|
5/28 |
2003/4/6 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:28006 Activity:kinda low |
4/5 It was probably the fault of the racist white Crusaders. 'Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists ' http://csua.org/u/c78 \_ no one's claiming that the current temperaturre trend is unprecedented in history. CO_2 levels, on the other hand *are* unprecedented. The fact that CO_2 is a green house gas is not in dispute. Without the greenhouse effect, the earth would have average temperatures well below the freezing point of water. \_ tell you what. you go read all the articles on climate change in Science and Nature for the next month, and report back when you know what the fuck you're talking about. Global temperature increase is potentially not the most severe problem from anthropogenic climate change. Also read "Storm Warning," by Lydia Dotto. \_ Please answer these questions then. Since ocean temperatures have been systematically collected (for ~25 years), they have not changed. Why ? Surface temperatures have risen, atmospheric temperatures have fallen, why? The earth was several degrees warmer in medieval ages, why? None of the atmospheric models include or predict El Nino and other ocean warming effects, why? You can say there has been increases in CO2 levels, and maybe a 0.5 C change in temperature, primarily before 1950. Thats it. You seem to have a very naive understanding of how grants are distributed in science. You think someone proposing to dispute dire climate change would receive significant funds? [formatd. and learn to format to under 80 columns] \_ This article doesn't bother you - please explain to me what has changed. The Cooling World - http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm \_ You can't be serious. Those "science" articles are a joke. \_ I like this quote from the article: "It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth." I dunno, I hear Venus is lovely this time of year. \_ Are you the same person who quoted Ghandi in the other thread? Cute, but not a statement with any scientific weight. |
5/28 |
|
csua.org/u/c78 -> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$52GELIRNTXZNDQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixhome.html From the outset of the global warming debate in the late 1980s, environmentalists have said that temperatures are rising higher and faster than ever before, leading some scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases from cars and power stations are causing these "record-breaking" global temperatures. Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists. The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world. The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today. They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages. The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's temperature rise. According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today's "unprecedented" temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period of time. The study, about to be published in the journal Energy and Environment, has been welcomed by sceptics of global warming, who say it puts the claims of environmentalists in proper context. Until now, suggestions that the Middle Ages were as warm as the 21st century had been largely anecdotal and were often challenged by believers in man-made global warming. He said: "When the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died. While the evidence for entirely natural changes in the Earth's temperature continues to grow, its causes still remain mysterious. Dr Simon Brown, the climate extremes research manager at the Meteorological Office at Bracknell, said that the present consensus among scientists on the IPCC was that the Medieval Warm Period could not be used to judge the significance of existing warming. Dr Brown said: "The conclusion that 20th century warming is not unusual relies on the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon. |
www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale, warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earths average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the little ice age conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City. Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data, concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions. Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. McQuigg of NOAAs Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago. Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines. Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality. Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000 All Material Subject to Copyright. |