Study: Earth hottest in 400 years

CFLarsen

Penultimate Amazing
C
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
42,371
The Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, probably even longer.

The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is running a fever and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.

The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-New York, to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.
Click to expand...

Quousque tandem....?
 
I've been monitoring your body temperature recently. It is the hottest it's been in the last few seconds, and maybe even an hour. This spells doom.
 
SOoo, it was hotter than this 400 years ago, without any AGW. It was hotter than this 2,000 years ago, without AGW (but with the heat from a bright star over Bethlehem?). The past couple years show a cooling trend...
 
Falacy

casebro said:
SOoo, it was hotter than this 400 years ago, without any AGW. It was hotter than this 2,000 years ago, without AGW (but with the heat from a bright star over Bethlehem?). The past couple years show a cooling trend...
Click to expand...

Firstly you have to look over average and over period of time. In absolut this is terribly incorrect to look at a year. There will always be variation up and down from a year to the next. Secondly the reliable data if you read the article only goes back to 400 years. Thirdly it might have been gotten hotter 2000 years ago, but temperature changed slowly over a long period of time. In the last 100 years it changed very quickly only in one direction (for the trend). And that is what make everybody afraid. Especially if the trend continue for, say, 100 years.

Every climatologue say the global warnming is a reality. What is disputed, and nobody has a definitive say on it, is whether this warming is anthropomorphic or not.
 
Studies apparently show that the earth has gone through periodic warming and cooling trends for far longer than humans have been around. Thus there's no definite proof yet that this latest trend is necessarily due to us (or more precisely, the effect our civilization has on the atmosphere).

What is not in dispute, however, is that (1) the CO2 content in the atmosphere is currently at its highest known level in the history of the planet (over 400 parts per million according to the latest measurements); (2) this level has risen dramatically since the Industrial Revolution (over 100 PPM); (3) no known natural sources of this increased CO2 (such as a global rise in volcanic activity) exists; and (4) in the past, whenever the CO2 level has been elevated near this level (as happened during the Mesozoic), the earth has undergone dramatic warming (no polar ice caps, etc.).

Given 1, 2, 3, and 4, I have a very difficult time not accepting that we're responsible for this latest warming trend, and that this trend will continue to warm the planet significantly for the foreseeable future, resulting in dramatic changes to the weather, climate, and environment. Other possibilities can't be ruled out of course -- it would probably require the proverbial proving of a negative to do so, not to mention more climatological predictive power than we possess at the moment -- but given the potential risks involved, I just can't see how any prudent and knowledgable individual would advocate for any other conclusion.
 
Stellafane said:
Given 1, 2, 3, and 4, I have a very difficult time not accepting that we're responsible for this latest warming trend, and that this trend will continue to warm the planet significantly for the foreseeable future, resulting in dramatic changes to the weather, climate, and environment.
Click to expand...


I don't know about responsible for the latest warming trend....much more likely we are major contributers.

Either way something has to be done. I started digging my hole yesterday.:o
 
Stellafane said:
What is not in dispute, however, is that (1) the CO2 content in the atmosphere is currently at its highest known level in the history of the planet (over 400 parts per million according to the latest measurements); (2) this level has risen dramatically since the Industrial Revolution (over 100 PPM); (3) no known natural sources of this increased CO2 (such as a global rise in volcanic activity) exists; and (4) in the past, whenever the CO2 level has been elevated near this level (as happened during the Mesozoic), the earth has undergone dramatic warming (no polar ice caps, etc.).
Click to expand...

Well, I would agree with you on at least the first three points, but I'm not sure that these high levels of CO2 are really making a big difference in the warming that is occurring.

Roger Pielke says in this study that of the current warming, only 26.5%-28% of it is attributable to atmospheric carbon dioxide.

So you take one of the commonly accepted estimates that says that we are getting a 0.6 ± 0.2 °C temp rise that would be 6/10 x 28/100 = ~0.17 ± ~0.06 °C. Not too much.

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.e...-increased-atmospheric-concentrations-of-co2/

Of course, other studies may have different data. But regardless of how much global warming is going on and whether mankind is causing it, I would encourage people to find potential solutions that do not involve raising someone's taxes (the universal government solution to everything) or decreasing anyone's standard of living. I think we're smart enough to solve any potential global warming problem without resorting to that. Unfortunately, some people can't resist politicizing this possible problem.

And by "politicizing" I mean blaming America and looking for a solution that will hurt America the most.

It's sad that the quest for real knowledge is less important to some people than finding another way to punish those more fortunate than themselves.
 
TV's Frank said:
I dispute that those statements are not disputed.
Click to expand...

Really? Which one(s) do you think are open for dispute? The fact that the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere (over 400 PPM) is the highest ever recorded? The fact that this level has risen dramatically since the onset of the Industrial Revolution? The fact that there are no known natural sources for this CO2 increase? Or the fact that past high levels of CO2 in the atmospere generally coincide with warmer global temperatures?

Sorry, but I'm pretty certain all four statements are generally accepted as scientific fact. Whether or not they apply to the current warming trend, and whether or not they necessarily mean that humans are responsible for it (or whether "global warming" itself as currently defined is an entirely legitimate concept), is certainly a matter of debate. But I don't think the four facts I've cited are.
 
Agree but for a different reason

Red Siegfried said:
And by "politicizing" I mean blaming America and looking for a solution that will hurt America the most.

It's sad that the quest for real knowledge is less important to some people than finding another way to punish those more fortunate than themselves.
Click to expand...

Blaming America for CO2 level is not that unfounded when you look at the CO2 quantity in absolute or per head. For the "past" in the very end it does not matter, because even if the cause of GW is anthropomorphic, it was "unknowingly" that it was done. So IMO the blame for the past is stupid. Now taking the blame for the unwillingness to change the future IS founded. The economical argument is a bloody short sighted one when half your coast will be submerged in a very short term (on a climat scale. Medium term on human scale).

As for limiting the Co2 level it is IMO a good things now to reduce the polution level of our city. And they are way to reduce the CO2 without damaging economy (coal electrical production central => something else like nuclear).

Finally just a word, I read recently in certain blog/article that climatologue says, that anyway, we should concentrate on solution for the side effect of GW, rather than limiting CO2 because it is quite too late. Which is more scarying in a certain way than any thing else.

Frankly by now I am so misanthrop and disappointed by humanity, that I do not care anymore as long as the effect of GW comes after my death of old age...
 
Red Siegfried said:
Well, I would agree with you on at least the first three points, but I'm not sure that these high levels of CO2 are really making a big difference in the warming that is occurring.

Roger Pielke says in this study that of the current warming, only 26.5%-28% of it is attributable to atmospheric carbon dioxide.

So you take one of the commonly accepted estimates that says that we are getting a 0.6 ± 0.2 °C temp rise that would be 6/10 x 28/100 = ~0.17 ± ~0.06 °C. Not too much.

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.e...-increased-atmospheric-concentrations-of-co2/

Of course, other studies may have different data. But regardless of how much global warming is going on and whether mankind is causing it, I would encourage people to find potential solutions that do not involve raising someone's taxes (the universal government solution to everything) or decreasing anyone's standard of living. I think we're smart enough to solve any potential global warming problem without resorting to that. Unfortunately, some people can't resist politicizing this possible problem.

And by "politicizing" I mean blaming America and looking for a solution that will hurt America the most.

It's sad that the quest for real knowledge is less important to some people than finding another way to punish those more fortunate than themselves.
Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying about "politicizing" the issue. But personally, I can't get my mind past the fact that everything I've ever read on the subject has indicated a very strong positive correlation between high carbon dioxide levels and high global temperatures. And the fact that the CO2 level is higher than it's ever been in the history of the Earth. And it's not just some bald coincidence; the mechanism for how a greenhouse gas like CO2 can trap solar heat and raise worldwide temperatures is very well understood and articulated.

In fact, I think it's too late. I think the damage is already done. We've injected ourselves with the drug, now we're just waiting to observe the consequences. The CO2 level is so high, I believe it must have an effect, even if we stopped cutting down trees and burning fossil fuels tomorrow. I think any measures we take now might mitigate further changes, but they are inevitably coming.

As to what those changes are, I have no idea. I've seen everything from Massachusetts becoming sub-tropical to a new ice age, depending on what model you want to believe. But I know just enough about climatological systems to be dangerous, and I think by stretching one value so far out of whack (CO2 content), the entire system becomes unstable and will break down, to be replaced by something else that can accommodate the heightened CO2. What that new system might be, who knows. It might benefit billions of people for all I know (more rain in the American deserts, milder winters in Canada and Russia). Or it might be catastrophic (although certainly nor "Day After Tomorrow" stuff).

I'm concerned that the very legitimate discussion about what this means and what if anything should be done about it will overwhelm the accepted scientific knowledge. Future ice ages and rising sea levels are matters of speculation and debate. Measurable CO2 levels and what they've historically meant to global temperatures are not.

*Edited to fix stupid typo.
 
Last edited:
Blaming America for CO2 level is not that unfounded when you look at the CO2 quantity in absolute or per head. For the "past" in the very end it does not matter, because even if the cause of GW is anthropomorphic, it was "unknowingly" that it was done. So IMO the blame for the past is stupid. Now taking the blame for the unwillingness to change the future IS founded. The economical argument is a bloody short sighted one when half your coast will be submerged in a very short term (on a climat scale. Medium term on human scale).
Click to expand...

That's about as much circular reasoning and begging the question as I'm willing to take today. Now I remember why I usually avoid these debates.
 
Last edited:
Stellafane said:
I hear what you're saying about "politicizing" the issue. But personally, I can't get my mind past the fact that everything I've ever read on the subject has indicated a very strong positive correlation between high carbon dioxide levels and high global temperatures. And the fact that the CO2 level is higher than it's ever been in the history of the Earth. And it's not just some bald coincidence; the mechanism for how a greenhouse gas like CO2 can trap solar heat and raise worldwide temperatures is very well understood and articulated.
Click to expand...

And I understand where you're coming from too. It's just that we disagree on which data are significant. I prefer to err on the side of not unduly setting back human progress or anyone's standard of living when the conclusions are uncertain. You think (I guess) that it's too big a chance not to take to do something about it, even if the consequences have some negative aspects, which is also reasonable.

The big questions as I see it and my opinions on them:

1. Is GW real? (I say yes).
2. Is it a problem? (I say no.)
3. Is it something we can change? (I say no.)
4. At what price? (I say it's not worth it at any price because it's not a problem.)

All of us have our own takes on these questions based on our knowledge about global warming as well as other factors (which would start a politics debate so I won't go there).
 
I concur with the bionic bigfoot. confince me 1) it is a problem, 2) it is something we can change, and then I'll dicker on price. Is the cure worse than the supposed disease? Is the cure worse than than a disease than may not even be?

Guess I'm not in the running for UN funding.
 
Red Siegfried said:
The big questions as I see it and my opinions on them:

1. Is GW real? (I say yes).
2. Is it a problem? (I say no.)
3. Is it something we can change? (I say no.)
4. At what price? (I say it's not worth it at any price because it's not a problem.)
Click to expand...

And for my part (whatever it's worth):

1. Is GW real? (I say yes).
2. Is it a problem? (I say it might be. It also might be beneficial. It also might be a problem for some, and beneficial to others. But it's not something we can ignore.)
3. Is it something we can change? (I say not in the short or intermediate term, but probably in the long term.)
4. At what price? (This is the question that I myself have no answer for. But again, I don't believe it can be safely ignored.)
 
Well, so you seem to be in the same situation as me. It might be a problem, it might fixable, and we don't know if the cure is worse than the disease that may not exist and may not be curable anyway.

Let's throw some worthless CO2 credits at it and see if that helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom