall. But higher temperatures lead to higher levels of dehydration and lower levels of photosynthesis.

That depends specifically on the moisture in the environment.. it's surely not been the case in OBSERVABLE situatiions... you might call it agenda.. but farmers tend to be independent folks .. many of my family are farmers in the midwest.. things are not great for them ... drought is bad news..

Think what you want.. but reality isn't so much in your favor so far.

Definitely, and it's the worst drought in fifty years which is horrible, but then what was the reason for the drought fifty years ago? I'm saying there are agendas on both sides of the argument, and that the politics surrounding global warming means I don't know who to believe.

Pred....

We CAN adapt.. but that takes time.. and generations... it requires lots of die off for that adaptation to happen via evolution.. that's exactly what I was saying... for us to adapt to dramatic climate shift means death.. and lots of it .. This is precisely why I said it doesn't mean extinction ..

I don't disagree.. it's just not a great option.. and with modern science, I can see the push and desire to avoid it.


I read an article in Discover magazine a while back that researchers have discovered that traumatizing events, or extreme stress, or environmental disruptions create changes in chromosomes. Would that not mean that natural catastrophes, ie: super volcano erruption, or living through a major world wide earthquake swarm, or a major long time climate event might not in fact change us in such a way as to help create survival traits? Might not there exist body mechanisms in place that we have not discovered or understood be there to create much faster adaptions so we as a species could survive? Yes, major die off, but still survival of the species?

We are in what is called an interglacial period. It gets a lot warmer, starts to cool then gets a hell of a lot colder. Its a natural cycle of Earth.

no one is disputing natural fluctuations in the earths temps. science acknowledges that the only constant is change.

the reason human activity is connected to the most recent rise in temps is that the temp data correlates to a spike coinciding with the industrial revolution

planet earth absorbs greenhouse gasses. it is absorbed in oceans, even by soil. but there is a limit to the amount that the earth can naturally absorb. humans are adding more through highly unnatural processes

never before on earth has an organism drilled under the sea floor, exctracted crude oil, refined it into gasoline and then combusted it in mind boggling scales.

human are not responsible for all the green house gasses of course

people are really just saying they have tipped the scales, and that we should have an awareness of this and make changes to how we live

Anyone who watched Ben Hur will know how many horses it takes to drive a chariot.

Horses put out a lot of CO2, much more than a Hummer.

This explains the high temps during that period.

It's an issue I've given a few passing thoughts to.

S+F

reply to post by syrinx high priest


The temp data has been mined and stations that gave cooler data were eliminated.

The Heartland Institute did an expose of weather reporting stations and found more problems than correct stations.

Bottom line is that the temp data has been screwed with so much it's hard to tell what the real temps were. The CRU claims they lost most of the data, yet they seem to think the data they kept is the gold standard.

CO2 is a trace gas, and the ammount man contributes is a fraction of a fraction of a percent.

If our climate was that sensitive to CO2 we'd have died off long ago.

reply to post by AGWskeptic

The Heartland Institute

In February 2012 environmentalist scientist and president of the Pacific Institute Peter Gleick fraudulently obtained internal Heartland Institute documents and divulged them, together with an additional document he later claimed to have received from an unknown source, to public websites.[46] The documents contained the 2012 Heartland budget, a fundraising plan and board materials.[47] The documents disclosed the names of a number of donors to the institute – including the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, tobacco companies Altria and Reynolds American, drug firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilly, Microsoft, liquor companies, and an anonymous donor who had given $13 million over the past five years.[48][5] Some of the documents also contained details of payments to climate skeptics and financial support to skeptics' research programs, namely the founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), physicist Fred Singer ($5,000 plus expenses per month), geologist Robert M. Carter ($1,667 per month) and a pledge of $90,000 to meteorologist Anthony Watts. Carter and Watts confirmed receiving payments.[48] The documents also indicated that the institute planned to provide materials to teachers in the United States to undercut the teaching of global warming in schools.[48][14] The documents also appeared to disclose Heartland's plans for "Operation Angry Badger", in which $612,000 was to be allocated for activities related to Wisconsin's recall elections.[14] None of the leaked documents were independently authenticated.[49]

wiki

Originally posted by QBSneak000
We are in what is called an interglacial period. It gets a lot warmer, starts to cool then gets a hell of a lot colder. Its a natural cycle of Earth.

dude quit telling everyone that, then who's going to pay the carbon tax?

global warming is nothing more then a red herring to keep people occupied, while real life threatening issues are created by governments.