Global Heatmap. Warmest World in 12000 years.

Not only that but we are just one degree from the hottest temperatures this planet has seen for the last MILLION years.

Hot enough for you? A new NASA study has found that global temperatures are nearing their hottest level in more than 12,000 years - since the last glaciers covered large portions of the planet. In fact, global temperatures have been going up approximately 0.2° Celsius (.36° Fahrenheit) per decade for the past 30 years. In fact, global temperatures are now within one degree Celsius of the hottest temperatures measured in the last million years.

Warmest World in 12,000 years.

Check out the Global Heatmap.


It shows how temps in all areas across the globe have fallen or risen against the global mean temp. Interesting? or just another global warming scare story?


[edit on 28/9/06 by Prote]

Thank you so much for posting this map. Yesterday's "Lou Dobbs" show included a brief in-person interview of Dr. James Hansen, a U.S. federal government climatologist. (More info on this TV show is at www.loudobbs.com... online.) At one point, Lou asked Dr. Hansen if it is true that no climatologists have been invited to the Bush White House. Dr. Hansen said that that is correct. Lou Dobbs then mentioned that he had heard somewhere that Michael Crichton, the science fiction author, has been invited to meetings at the White House on discussions relating to global warming. Lou then turned to the camera and said, "Tony Snow! (White House Press Spokesman) Can you find out why no climatologists have been asked to attend meetings at the White House on global warming?"

Here is a link to a science website which has itemized the many errors about climate science present in Chricton's book about global warming, "State of Fear". That link is:

www.realclimate.org...

Thanks for the link, very interesting!

I'm quoting from the article:

*California researchers obtained a record of tropical ocean surface temperatures from the magnesium content in the shells of microscopic sea surface animals, as recorded in ocean sediments.*

Does anyone know why the Mg content is a good indicator of sea surface temperature?
There's obviously a sound reason for what they are saying, I would just like some maritime biologist to explain it to me.

TD

Oh well...did the research myself, for God's sake - where the bloody scientists when you need them?

UCSB press release 2000

Here's an extract:

TINY OCEAN CRITTER TELLS CLIMATE STORY

In an amazing fact of science, small ocean-dwelling creatures tell the history of the Earth's climate.

Paleoceanographer David Lea, of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and his team have spent years researching several species of a tiny floating marine organism, planktonic foraminifera, which happen to yield not only secrets of the ocean, but of global climate history as well, as explained in this week's Science Magazine article.


So this appears to be a relatively recent technique - and it's all in the mud!

TD

I wonder why is it that some scientists are claiming this when anyone who has done some research on this topic knows that 800 years ago, during the Medieval warming period, temperatures were much higher than they are now...

i think there are many people who don't know yet that the "hockey-stick graph" which was used by Mann to propose that global warming has been caused by human acitivities has found it's demise for a while now because of the fallacies found in it, but the media apparently is slow in catching up to this detail.

The "hockey-stick graph" is known to have difficulties with data past 600 years, because proxies are used and because it is almost impossible to get the data necessary for that time, not only that but on the first graph released by Mann and colleages, the data for the Medieval warming period appears to have been...modified so as to not show the global temperature increase which is known to have happened.

Anyways, here is a link to the whole "hockey-stick graph" controversy, if anyone is interested to know what this is all about.
muller.lbl.gov...


The following is a link to the "hockey-stick graph" which shows the data of global temperatures after the year 2000..... This graph for some reason has not found the light of day to those who still want to cling to the idea that mankind have caused global warming.

BTW, do take a look at the name of the person who is the NASA official responsible for this graph....



You can find the above image here.
data.giss.nasa.gov...
From the above link...

Responsible NASA Official: James E. Hansen

[edit on 1-10-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
I wonder why is it that some scientists are claiming this when anyone who has done some research on this topic knows that 800 years ago, during the Medieval warming period, temperatures were much higher than they are now...

Hey Muaddib

But the magnesium science in the shells gives a reliable record for temperatures, doesn't it?

TD

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Hey Muaddib

But the magnesium science in the shells gives a reliable record for temperatures, doesn't it?

TD

My guess is you were trying to ask if the magnesium content in foram gives a reliable record of temperatures.

The problem is that the magnesium content found in spieces such as forams, are not caused only by changes in the climate. The biomineralization of foram spieces depends greatly on pH, the biological processes of the organism, generic characteristics, salinity chemistry, and yes, also depends on temperature.

There are also foram spieces which have a simbiotic relationship with algae, they farm algae within their shells, and algae produce magnesium calcite, among some of the other minerals produced by algae.

Changes in the magnesium content found in foram species are not limited to "temperature changes", and any scientist claiming that it does, is not being honest.

I wonder why that article does not mention the following.

X-ray diffraction analysis of Recent calcareous specimens of Foraminifera indicates that the mineralogic nature of tests is a generic characteristic, with the few genera that have aragonite tests being related at the family level. Environment appears to have no influence on the presence of calcite or aragonite and the two minerals do not occur together in the Foraminifera.

links.jstor.org...

Here is another interesting article which gives information pertinent to this topic.

In modern seas, coralline algae produce skeletons of high-Mg calcite (>4 mol % MgCO3). We grew three species of these algae in artificial seawaters having three different Mg/Ca ratios. All of the species incorporated amounts of Mg into their skeletons in proportion to the ambient Mg/Ca ratio, mimicking the pattern for nonskeletal precipitation. Thus, the algae calcified as if they were simply inducing precipitation from seawater through their consumption of CO2 for photosynthesis; presumably organic templates specify the calcite crystal structure of their skeletons. In artificial seawater with the low Mg/Ca ratio of Late Cretaceous seas, the algae in our experiments produced low-Mg calcite (

Thanks for the reply Muaddib! I thought the science seemed too good to be true - in my limited experience, there's always something out there to confound things!

So, really, the 'hottest for 12,000 years' headers may not be backed up by science that is as good as it originally appears, is what you're saying. Interesting.

TD

EDIT - this Californian dude has done a lot of work on Mg/Ca rations in Forams! Surely there must be something that makes him think it's reliable. Hmmm. Time to go look at your links, Muaddib - thanks again for the info.

recent research

[edit on 1-10-2006 by TaupeDragon]

Edit 2 - the aragonite link you gave. It's a bit over my head - how does an article about CaCO3 relate to the Mg/Ca ratio claims of the UCSB guy? I'm not being stroppy, I just don't get the thrust of it, so if you could spell it out slowly I'd be grateful.

Edit 3 - From your last link. 'Thus, at past times when the Mg/Ca ratio of seawater was relatively low, these taxa may also have incorporated less magnesium into their skeletons than they do today.' I wonder if they *have* taken that into account in their data.

Thanks for the links Muaddib, fascinating!



[edit on 1-10-2006 by TaupeDragon]

[edit on 1-10-2006 by TaupeDragon]

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
.......
Edit 2 - the aragonite link you gave. It's a bit over my head - how does an article about CaCO3 relate to the Mg/Ca ratio claims of the UCSB guy? I'm not being stroppy, I just don't get the thrust of it, so if you could spell it out slowly I'd be grateful.

Ok, what I am trying to say is that i think the results are being exagerated in the article you gave.

My guess is that the quote you excerpted, although it does not properly explains how they reached their conclusion, it appears to be based on calcium to magnesium ratio in foram shells, or tests, which according to geologists is a function of temperature, among others.

Foram shells replace calcium for magnesium when certain conditions are met, for example with temperature increase. But this function "is not limited" only to temperature.

The acidity, pH of the oceans, salinity changes in the ocean, and generic characteristics, among others, also change the ratio by which foram shells/tests exchange calcium for magnesium.

The amount of calcium which is replaced with magnesium by foram shells/tests depends also on the amount of calcite present in the foraminifera. The more calcite (calcium carbonate) present in the foram shells/tests, the more the foram can replace that calcium for magnesium. The excerpt i gave clearly states that calcite is not influenced by the environment where the foram is present, but it is a generic characteristic.

There are many variables which can influence the calcium to magnesium ratio in foram shells/tests, and none of those were mentioned in the article you quoted.

i hope that helps.

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Edit 3 - From your last link. 'Thus, at past times when the Mg/Ca ratio of seawater was relatively low, these taxa may also have incorporated less magnesium into their skeletons than they do today.' I wonder if they *have* taken that into account in their data.

Thanks for the links Muaddib, fascinating!

I wonder that too, but there is not enough information in that article you excerpted to say either way.


---edited for errors---

[edit on 1-10-2006 by Muaddib]