Earth Hottest It's Been in 2,000 Years

Wes: Is it possible this isn't a liberal vs. conservative issue? Why can't it be a scientific issue? Also, where in this article (or anywhere else) did you determine that the earth is supposed to be warming more than it has been in at least the past 400 years?

I'm not sure who everyone is, but I've actually written extensively on just what we, as individuals, can do about C02 emissions. Also, Al Gore's recent film, An Inconvenient Truth, calls on both government and citizens to take action. The website for the film has a long list of what we can do to cut our emissions. The best part about reducing emissions and energy use? It saves us money.

How is the Industrial Revolution a direct result of cold temperatures?

I am wondering the same thing. I have never heard of temperature being a cause for the industrial revolution.

Or the French Revolution. I don't think the peasants in the streets were just cold. I may very well be wrong, but if I was going to make a claim like that, I'd try and back it up with a link.

I know it wasn't addressed in Les Mis, anyway. ;)

"Also, Al Gore's recent film, An Inconvenient Truth, calls on both government and citizens to take action."

I find it hard to consider a source as credible that appears to support solar power as a serious alternative energy source. While I'm unconvinced that whatever climate change does happen is necessarily bad for me, I would advocate nuclear power first and foremost as a method of reducing emissions.

as for supposed to be warming, do you have an idea when it supposed to stop?
or how about that ozone hole, i guess the earth is supposed to have a hole in the ozone?
and what about the tipping point that a majority of scienctist believe in (the contravercy like peaqk oil is when).. i guess there is no reason to freak yet concidering most scienctist belive we are heading past a point of no return where the global warming feeds on itself(you know less ice=less reflectivity=more sunlight absorbed??) and doesnt stop until this place is like venus.. But hey we will all have nuclear ac units.. Oh wait i know Jesus will come and cool off all the believers.

AND THIS IS AN AMERICAN ISSUE< IT IS NO LONGER PARTISAN, when the evangical church comes to our sides as well as other traditionally conservative groups. And do you really belive that all scienctists, all media, all of hollywood and everyone else who disagrees with you is a liberal? I am still trying to figure out how we got a conservative president with so many liberals with agendas runnign arround, who all seems to agree on gloabl warming but cant seem to agree on any other issue in congress?? Oh yeah i belive in the liberal conspiracy.[/sarcasm]

What did people do 400 or 2000 years ago to stop global warming and start it cooling?

Here is an interesting website about Global Climate Cycles: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

I don't imagine that you really believe that's a valid question, but I will attempt to provide an honest answer. The actual response is that people had nothing to do with any warming or cooling events in the earth's history prior to roughly 100 years ago. There are natural cycles of warming and cooling that occur, as well as external forcing events. However, none of those in recent (geologically) times have occurred at the rate at which we have observed the current climb in global temperatures. From the NOAA link above:

The latest peer-reviewed paleoclimatic studies appear to confirm that the global warmth of the 20th century may not necessarily be the warmest time in Earth's history, what is unique is that the warmth is global and cannot be explained by natural forcing mechanisms.

@ Korpios

I find it hard to consider a source as credible that appears to support solar power as a serious alternative energy source

Ironically there isn't a single living thing on this planet that doesn't use the sun as an energy source. Ok, I'm wrong. Humans don't.

Tyler Durden: How, exactly, does that address my point? Solar power is far too fickle to depend upon as a baseline power source; even if we were blanketed in 24-hour sun and 365 cloudless days a year, we would be forced to cover a ridiculous surface area with solar panels. Nuclear power, on the other hand, can safely give us plenty of power — that is, if certain nations would stop being so irrational about it.

@ Korpius. Your point was really about how you didn't believe the movie truly convinced you solar power was the answer. However, the movie didn't say "solar power" is the answer. It said that renewable energy was the answer.. nuclear not being part of the equation (as radioactive spent rods pollute for centuries)... my response to you was that if the entire planet is fueled by the sun, why can't humans?

Anyway Gore's point was that wind, solar. geothermal, tidal, methane digestion and other renewables needed to be explored, employed to solve this crisis, not that solar alone was the answer.

I'll give you these few links however to look at where solar energy is at currently. It's not just PVC panels on roofs and dotting the sands of the American SW anymore.

Solar Paint Solar Film Solar Powered Windows

Personally I find the solar paint most exciting...

Tyler Durden: I was referring to the website, not the movie (as I haven't seen the latter). Have you seen what we can do with nuclear power? Between fuel re-processing and pebble bed reactors, we can have an amazingly safe and efficient fuel source. What waste comes out of these plants is insignificant compared to the imaginary dangers considered by the public at large.

As to why the sun can't serve the human race — it might be because we have energy needs quite a bit higher than the sun can reliably provide (short of a Dyson sphere, anyway)? And no, I'm not swayed by "reduce our wants" arguments; I don't want to reduce my consumption. If anything, I want us to burn even more power so we can extend our quality of life as far as possible — I am a transhumanist, mind you. ;-)

JoulesBeef

i guess there is no reason to freak yet concidering most scienctist belive we are heading past a point of no return where the global warming feeds on itself(you know less ice=less reflectivity=more sunlight absorbed??)

I always find this arguement interesting. It can also be said more water (via melted ice caps) = slightly increased surface area, and depth of the earths oceans. One possible result from that is the increased water aids to mitigate any higher temps due to global warming.

I've asked this question at a few Global warming seminars and speeches. One of two things occurs: the subject is changed or they avoid answering it.

not to mention, the large areas of Canada and Russia that will no longer be above the tree line will start to grow large forests, thus removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Will those forests grow at a faster rate than warmed waters will release currently trapped C02?

I dont know, do you think that the climatologists know this? They will absorb more carbon from the atmosphere than Old growth forests though.

How is the Industrial Revolution a direct result of cold temperatures?

Cold temperatures drove the population down and caused farmers and many outcropping villages to move into cities. Farming became less profitable so they looked for other jobs. Thank god our education provided by our Government is doing something in America other than sputting out slander about how we all are going to die from the result of Global Warming.

…or how work on newer energy sources can create American jobs (and also, energy security).

The famous luntz memo instructs the president to constant comment on how clean energy policy will destroy jobs. (luntz by the way is a big believer in man made global warming now and this is the guy that set the current administrations policy)
The anti global warmist are evacuating their belief, like rats leaving a sinking ship.

People want to do things. They want electricity, they want to go from one place to another when they need to, they want heat and toys. Gases are released as other people provide these things. There is legitimate argument about the harm done to innocent third parties when these desires are satisfied. Does a tiny bit of some gas that might be toxic in large quantities mean that someone should be cold at night? What is the definition of "tiny". How much of these gases should be able to be released and how much cold should others endure?

The problem that I see, is that instead of trying to honestly look at these questions, people like to pretend they know the answers and are willing to use as much force and coercion as needed to make others comply with their determination. They pretend no coercion is being used. They pretend they know how to run businesses better than the people who are actually running them. They say stupid things like: "If they ran their business the way I want them to, then they would make more money." Even though they know nothing about how to run the other person's business. Even average people are normally better at running their own businesses that the brilliant people who don't know anything about them.

No one simply wants to put harmful gases and toxins into the air. They want to make cars, and heat and toys. They want to power businesses so we have jobs. In doing so, they change the air and sometimes that change hurts innocent third parties. And sometimes people pretend it hurts innocent third parties for their own power trips. And sometimes we really don't know.

And rarely will anyone discuss the issue honestly.

Russ R. said,
Regardless of your stance on this issue I still find it hard that people make an argument FOR releasing harmful gases and toxins into the air. It's also sad that something as important as taking care of our planet for future generations has turned into a partisan issue.

Steve Shank

The problem that I see, is that instead of trying to honestly look at these questions, people like to pretend they know the answers and are willing to use as much force and coercion as needed to make others comply with their determination. They pretend no coercion is being used. They pretend they know how to run businesses better than the people who are actually running them.

WOW...never have I seen a better description of the Koyoto Treaty.

Even if it wasn't meant to be.

Congrats.

CO2 isn't exactly a toxic gas. At least not as far as the environment is concerned. There are also plants and animals that feed on methane in the bottom of the ocean.

Interested in what sort of thing? What, facts? I think you got the wrong crowd, go peddle your devil-ware somewhere else.

Great... then Typhoons and toilets will swirl the opposite way.

I can't wait, hope I'm still alive.

What's crazy about it is that it will suddenly happen. As in, one day we will have a Northern Polarity, and the next, a Southern one.

Miss Dev - Thanks for that info - I never knew that this happened through history. Very cool. I wonder how the scientist are able to tell when it happen (geology of some sort would be my guess). Regardless, this is very very interesting - thanks for the link.

Or sunlight. We might be concerned with food, though…

Or the extreme loss of human life because of the eruption. Ok I see your point. You simply don't care either way.

put up big shade disks in space or move the earth to a cooler orbit and then we can keep driving suv's. With the shade disks we can even shade out countries we hate.

Mr Burns tried that and it didnt work.

Release the hounds

the US and Australia monitor climate change more than any other country on earth. see here.

By the way, if there was no debate, what was this conference about?

Do you mean this press conference? It was the National Academies presenting their report which was prepared for Congress. In it, they essentially tell Congress 'All those scientists who told you the earth was warming and humans were causing it? They were right as far as we can tell.'.

too many articles in one day. blah.

Well, I'll assume you're making a pass at humor and laugh along side with you. Of course, if you are at all curious on how we know what temperatures were like a couple of millennia ago, then you can read this on temperature reconstruction and on obtaining data points.

Yes, I am being facetious. However, I do think that things like carbon dating, which doesn't have as much accuracy that some scientists claim. Reconstructions are the same thing, educated guesses. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's just a guess.

Yes, I am being facetious. However, I do think that things like carbon dating, which doesn't have as much accuracy that some scientists claim. Reconstructions are the same thing, educated guesses. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's just a guess.

You say this with such confidence. I assume, as a scientist yourself, you've thoroughly researched the errors of carbon dating and have published peer-reviewed and accepted essays within the scientific community.

Actually, I was a geology major for a while and have worked in the oil industry (specifically exploration and production, which is very concerned with the age of rocks). From what I was taught and things that I picked up on, carbon dating is only accurate to about 50,000 years, if that, and that is dependent on the mass of the object that is being tested. I've read some methods that have been able to test objects to 100,000 years.

The problem though is that there is no way to prove samples that far back. That's my only skepticism. Make sense?

Huh, you have to be a scientist now and have published works on things just to comment on them. So much for just reading and remembering things, without commiting the source to memory.

Guess I'm out of a lot of conversations now.

All sarcasm aside, there are reports out there by qualified sources that claim carbon dating to be a little unreliable. I cannot give any specific sources at this time, but I did read that at one time. Hope that's enough.

Also, what were the people of Earth doing 2,000 years ago that contributed to this warming of our earth? Al Gore tells me this is all the humans fault and that all scientists agree with him, so what was going on back in the days of Christ that caused this?

Bodhi, yeah, those are the reports I am talking about. We were given numerous reports at my former job by pretty smart scientists that our carbon dating and geological time calculations needed to be adjusted because of research done in the field.

We were finding that we were drilling in areas and not finding oil/natural gas in places that our carbon dating should have been correct. It's still a learning process.

Also, what were the people of Earth doing 2,000 years ago that contributed to this warming of our earth?

Bodhi, you're not the first person whose asked that in this discussion. I've addressed it above, if you're interested in reading the response and the link I provided.

@ Stephan

Understand your point on carbon dating. Re-reading my post it seemed a bit flippant. My apologies. However, C-14 is the best method we have, and accurate to 100,000 years is pretty good, to determine ages of artifacts, rocks etc.

@ Bodhi

Huh, you have to be a scientist now and have published works on things just to comment on them. So much for just reading and remembering things, without commiting the source to memory.

No, however making scientific claims (not directed at any of your claims) without a scientific background our source is a bit sketchy. Commenting on other scientific findings without doing one's homework is also sketchy. My point is simply, stating if you agree or not with a scientific finding doesn't make that feeling any more scientific than published findings.

Also Gore's movie was commenting on what the human race has done since specifically the Industrial Revolution. There our species started burning fossil fuels at a much faster and larger rate. The CO2 levels have steadily increased up until two decades ago where we've seen CO2 levels increase exponentially. This is the point in history we are concerned about: present day.

In the graph in the article you linked [seen here] most of the reconstruction temperatures end at the same point they started at 1000 years ago, or lower. The thing that shows a huge change in temperature is simply the themometer recorded data. I wonder how they take into account that since there is more CO2 in the air now that the trees will grow at faster rates in cooler temperatures, since the industrial revolution.

I'm not sure who you were posing that question to, but I've found some reference to it here. Summary:

A few simple calculations indicate that any hypothesized co2 fertilization response is unlikely to offset a significant fraction of projected increases in atmospheric co2 concentration over the next century. At present, about 600 billion tons of carbon are tied up in the above-ground vegetation. About 2-3 times this much is tied up in roots and below ground carbon, which is a more difficult carbon pool to augment. By comparison, scenarios for fossil fuel emissions for the 21st century range from about 600 billion tons (if we can keep total global emissions at current levels) to over 2500 billion tons if the world increases its reliance on combustion of coal as economic growth and population increase dramatically. These numbers clearly indicate that sequestering a significant fraction of projected emissions in vegetation is likely to be very difficult, especially as forests are cleared to make way for agriculture and communities.

- Dr. Micheal Mann, Prof. at Penn State.

If that was to me, it definitely didn't answer my question.

Trees would grow at faster rates at the same temperature now(w/ more C02) than before the industrial revolution. Comparing the amount of Growth achieved now during one year of a tree ring to one 1000 years ago and saying since they are the same size they indicate the same temperature would be incorrect. Same with Coral.

K.Hodge: My apologies. Yes, that was an attempt to address your question. Perhaps you would like to ask Dr. Mann? The scientists at Real Climate regularly answer questions and they can provide you with much more information than I can.

thats actually a really good idea. I can totally see where what i said would prior to re-explaination would cause confusion.

I don't understand how they can create a hockey stick graph out of the data sets in that graph that was linked.

I wonder if we're at the level, technologically, that we could stop an ice age.

If not, I'd rather we do that, than foolishly trying to slow it down.

Lufbery: None of your description accounts for the rate of warming the planet has seen in the past 100 years. How do you account for this in the theory that we are about to cool off?

None of your description accounts for the rate of warming the planet has seen in the past 100 years.

Jason - We can not account for the rate of warming in the last 100 years. This can only be done if we could compare it to the rate of warming before the previous ice age 18,000 years ago. We can't, so we have no comparative data. The only thing we can compare to are micro short periods of our most recent history (100 - 200 years) which is even difficult and not at all relevant to what the "norm" is for the earth in a period before an ice age. In addition, the "norm" will change as the earth evolves and the Sun ages and the moon moves further away...so even if we did know what the rate of of warming was 20,000 years ago - and it was slower or faster - it wouldn't mean that we are having an effect. It could just mean the earth is changing a little due to impacts that are totally natural.

This article is interesting because they appear to be collecting data from hundreds of years - up to two thousand years - in our history. This is good and I am sure sheds some light on theories...however, unless they can tell us what the temperatures were (within a few degrees - because that is what we are talking about) 2000 years before the last ice age - the information really can't help us.

My theory that we are about to cool off is not really my theory. It is based on the cyclical nature of the ice ages of the past. My numbers are approx., but we have had an ice age very 100k years - give or take 50k. The end of the ice age is the period we are in now which is the warming period and it has lasted anywhere between 10k - 30k (roughly). The cyclical changes are due to things like vegetation growth cooling the surface of the earth, currents in the ocean, etc. etc. It appears that CO2 gases might now also be a component (unproven obviously), but if the gases are part of the cause - they certainly are not THE cause - and likely not a "Major" cause.

We do know that the composition of the atmosphere in terms of CO2 in parts-per-million has changed dramatically since the last ice age. This information was obtained by drilling the ice sheets at the poles and looking for pockets of air trapped in the ice, and seems to be fairly reliable.

I also seem to remember…

You must be very, very old. Well, of course you're not. You believe those statements to be true because we've studied the earth as we see it today and have made deductions from what we've observed. That is, by the way, the same science that has led us to understand that the planet is warming and that mankind is causing it.

Now, if you're still so sure it's natural, why don't you use science to demonstrate that. Seriously, do some research, some field work and then write up what you find. When you find evidence that it is natural, you can have the work reviewed by your peers and then show us all how you were right.

Won't we be able to tell when the earth cools off or fails to?

At the risk of sounding like an 'alarmist,' I shudder to think just how long we'll have to watch the mercury rise before some folks agree that this isn't part of a natural cycle. We've already seen the kind of temperature rise in the past century that, last time anything similar occurred, took many times longer. Further, it currently shows no sign of tapering off; quite the opposite, in fact. How long should we wait? One hundred more years? Until we see 10° rise? Does anyone really want to see what that does to life on Earth? I'm more interested in putting my country at the forefront of technology and being a world leader.

What's amazing is that we have seen a drop in temperatures from the 80's, the time of some of the worst air pollution on the planet.

I am not saying we should wait idly by, but I don't think we should completely freak out about every little thing. About what a 10 degree increase does to the Earth, I really don't think we need to look any further than a few hundred years ago.

The fact of the matter is, no one can say with 100% certainty that the Earth won't cool off. No one. And I'm not saying that because I want to be a leader in technology (I actually do my part by carpooling everyday, turning off everything in my apartment, riding a bike to local places), I say that because everyone is cramming "We're all gonna die!" down my throat everyday, and it annoys me.

What's amazing is that we have seen a drop in temperatures from the 80's, the time of some of the worst air pollution on the planet.

I'd like to read some more on this. Could you please provide some links or backgrounds (note: while I'd prefer to read it from a science journal or website, even an op-ed would be interesting).

No one can say with 100% certainty anything about the future. Life would be far simpler if we could. Never the less, we go with the best evidence we have (in the areas of science, politics, our personal lives, everything). I'm glad you are conscious about your actions and take steps to reduce energy needs. I hope that you've noticed it's benefit in your wallet already (I know that my wife and I have in our lives). I don't think we're all gonna die, not even most of us. I simply think it's not fair for me to argue my conveniences today should be a burden on my children's future. I'm sure that's something we can all appreciate, similar to how we all (hopefully) plan for retirement.

There are a few articles on the temperatures in the 1980's: NY Times Archives Heat Island Research Global Trends The last link actually states that the 1990's was the hottest decade, which is true, but the 1980's saw the largest spike in temperatures. 1995 was the hottest year for temperatures (on average).

I agree that we need to ensure the future for our children (I don't have any but plan to). I just think that people are getting turned off to the whole global warming because it's all we hear. What's amazing, is that even if a large number of people reduce their power consumption, the amount of coal burned (which now is fairly clean) stays the same. The reason is, the coal fired plants burn the same amount no matter how much power is being used, unless of course a unit is taken completely offline.

The impact on my pocketbook has been a nice side benefit, definitely. :-)

Stephan: You seem like a very reasonable and thoughtful person as I try to be myself, so I hope I didn't come across as to accusatory or argumentative (especially with that whole do-it-for-the-kids bit; I felt guilty as soon as I had typed it as I realize how sad that can sound). I appreciate your attitude very much, as well as those links (I'll read through them after work). Thanks for the discussion.

No, not argumentative at all. It's your right to do what you think is best for your children and if your concerned about the Eart in their future then I have no right to tell you any differently. I hope that my comments did not seem like I was attacking your personal life or anything.

I am glad to continue the discussion and can honestly say that you are one of the best people I've had a discussion with on Newsvine. Most of the time I mention my thoughts on Global Warming and people jump all over me like wolves on little red riding hood...

You must be very, very old. Well, of course you're not. You believe those statements to be true because we've studied the earth as we see it today and have made deductions from what we've observed. That is, by the way, the same science that has led us to understand that the planet is warming and that mankind is causing it.

I believe these statements to be true because I was presented with information on what happened but with no idea as to WHY IT HAPPENED. It just happened.

INFO: The Earth use to be one continent, now it's 7. INFERENCE: SOMETHING MUST HAVE HAPPENED>Oh ok the plates just separated. how? We don't know why it just happened. We have theories but we can't prove them.

INFO: An Ice Age occurred and a Mini-Ice Age on Earth not too long ago.
INFERENCE: SOMETHING MUST HAVE HAPPENED>Oh ok the Earth got really cold. how? We don't know why it just happened. We have theories but again we can't prove them.

INFO: The Earth rose in temperature recently.
INFERENCE: SOMETHING MUST HAVE HAPPENED>oh ok the Earth got really hot. how? IT'S THE CAUSE OF HUMANITY AND EVERYTHING WRONG WITH IT.

Get my drift?

Not to say that the Earth hasn't been warming isn't fact isn't important but how we infer that fact is. To blame it on Humanity is very naive. What is naive is that people preach that we are killing the Earth slowly yet they do nothing about it. The fact that you are sitting at your keyboard typing away is killing the Earth slowly by your standards. Stop it. Stop typing on the keyboard. Go live in a cave.

Go live in a cave.

Thanks for engaging in an adult conversation. Get my drift?

Earth warming
Well in 1967 I moved to Michigan from Texas,,24inch snow in Oct. and IT SNOW and SNOWED
til April 1968..
Since 1980 moving back from Colorado(by the way no spring snow in colorado that yearsI didnot ski)....We have very little snow only 4 to 6 weeks..around Dec.to Feb...
Snowbusiness lost a lot of jobs etc..
In 1967-75 not green grass by August all burnt out..
Now we have green grass through spring...
well if we want cooler summers and colder winters...move to CANADA..
love siggy