Long-term climate records from the Arctic provide strong new evidence that human-caused global warming can override Earth’s natural heating and cooling cycles, U.S. researchers reported this week in the journal Science.
For more than 2,000 years, a natural wobble in Earth’s axis has caused the Arctic region to move farther away from the sun during the region’s summer, reducing the amount of solar radiation it receives. The Arctic is now 600,000 miles farther from the sun than it was in AD 1, and temperatures there should have fallen a little more than 1 degree Fahrenheit since then.
Instead, the region has warmed 2.2 degrees since 1900 alone, and the decade from 1998 to 2008 was the warmest in two millenniums, according to a team headed by climatologist Darrell S. Kaufman of Northern Arizona University.
Not only was the last half-century the warmest of the last 2,000 years, “but it reversed the long-term, millennial-scale trend toward cooler temperatures,” Kaufman said.
This is so completely lame. As I’ve said before, my first two degrees are in geology, and for geologists 10 million years is pocket change. Two [i]thousand[/i] years? Give me a break. That hardly even qualifies as statistical noise at the temperature scale they’re talking about.
Eighteen million years ago the Arctic Ocean was still a fresh-water lake. Fifty million years ago it had cypress trees and what amount to alligators … about like a Louisiana bayou.
Now, what was it you were saying about global warming? And how it’s all our fault?
Over the ‘short’ term, you might gain some perspective if you google “Maunder Minimum,” and then actually find out [url=http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/pickoftheweek/]what’s happening on the Sun[/url] a mere 30 months or so away from what would normally be a peak in solar activity.
It is far too early to assume we are at the beginning of such a period. By 2015 or so, we should know. A Maunder Minimum type phenomenon comes along about every 350 years — therefore we are due — and typically moves the functional climate 500 to 1000 miles north (or south for any readers in the Southern Cone, Oz, Kiwi country, or ZA). And it lasts for about three or four generations.
In highly anecdotal terms, we farm for a living, and our detailed climate records clearly demonstrate gradual (but very persistent) cooling since the last solar activity peak in 2000-01. Our summer this year, while nowhere near what I knew in Québec, has most closely resembled our time in the upper Midwest, several hundred miles north of here.
Given that Earth has been in a cooling trend for the last 60 million years or so … that might oughta be cause for some concern. At a minimum it really calls into question the Chicken Little approach of many climate activists, some of whom were freaking out to the same degree a generation ago … about the imminent new Ice Age.
A bit of perspective, please.
And, what about the guy who just admitted to “fudging” the polar bear propaganda.. I wish people could get it through their heads that humans are NOT GOD!
Grandmother
Has anyone factored in the improvement of recording temperatures around planet Earth in the last 150 years?
Surely #1 you are not saying that humans do not have the capacity to destroy this earth. And surely you are not denying that increasing concentrations of CO2 have no affect on the temperature of a planet, all other things held constant. And surely you are not denying that rising concentrations of CO2 are the result of emissions of burning fossil fuels, collected over millions of years, for our energy needs. Then how do you deny the natural conclusion that if rising concentrations CO2 increase the temperature of the Earth and humans are causing that increase in concentration, then, ergo, humans are causing the increase in temperature seen in this report on the Arctic?
Your argument seems to suggest that the Earth has heated and cooled by far more than this through natural causes over the eons of years of existence. The only problem with your point is the record indicates that millions of people are presently living in areas that would be underwater when the ice caps melt. And, since the Earth is heating the ice caps will (are) melting. We know this from the very record you point to. Our Christian responsibility is to minimize the damage we, as humans are causing, and to do all we can to help those most vulnerable to this impending change. Sea levels are already rising. It is time to stop protesting our responsibility and to live before God in humble obedience to his will. “That which you do to the least of these brothers of mine you do onto me†Matthew 25:40
Global warming may be happening, and we may have contributed to it, but there are bigger forces at work than us. I am a geologist by training also, and I do not hesitate to say that one of problems of the global warming “debate” is that the public is mostly made aware of only one side of the issue. The climate change fear-mongers mock, vilify, and crowd out (of academia and other locations of influence, ruining or stifling careers in some cases) many legitimate scientific voices who disagree with them. Then press releases and articles in popular publications get more attention than they deserve and are incorrectly assumed to be fact. Don’t forget: Al Gore was trained as a journalist…not as a scientist.
Then there is always the Alfred E. Newman school of thought. At 72 years of age, if it global warming does turn out to be a global disaster, I’ll not be around to experience it–so what’s the big deal anyway.
Besides, if global warming does prove to be a reality and the dire forecasts accurate, 815 and much of the East and West Coasts will be under water–resolving any remaining issues with TEC.
×ž×¨× × ×ª×
The reasoning of the author is flawed, from the headline down. All the data shows is higher levels of CO2 and Arctic warming, as coincdent facts. To claim that the former causes the later is to succumb to the the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy (“after, therefore because of”). All we can say is that CO2 could cause the warming.
The 600,000 mile claim is puzzling. AFAIK, the Arctic is still attached to Earth. So wobble has not moved (just) the Arctic 600k, although the entire Earth may now be farther away.
Even if we were to prove that Arctic warming is caused by higher CO2, the author’s assumption that the increase is due to increased industrial CO2 is completely unsubstantiated. It is now beyond dispute that anthropogenic CO2 (of which industrial is only a part) is one of the lesser sources of CO2. Primary production (i.e. creature respiration) is a major source, and there has been a huge human (and animal, I believe) population increase during the same period. Unless the author is prepared to offer evidence that industrial CO2 is more damaging than other, more prevalent sources CO2, the claim fails.
The major problem with global warming theory is that even if every aspect of the theory of the problem were confirmed, the solutions only address the tiniest portion of greenhouse gases generally and even CO2 specifically. What is the point of debating a problem if none of the proposed solutions have even the potential to solve it?
Another critical look at the article here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/04/dmi-arctic-temperature-data-animation-doesnt-support-claims-of-recent-arctic-warming/#more-10531
Ho hum. The last several years temperatures have been cooling here, including breaking a number of cold temperature records.
More comments about the misrepresentations, peer review criticisms and failure to provide source data – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/05/pielke-senior-arctic-temperature-reporting-in-the-news-needs-a-reality-check/
Alden Junior — I am quite definitely saying that human beings [i]”do not have the capacity to destroy this earth.”[/i] What phenomenal arrogance — and ignorance — to think that we do.
You could take every single person on Earth, drop them down in Massachusetts, evenly spaced, and they would each have so much room they couldn’t touch each other with their arms outstretched.
An absolute nuclear holocaust would probably not wipe humans from the face of the planet, and if mitochondrial DNA is to be believed we were at one point, perhaps 70,000 years ago, down to no more than 2000 humans or so. The rest of Earth was just fine.
There are entire biomes living at great ocean depth, totally independent of solar energy. You think we’re gonna wipe them out? What absolute childish thinking.
Your logic is not that of a Christian. It is that of a primitivist who says that when bad things happen in nature it is because humans have annoyed the nature ‘gods’ and they’re punishing us.
Listen! I run a greenhouse business. The optimal CO2 level for all plants is close to 1500 ppm. At current atmospheric CO2 levels most plants are almost suffocating. Got that? We [i]add[/i] CO2 to our greenhouses for better growth.
Funny thing: the long term global average atmospheric content is … 1500 ppm — four times present levels.
The world survived just fine when there wasn’t a bit of ice anywhere in the Arctic. Anyone who thinks we’re more powerful than that lacks both humility and perspective.
And, oh, funny thing about people in flooding lowlands. They MOVE ! What a remarkable idea. Do you know nothing of the Black Sea or the North Sea in the last 10,000 years or so?
Again, a bit of perspective, please. It’ll keep a lot of people from looking like absolute idiots.
When I was in my mid-twenties, I started experiencing a pain. I went to a doctor who ran some tests. Afterwards he told me it was one of two things: either it was some progressive disease for which there was no treatment and I would die from it in a few years or else it was something else for which there was a treatment. Since I am now 72 years old, I assume it was the latter.
We have two views. Either CO2 emissions (which we know are at very high levels) are causing global warming, which is (pretty obviously) causing the polar ice caps to melt at unprecedented rates or there is no connection between CO2 emissions and the melting of the polar ice caps. (And in the long term, the melting ice caps will cause ocean levels to rise, drowning the East and West Coasts (and TEC’s 815).
Now it is generally thought that the burning of carbon based fuels–coal, oil and gas–are an important factor in the increased production of CO2, whether or not that has anything to do with global warming.
Now, like my doctor nearly 50 years ago, we can either assume that CO2 emissions from burning carbon based fuels are causing global warming and threatening the East and West Coasts and TEC’s 815 and attempt to avoid that by the treatment of reducing our “carbon footprint”. If that isn’t the cause for the polar ice caps melting, then NYC is doomed.
On the other hand, by reducing our “carbon footprint” and relying on alternative energy sources–solar, wind and even nuclear–we will gain a measure of “energy independence” making our nation less dependent on foreign oil and thus more secure from economic threat from unfriendly Middle Eastern countries.
Of course, there are powerful economic interests on both sides of this issue, who are funding propaganda for their side. So why not opt for the benefit of national security and possible avoidance of an environmental disaster?
11. Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) wrote:
[blockquote]The world survived just fine when there wasn’t a bit of ice anywhere in the Arctic.[/blockquote]
Yes, and Dallas, Texas, (elevation 430 feet, hardly “coastal lowlands) was under the Gulf of Mexico as the geological and fossil record reveals.
Um, Ken, the IPCC study showed that AT MOST, in a [b]worst case scenario[/b], Ocean Levels would rise a whopping 7 to 23 INCHES (18 – 59 cm) over a 200 year period. Hardly high enough to flood both coasts, although some island areas may experience inconvenience, and allowing plenty of time for relocation measures.
[i]Dallas, Texas, (elevation 430 feet, hardly “coastal lowlands) was under the Gulf of Mexico as the geological and fossil record reveals. [/i]
And most of North America was underneath a half-continent wide glacier, as well.
I meant to phrase that as:
And, at one time, most of North America was underneath a half-continent wide glacier, as well (that would be the areas that make up our corn and wheat belts today).
Follow the money. Cui bono?
Frank,
Not just the money, but the prestige, academic honors, government contracts, publication privileges, right to keep jobs, research grants, etc.
[b]Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling[/b]
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
[b]Global Cooling Chills Summer 2009[/b]
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTlhOTNiOWFlMmMzNmJkOWM3ZTk5NWJkNTU2Nzk5NWI=
[b]Report: Antarctic Ice Growing, Not Shrinking[/b]
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html
[b]Antarctic sea ice increasing: study[/b]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/23/2550456.htm
[b]30,000 Scientists Rejecting Anthropomorphic Global Warming Hypothesis[/b]
http://whatthecrap.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/30000-scientists-rejecting-anthropomorphic-global-warming-hypothesis/
**********
I am so sick & tired of the gaia worshippers pedalling their ridiculous religious alarmism. I already have a God, and He isn’t [i]mother[/i] earth. My God said, through his apostle Peter, that: “…they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.”
Did everyone catch that? The present heavens and earth are [b][i]reserved for fire[/b][/i] and are being [b][i]kept for the day of judgement[/b][/i]. Until the day of judgement, the heavens and earth are being kept by God, not by man. He is keeping things intact until His time for judgement has come. What hubris for mankind to think that they can/have usurped the role of God Almighty in keeping the heavens and the earth!
God also went on to say, through His apostle Peter: “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.” So, while we should be good stewards with what God has given to our care, this stuff is all destined to destruction. Ladies and gentlemen, there is one and only one true God, and He isn’t named gaia.
[Scripture references: 2 Peter 3]
So, basically, you are saying that the AGW movement is saying the same thing the serpent said to Eve: “You will be like God!”?
There is absolutely no evidence that things are getting more dangerous, in fact it is a good thing that there have been a few rumblings and that the earth is letting off a bit of steam, this has always happened and is nothing new. It is just nature’s way of relieving pressure and far from disaster being on its way as some foolish alarmists have been saying, it means that nature is dealing with things in its own way. In fact we are safer for it and should be thankful.
Concerns about Mount Vesuvius are completely unfounded. Pompeii is perfectly safe.
Yeah, maybe a few more virgins sacrificed at the mouth of the volcano would have helped. The Oracle should have been clearer in her warnings.
Or if only those darn Pompeians had given up their SUVs earlier, there may not have been an eruption of Vesuvias, and the civilization might have survived a few more centuries.
Of course, the fact that the Romans had absolutely NO knowledge of how volcanoes worked could have been a factor, as well.