Comments on: Earth's temperature at 400-year high

The cause? A lot of it is from human activity, according to the National Research Council.

[nicmart]

And in 900 A.D.?

Was the warm Earth at that time caused by Rollo the Viking's
flatulence?

[startawar]

yep!

must have been. my question is where the hell were the thermometers to tell us this back then? i think it is a lot of guess work.!?

[nicmart]

And in 900 A.D.?

Was the warm Earth at that time caused by Rollo the Viking's
flatulence?

[startawar]

yep!

must have been. my question is where the hell were the thermometers to tell us this back then? i think it is a lot of guess work.!?

[mrvista]

The Earth Will Shake Us Off Like Fleas

I've heard so many people concerned that we're destroying the planet. Ha! The arrogance! As if the human race can destroy a planet. The earth will get rid of off us long before we'll do any significant damage. And that, of course, is the problem.

[mrvista]

The Earth Will Shake Us Off Like Fleas

I've heard so many people concerned that we're destroying the planet. Ha! The arrogance! As if the human race can destroy a planet. The earth will get rid of off us long before we'll do any significant damage. And that, of course, is the problem.

[Joe Bolt]

Well, this proves it!

Yep, this proves it, once and for all. If only we hadn't burned all those fossil fuels in our cars 400 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today! I hear the original inventors of cars wanted to use hamster power, and use twisted rubber bands for airplanes.

If only we'd listened!

[Joe Bolt]

Well, this proves it!

Yep, this proves it, once and for all. If only we hadn't burned all those fossil fuels in our cars 400 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today! I hear the original inventors of cars wanted to use hamster power, and use twisted rubber bands for airplanes.

If only we'd listened!

[GGGlen]

Lunacy

So we've recorded the highest temperatures in 400 years? So
what! We've also got a planet that's over 4 BILLION years old, and
scientific evidence showing that we've gone through warming
and cooling cycles that FAR EXCEED what we're now going
through.
Unfortunately, what we have in the press, is the "Science of
Politics" instead of pure science.
Want to have some fun? Locate a copy of the show "Ocean
Mysteries: Fury in the Abyss". Core samples taken from the ice
caps show that the earth has been through MASSIVE shifts in
temperature, MILLIONS of years before white guys in SUV's
populated the 'burbs with their BBQ pits.
UGH!

[slickmachines]

Lunacy indeed

The only lunatics are the ones in denial like yourself. While measuring the highest temperature in the last 400 years may not be enough proof to you that we are having an adverse affect on the planet, the fact remains that these record breaking temperatures are destroying ecosystems close to the equator and putting millions of people and animals in danger of dying horrible slow deaths from lack of food and water.

According to you we're not at a critical point of climate change so tell me, what evidence do you need to be convinced. Larger storms, decimated lands that once used to be green and fertile, entire island chains sinking under water, floods in Manhattan? Because whatever evidence you need, is on it's way! Unfortunately by the time we'll convince people like you, it's going to be too late to do anything about it.

I'm no environmentalist but your defence of calling these findings "science of politics" is an insult. If you're digusted with reading science in the news, pick up an article published in a respected scientific journal. You'll find that scientists overwhelmingly agree that climate change is a fact.

[GGGlen]

Lunacy

So we've recorded the highest temperatures in 400 years? So
what! We've also got a planet that's over 4 BILLION years old, and
scientific evidence showing that we've gone through warming
and cooling cycles that FAR EXCEED what we're now going
through.
Unfortunately, what we have in the press, is the "Science of
Politics" instead of pure science.
Want to have some fun? Locate a copy of the show "Ocean
Mysteries: Fury in the Abyss". Core samples taken from the ice
caps show that the earth has been through MASSIVE shifts in
temperature, MILLIONS of years before white guys in SUV's
populated the 'burbs with their BBQ pits.
UGH!

[slickmachines]

Lunacy indeed

The only lunatics are the ones in denial like yourself. While measuring the highest temperature in the last 400 years may not be enough proof to you that we are having an adverse affect on the planet, the fact remains that these record breaking temperatures are destroying ecosystems close to the equator and putting millions of people and animals in danger of dying horrible slow deaths from lack of food and water.

According to you we're not at a critical point of climate change so tell me, what evidence do you need to be convinced. Larger storms, decimated lands that once used to be green and fertile, entire island chains sinking under water, floods in Manhattan? Because whatever evidence you need, is on it's way! Unfortunately by the time we'll convince people like you, it's going to be too late to do anything about it.

I'm no environmentalist but your defence of calling these findings "science of politics" is an insult. If you're digusted with reading science in the news, pick up an article published in a respected scientific journal. You'll find that scientists overwhelmingly agree that climate change is a fact.

[sbwinn]

A better article

A majority of scientists may believe that global warming is a
problem, but a majority of scientists don't work in the
climatology field.

"While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not
have special knowledge about the causes of global climate
change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology
professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the
effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct
their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them
climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually
examine the causes of change on a global scale, many
concentrate their research on designing and enhancing
computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have
been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball.
"Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions"
but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting
policy-makers and the public think they are actually making
forecasts."

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University
paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no
meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's
temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2
levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450
million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute
coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the
committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone
still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels
would be the major cause of the past century's modest
warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his
research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time
scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's
temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in
the brightness of the Sun.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

[sbwinn]

A better article

A majority of scientists may believe that global warming is a
problem, but a majority of scientists don't work in the
climatology field.

"While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not
have special knowledge about the causes of global climate
change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology
professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the
effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct
their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them
climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually
examine the causes of change on a global scale, many
concentrate their research on designing and enhancing
computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have
been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball.
"Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions"
but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting
policy-makers and the public think they are actually making
forecasts."

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University
paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no
meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's
temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2
levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450
million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute
coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the
committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone
still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels
would be the major cause of the past century's modest
warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his
research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time
scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's
temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in
the brightness of the Sun.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

[jabbotts]

you missed the part about tree rings and sciency stuff huh

My may have missed the early mention of measuring tree rings and other such sciency stuff. Plant growth follows a recognised pattern. Yes, it's true, they can use old wood to tell things from the past.

[GGGlen]

Math=hard?

"The past" as you've so eloquently posted (all of 400 years),
equates to .0000001% of the Earth's past, and I'm being extremely
generous, considering a 4 billion year old guess as to it's birth.

[jabbotts]

you missed the part about tree rings and sciency stuff huh

My may have missed the early mention of measuring tree rings and other such sciency stuff. Plant growth follows a recognised pattern. Yes, it's true, they can use old wood to tell things from the past.

[GGGlen]

Math=hard?

"The past" as you've so eloquently posted (all of 400 years),
equates to .0000001% of the Earth's past, and I'm being extremely
generous, considering a 4 billion year old guess as to it's birth.

[ronaldlclark]

Could have been a believer!

Could have been a believer! Gore turned the issure into a political issure by the way he entended to solve the problem with Kyoto. Now it would take a hundred thousand to convince me of anything but.

I will wait till someone I can trust steps forward. Not these self appointed savers of humanity. I tend to go with the other "nay sayers".

[ronaldlclark]

Could have been a believer!

Could have been a believer! Gore turned the issure into a political issure by the way he entended to solve the problem with Kyoto. Now it would take a hundred thousand to convince me of anything but.

I will wait till someone I can trust steps forward. Not these self appointed savers of humanity. I tend to go with the other "nay sayers".

[bndavis]

I would hope that we are warmer...

Considering that for 250 of those 400 years we were in the Little Ice Age (the one that killed the Vikings in Greenland, changed agriculture in Europe, was indirectly responsible for the potato famine in Ireland), I would hope we are warmer than then.

To end the LIA, temperatures started rising. They seem to have continued rising. Are current temperatures due to man, cattle, the earth, or a mixture of the above. Did our friendly researchers factor out all abnormal cooling and heating events (Krakatoa, releases of methane hydrates and other events that 19th/20th century science didn't know about) before they published their research?

[bndavis]

I would hope that we are warmer...

Considering that for 250 of those 400 years we were in the Little Ice Age (the one that killed the Vikings in Greenland, changed agriculture in Europe, was indirectly responsible for the potato famine in Ireland), I would hope we are warmer than then.

To end the LIA, temperatures started rising. They seem to have continued rising. Are current temperatures due to man, cattle, the earth, or a mixture of the above. Did our friendly researchers factor out all abnormal cooling and heating events (Krakatoa, releases of methane hydrates and other events that 19th/20th century science didn't know about) before they published their research?

[GGGlen]

Nice!

I see that replies are being excluded from the discussion.
Oh well, they might as well simply delete the thread and pretend it
never happened
;)

[GGGlen]

Nice!

I see that replies are being excluded from the discussion.
Oh well, they might as well simply delete the thread and pretend it
never happened
;)

[GGGlen]

Maybe a technical glitch?

:)

Once more, with feeling;
"According to you we're not at a critical point of climate change"?
According to me? Not hardly. According to CO2 samples drawn
from both ice sheets, north and south, which conclusively prove
that the earth not only goes through warming and cooling
cycles, but has gone through MASSIVE changes, millions of years
before **** Sapiens appeared on the scene.
For example, ever hear of Michigan? It's a state in the US that
claims, as one of its most distinguishing features, being
surrounded by the largest bodies of fresh water on the planet.
Care to hazard a guess how these lakes were formed?
Well, according to the science of geology, the Great Lakes were
carved out when MILE HIGH glaciers retreated from the North
American continent. Mile high glaciers don't disappear
overnight, it takes thousands of years of global warming to
reduce them, and at that time, the glaciers reached the Equator.
What you're mis-representing, is the idea that "people like
me" (a typical over-generalazation heaped upon those who don't
"think what they're told to, and when to), disagree with the fact
that the earth is warming.
WELL DUH, it is!!! As is Mars, according to such an unscientific
body as NASA.
The fact remains that global warming (and global cooling)
happen naturally. Are we contributing to the warming effect?
You bet! But when all good science points to the fact that the
earth is overdue for an ice age (Geology has shown that they
occur every 30,000 to 60,000 years or so), I consider it a
benefit.
See? While you might whine about "millions of people and
animals in danger of dying horrible slow deaths", Ice ages result
in a near total mass extinction. Fossil records clearly show that
99.99% of every species that has ever existed on earth are now
gone, so get over it, it's nature. The Earth changes, whether you
like it or not,
Oh, and for you science newbies? The Earth's magnetic field has
been in decline since we've 1st begun measuring such stuff.
I can't WAIT to hear the spin on that story, since fossil records
have shown that it's a phenomena that's been happening for 4
billion years!
Global warming will PALE in comparison to the damage done
when the magnetic field dies and reverses (as it has done
numerous times in the past) and the Earth is, once again,
exposed to massive amounts of solar radiation.

[GGGlen]

Maybe a technical glitch?

:)

Once more, with feeling;
"According to you we're not at a critical point of climate change"?
According to me? Not hardly. According to CO2 samples drawn
from both ice sheets, north and south, which conclusively prove
that the earth not only goes through warming and cooling
cycles, but has gone through MASSIVE changes, millions of years
before **** Sapiens appeared on the scene.
For example, ever hear of Michigan? It's a state in the US that
claims, as one of its most distinguishing features, being
surrounded by the largest bodies of fresh water on the planet.
Care to hazard a guess how these lakes were formed?
Well, according to the science of geology, the Great Lakes were
carved out when MILE HIGH glaciers retreated from the North
American continent. Mile high glaciers don't disappear
overnight, it takes thousands of years of global warming to
reduce them, and at that time, the glaciers reached the Equator.
What you're mis-representing, is the idea that "people like
me" (a typical over-generalazation heaped upon those who don't
"think what they're told to, and when to), disagree with the fact
that the earth is warming.
WELL DUH, it is!!! As is Mars, according to such an unscientific
body as NASA.
The fact remains that global warming (and global cooling)
happen naturally. Are we contributing to the warming effect?
You bet! But when all good science points to the fact that the
earth is overdue for an ice age (Geology has shown that they
occur every 30,000 to 60,000 years or so), I consider it a
benefit.
See? While you might whine about "millions of people and
animals in danger of dying horrible slow deaths", Ice ages result
in a near total mass extinction. Fossil records clearly show that
99.99% of every species that has ever existed on earth are now
gone, so get over it, it's nature. The Earth changes, whether you
like it or not,
Oh, and for you science newbies? The Earth's magnetic field has
been in decline since we've 1st begun measuring such stuff.
I can't WAIT to hear the spin on that story, since fossil records
have shown that it's a phenomena that's been happening for 4
billion years!
Global warming will PALE in comparison to the damage done
when the magnetic field dies and reverses (as it has done
numerous times in the past) and the Earth is, once again,
exposed to massive amounts of solar radiation.