Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now

Sour ce

How did the Romans grow grapes in northern England? Perhaps because it was warmer than we thought.

A study suggests the Britain of 2,000 years ago experienced a lengthy period of hotter summers than today.

German researchers used data from tree rings – a key indicator of past climate – to claim the world has been on a ‘long-term cooling trend’ for two millennia until the global warming of the twentieth century.

This cooling was punctuated by a couple of warm spells.

These are the Medieval Warm Period, which is well known, but also a period during the toga-wearing Roman times when temperatures were apparently 1 deg C warmer than now.

They say the very warm period during the years 21 to 50AD has been underestimated by climate scientists.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... yEV7

So now that we have tree rings showing us that the Earth has been hotter than it is now, does that mean we will stop on the anthropogenic global warming talks and just realize that the Earth has cycles in it's climate?

I have never been one that believes we can have a large enough impact to affect the weather, I think we can harm the environment, yes, but as for changing the climate of Earth, No.

We should take care of our planet and not pollute tho oceans, land or air, but in any case, life will go on. Humans might not be part of it, but new life forms and plants will thrive and live it out.

I mean, really, we had a 6km rock crash into the Earth and somehow we are thriving today.

Anyway, I thought this was interesting so I thought I would share it with all of you.

Any thoughts?

Pred...

More importantly, we have real science telling us that it was warmer. Supposedly the same "science" that tells us the only possible way the Earth is getting warmer is because of man's influence.

*Calmly waiting for the believers in the hoax to shrug this off as fringe science. Or blame Zionists/Bilderbergers/TPTB/Koch brothers.*

/TOA

Thats the 'Midieval Warm Period

This is not new information, just new data, and arguments have been made for years now that the "Medieval Warm Period" contradicts climate scientists claims. This is still a minority opinion in the scientific community.

Too bad the dailymail never links to these studies they cite.

ETA: here's the link to the actual study:

www.nature.com...

reply to post by predator0187


I agree that it's a climate cycle rather than global warming. In fact, I think it's a cycle that all the planets in out solar system are experiencing at this time.

I think the great lakes were formed by melting glaciers.

Who knows, maybe the cycle will last a decade, a century or more. Snow may become a thing of the past. Areas once covered by snow and ice will make way for more land to be inhabited by the human race. I guess we just have to wait and see how the weather will be in the next few years.

the badlands were once a tropics full of big dino's

science is aware that things change

there was a mini ice age around the time of the US revolution

science is aware of extremes

all science is saying is human activity is tipping the scales of the normal balance and it would be smart of us to scale back

my experience is that it seems reasonable to any one who doesn't look at the data through a political/tax prism

Originally posted by predator0187

So now that we have tree rings showing us that the Earth has been hotter than it is now, does that mean we will stop on the anthropogenic global warming talks and just realize that the Earth has cycles in it's climate?

I have never been one that believes we can have a large enough impact to affect the weather, I think we can harm the environment, yes, but as for changing the climate of Earth, No.

Pred...

edit on 15-7-2012 by predator0187 because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry mods but please this is ridiculous. The OP hasn't read the article properly let alone taken the time to read the original research and conclusions.

Guess what this analysis shows more than ever that WE are responsible for the current warming trend.

Originally posted by yorkshirelad
Guess what this analysis shows more than ever that WE are responsible for the current warming trend.

How do you come to that conclusion?

From the study:

Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.

"This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant," says Esper. "However, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."

www.uni-mainz.de...

Indeed an evaluation of long-term temperature reconstructions, even over the past 7,000 years from across northern Eurasia, demonstrates that TRW-based records fail to show orbital signatures found in low-resolution proxy archives and climate model simulations (Supplementary Fig. S1). These discrepancies not only reveal that dendrochronological records are limited in preserving millennial scale variance, but also suggest that hemispheric reconstructions, integrating these data, might underestimate natural climate variability.

www.nature.com...

Originally posted by yorkshirelad
I'm sorry mods but please this is ridiculous. The OP hasn't read the article properly let alone taken the time to read the original research and conclusions.

Guess what this analysis shows more than ever that WE are responsible for the current warming trend.

Pardon?

The whole article is showing that it has been warmer in the past, pre-industrialized world. How this proves we are responsible for climate change or where you read it is beyond me?

Pred...

WINE!!!!!!!

2nd

Originally posted by predator0187


The whole article is showing that it has been warmer in the past,

Not exactly. It has been known to be warmer in the past. That is not what the majority of climate scientists are saying.

This study is purporting to provide evidence that there are outside factors (like the sun) that climate scientists are not taking into account. This isnt' 'refuting' the claims the claims that humans putting more CO2 into the atmosphere is heating up the planet. I's just saying there are other factors involved, and larger cycles than perhaps the IPCC is taking into account thus far.

Its unfortunate that so much gets spun in both directions when a study like this comes out. This doesnt 'disprove climate change', and it doesnt prove it either. It merely, potentially, broadens the scale at which we look at things.

One might even point out that the exposed surface areas of Antarctica have shown proof of past vegetation and life at what should have been quite a balmy temperature. All that Ice was elsewhere then too....a lot to consider.

I think it scares the Global Warming followers more if it begins to really look like man isn't behind any of it. The only alternative is natural cycles which do get more extreme than we've seen any hints of in living memory and sometimes without much warning too. Either way, nothing we do in the good or the bad would make the slightest difference if that is the main reason and lack of control terrifies some people.

Just my thinking as more and more real world and hard 'you can touch it right there' kind of evidence comes out to suggest very different climates over long periods across our past.

Funny you post this, i was watching the local news the other night

(Im in New Zealand by the way) and was TV3 News)

Anyhoo, the next news story came on and it was saying that Scientists have proof that we humans have caused global warming and that pretty much it was all our fault. Fear mongering if you ask me, I am all for looking after our Planet, recycling doing our part to help the enviroment, but i was under the impression that the earth through the many millions of years that is goes through cycles of warm and cool . We and other animals have just adapted to the cycles, I also remember reading an article awhile ago that we are in a warm stable climate right now and that it is actully "abnormal" and the earths climate cycles usually are erratic and swing rappidly from one extream to another. Will do a google search and see if i can find the article.

Thanks for posting S&F

Karma

Edit: Here is one link from ice cores taken in Greenland agreeing with the above quote that the interglacial period we are in is abnormal.

Edit 2 forgot the link ( it's Monday guys)
www.thunderbolts.info...

Another Link : www.rense.com...

reply to post by stanguilles7


I agree with your thoughts, and we must be taking something different from the article.

The fact that 'global warming' has turned in some get rich quick scheme by some is what is so disheartening.

I believe we are hurting our planet and we should absolutely stop, but, the solution is not charging for carbon emissions.

Pred...

reply to post by yorkshirelad
Pred has simply posted an interesting topic that shows new paleo-climate data re-affirming that the MWP was warmer than today. What is ridiculous about that? The graph in question is a clear demonstration of global warming on a greater scale as that claimed by warmists for today being caused by natural factors alone. This implies that the natural factors which caused the MWP could also be operative today and must be eliminated from the present situation before it can be claimed that modern global warming is man-made. Svensmark, for example, has offered an alternative hypothesis for which he has discovered real supporting evidence.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
One might even point out that the exposed surface areas of Antarctica have shown proof of past vegetation and life at what should have been quite a balmy temperature. All that Ice was elsewhere then too....a lot to consider.

Climate Scientists do not say the earth has never been warmer. It is well known that areas of the arctic were once warm regions. That is not contested.

no wonder they were all skinny

Originally posted by predator0187
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

I agree with your thoughts, and we must be taking something different from the article.

The fact that 'global warming' has turned in some get rich quick scheme by some is what is so disheartening.

I believe we are hurting our planet and we should absolutely stop, but, the solution is not charging for carbon emissions.

Pred...

But you are arguing two different things. Being against Carbon Taxes is not a refutation of climate science. This study does not 'refute global warming'. It adds more data data to the mix, and points to factors that climate scientists need to add to their equations., which previously havent been properly considered.

The topic of climate science is a complex one that does not fit into partisan Left/Right politics.

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by predator0187

 

I agree that it's a climate cycle rather than global warming. In fact, I think it's a cycle that all the planets in out solar system are experiencing at this time.
.

Are you a climatologist. Let me guess NO. You are an armchair skeptic who cherry picks what they want to read, believe and comment on.

The tree ring evidence (which is still open to interpretation by the way) is currently showing a steady decline in temperature since roman times which then took a turn upwards when the industrial revolution started.

Now do I need to to state duh in capitals for you to understand the implications or do you wish to continue with the "ignorance is bliss because it matches the conspiracy" path.

This is really really simple but skeptics have trouble understanding:
1. The earth is getting warmer.
2. The heat must come from somewhere.
3. There are 3 sources of heat : the sun, volcanism and fossil fuel burning.
4. The sun is orders of magnitude greater than the other 2 (one order of magnitude is 10x, two orders is 100x etc) : conclusion - the heat is coming from the sun.
5. The suns HEAT output is constant and varies by no more than 0.1%. (A solar flare is NOT heat, a sunspot is magnetism NOT heat)
6. if the heat irradiating on Earth is not changing it can ONLY be getting warmer if less is reflecting back out to space (this is called WEATHER!!! where evaporated water which needs heat creates clouds, condenses into rain and the released heat radiates back into space)
7. The troposphere (where we are) is getting warmer, the stratosphere (upper atmosphere) is getting cooler. This can only happen if the amount of heat irradiating back out to space is falling ie it is being trapped.
8. What is trapping the heat?
9. Chemicals in the atmosphere affect this the three biggies being water, methane and CO2. Water and methane are more powerful "greenhouse" gases than CO2 BUT their quantity in the atmosphere is not changing but CO2 is.
10. CO2 ice measurements show it is a feedback mechanism in the past in that it lags the rise in temperature. As temperatures rise more natural Co2 is release, causing rising temperatures and more Co2 etc etc until a stable point is reached. Natural CO2 is NOT a trigger something else is, BUT, and this is where the skeptics brains switch off, man has been releasing CO2 in quantities greater than the natural mechanism can scrub it out of the atmosphere. Man has made CO2 the trigger well done !!!
11. We know the Co2 is due to man because of carbon "dating". Natural CO2 has a proportion of C14 and C16 this is how we date organic matter. The fossil fuel is so old it is all C14. We can measure the ratios and determine the extra CO2 comes from fossil fuels.

See so easy.

Originally posted by yorkshirelad

Originally posted by predator0187

So now that we have tree rings showing us that the Earth has been hotter than it is now, does that mean we will stop on the anthropogenic global warming talks and just realize that the Earth has cycles in it's climate?

I have never been one that believes we can have a large enough impact to affect the weather, I think we can harm the environment, yes, but as for changing the climate of Earth, No.

Pred...

edit on 15-7-2012 by predator0187 because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry mods but please this is ridiculous. The OP hasn't read the article properly let alone taken the time to read the original research and conclusions.

Guess what this analysis shows more than ever that WE are responsible for the current warming trend.

What this article shows is that the climate was warmer before humans could possibly have even been considered as a factor of climate change. Bad attempt at debunking it. Facts confound you, I guess.

/TOA

reply to post by yorkshirelad


So, are you missing the part where this study shows this warming trend, prior to industrialization, points to heating brought about by the sun proximity to the earth?

It doesnt 'disprove global warming', but it sure as heck doesnt do what you say it does, either.