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

Partisans trying to break this down into a Pro and Anti "Global Warming' debate are muddying the water, and obviously havent even read the study:

www.nature.com...

This doesnt 'refute global warming', and it doesnt prove it, either. It adds new data to the debate, and specifically points out that factors other than human activity have contributed to previous warming trends, and ugres climate scientists to add such data to their climate models.

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...

Well, notwithstanding cycles are in play, perhaps big ones this time, and not withstanding they should never apply extra climate taxes, this does not mean we are not being choked by pollution and exhaust and using dirty fossil fuels when we don't need too. I almost couldn't breath in traffic from all the pollution.

This does not mean billioanaires and industry should not be taking utmost care of our environement.

That is common sense.

I kind of see this as inbetween, cycles and a really ugly destruction of our world for the profit of the few and the lies of a bought of fraudulent Einstein who worked for them and was employed in a patent office, and then theories that have all been disproved got clenched as factoids when theyre not..

Scientifically the study is FULL of FLAWS.

In the first place, the study was in BRITIAN, not the whole world as in worldwide climate study, as the study suggests.

That throws out any scientific justification to compare Britain to the rest of the world in climate conditions at that particular time. Every region is different.

Maybe in BRITAIN the temps were higher, but I doubt that they proved it, because in dendrochronology (the scientific study of tree ring dating) thinner tighter rings mean less rain, NOT HIGHER TEMPERATURES. Also fatter wider rings mean more rain, NOT COLDER TEMPERATURES.

You can't tell what the temperature was at any particular location in the world by studying tree rings, all that you can tell is whether or not that area was getting more or less rain in the different seasons.

reply to post by predator0187


Be careful about the facts you are trying to present, Britain and Italy were warmer at the time, not the whole world like you are trying to portray.

reply to post by WeRpeons


And what would this cycle be?

And there is absolutely no data that backs up this silly skeptical claim that the solar system is warming up.

Five years ago people who denied climate change could come up with some mildly amusing talking points. Today, honestly, you just look like a crazy person. Kinda like people who still, in 2012, chant to sky gods.

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.

No, No, NO!
It is perfectly clear that neither you nor the OP have bothered to read the Nature article. Or neither of you understand what it actually says.

The study was a comparison of ancient tree ring data with the Earth's orbital oscillations and an analysis of the discrepancy between the proxy values applied by Mann, et al (the AGW advocates) and the temperatures actually determined from the Scandinavian tree rings studied.

The most important implication of the study isn't the significant error in the AGW proxy values, it was the cause of the variance!

Although the IPCC completely discounted orbital oscillations as insignificant factors, the study's authors agreed that the Earth's orbit around the sun changes enough over millennia to have a significant impact upon observed tempeatures in the Northern Hemisphere.

Don't you get it?
It's not just changes in the Sun's cycles that add to the radiative forcing, it is also the Earth's place in its orbit in addition to changes in solar radiation.

They determined that Northern "insolation," the length of days, is significant and can fully account for the claims of some that plants and animals are behaving differently and that the seasons are entering extremes.

Here is a better explanation than the newspaper can give:

On that basis it is hardly surprising that spring is coming earlier. The peak in flux change of above 3 W/m2 for 80°N compared to actual insolation around 180 W/m2 near day 100 indicates an increase of almost two percent: no wonder the polar bears are worried. On the other hand, at about day 240 (the end of August) the minimum at about −4 W/m2 for that polar latitude indicates a cooler summer and autumn.

Truth be told, that two percent (and less elsewhere) is not much, representing a shift of typically one to three days in terms of the time when a certain insolation level is reached in the (shifting and altering) seasonal cycles. But three days is a tenth of a month, making complete nonsense of statements such as “the hottest October on record”, because no two months with the same name can be directly compared any more than October remains the eighth month of the year (which is what its name actually means).

Climate Change And Earth’s Changing Orbit

The Nature-Climate Change article, "Orbital forcing of tree-ring data" is actually a follow-up to an earlier study by fellow Netherlands and German scientists which measured and confirmed the significance of orbital dynamics IN ADDITION TO the sun's intrinsic active/inactive cycles.

Here's the one from last fall:Significant contribution of insolation to Eemian melting of the Greenland ice sheet

Either way, these studies show that the IPCC deliberately eliminated a significant contributing factor to changes in temperature, even though it WAS included in the original drafts of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (the FAR, 2007),

Try harder.

AGW is getting weaker by the minute. If only people were paying attention.

not that anyone cares what i have to say...... but, i'm not buying this whole tree ring proof. it's a simplistic view.

climatologists are not in denial that the earths climate changes naturally. there ISN'T a debate on that. what the scientists are saying is that we have SPED IT UP.

if it were still roman times where no one had electricity and the population was completely different we probably would have an easier time with the changing climate.

however, in THIS DAY AND AGE we are going to see destruction that we won't be able to quickly adapt to.

the climate is changing at a more rapid rate than it ever has in the past. no scientist will tell you that the earths climate has never changed. everyone agrees there is a cycle. it's THE SPEED of the cycle due to our screwing things up.

the earth has a way of balancing things out and when it does.... things die. species become extinct. i'm not saying we will become extinct but i think 50 years from now things will be DRASTICALLY different.

reply to post by nixie_nox

And there is absolutely no data that backs up this silly skeptical claim that the solar system is warming up.

“Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets … Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?

Peiser included quotes from recent news articles that take up other aspects of the idea.

“I think it is an intriguing coincidence that warming trends have been observed on a number of very diverse planetary bodies in our solar system,” Peiser said in an email interview. “Perhaps this is just a fluke.”?”

link

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Global Warming Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

link

There are many more old articles and studies to read up on.

Originally posted by stanguilles7
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...

edit on 15-7-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-7-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)

I just watched a documentary on the Dark Ages, which is roughly when Rome fell. It claimed that at this time the world was in a mini ice age. I don't know when the mini ice age started, but I'm assumed it also had to have been during the Roman Empire.

The Earth has gone through many drastic climate changes throughout history.
Since the industrial revolution occurred we are accelerating it. The Earth would be getting warmer regardless, but since there are more carbon emissions in the atmosphere (vehicles, etc.), more people (gas), more live stock (gas) we are merely accelerating it. The Earth would get warmer regardless, we are just speeding up the process because of the fact that there are more of us now than then and what not.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by stanguilles7
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...

edit on 15-7-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-7-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)

I just watched a documentary on the Dark Ages, which is roughly when Rome fell. It claimed that at this time the world was in a mini ice age. I don't know when the mini ice age started, but I'm assumed it also had to have been during the Roman Empire.

edit on 7/15/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

The Mini Ice age was loooong after the fall of Rome. It was only a couple of centuries ago that the mini ice age occurred.

reply to post by predator0187


Well, that's fine. I will accept that. However, I still believe man is expediting that "cycle, process, change" whatever we decided to call it, and making it far worse than it should be.

I guess we shouldn't be surprised, they did, like, all wear leather skirts lol.

That would explain their clothing garments a wee bit better.

reply to post by yorkshirelad

Are you a climatologist. Let me guess NO.

And are you? Or are you just cherry picking the bits that suit your argument based upon beliefs GIVEN to you by others? The fact the OP presents a different argument than you and you try to discredit him by saying he is not an expert is laughable, how are you an expert? Where are your qualifications? Please I would love to read some of your published papers...

There are scientists that argue for, and others that argue against global warming. The scientific community is split over the issue, admittedly the majority come down in favour of human influence on GW, but at one time the majority of learned men came down on the side of the earth being flat, how did that work out again?

It is obvious even to the lay man that the earth's climate changes over time, area's that are now frozen were once tropical, area's that are now tropical were once cold and bleak. back in the 70's scientist were warning us of the new ice age coming, and asking for grants for research, then we had global warming happening and again the "please give us funds" shouts came from the scientific community.

At the end of the day, the results found in the vast majority of studies will be determined not by facts, by by who paid for the study to be done

reply to post by DocHolidaze


Thanks, first guffaw of the day!!

reply to post by yorkshirelad

Please don't confuse the skeptics with facts and logic, it makes them cranky.

Tree's need water, food, sunlight and space and that dictates how they grow.

The rings show tree growth over the years, I don't understand how tree rings show what the temperatures
were over the years.

Just because they had higher or lower growth over certain years can't be proved what caused it as far as I can see.

Stanguilles, your logic is soothing to my headache.

Honestly people, climate science is WAY more complex than you could ever imagine, and you shouldn't let Rush or O'Riley be the ones to explain it to you. The foundation for the work has nothing to do with carbon emission tax, or any of that other garbage. I suggest enrolling in geology/climatology, and chemistry classes (scary stuff, I know ) at a local university if you want to begin to understand how it works.

It just blows my mind how science gets dragged into a left/right political scheme. It also blows my mind how people who do not understand the subject matter can twist and distort a paper like this in their interpretations.

While I completely agree with the OP's research and link, I doubt we have the necessary information to determine what our affect is on the climate. I suspect it would take many more years, perhaps hundreds more, to be able to reasonably determine what, if any, our impact is. That being said, is there something wrong with erring on the side of caution? In the long run, does it hurt anyone to be cautious in this area?