Categories

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Rising temperatures

This study confirms the Mann “hockey-stick” story but takes the global temperature rise back 11,500 years.  Temperatures during the past 100 years have increased faster than in any period since the start of the Holocene 11,500 years ago.  I can’t locate a preprint of the Science article that details these claims.

8 comments to Rising temperatures

  • conrad

    You’ll need access (I assume La Trobe is no that broke yet 🙂 but try here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.full

    If you can’t get in, I stuck the article in my dropbox too:

    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/20794362/ScienceMarch8CLimate.pdf

    You can find the supplementary materials from there.

  • hc

    Thanks I like the way you used Dropbox. Very neat.

  • rog

    Although this study is not definitive the implications are alarming. Combined with latest news that 2012 CO2 levels as measured at Manu Lau have jumped, in a year of austerity, should be of concern to policymakers.

  • I highlighted this as well.

    I got it through Mark Thoma

  • For the past decade or so I have used the subject of global warming to educate students about debate and evaluating commonly held beliefs. I am not an expert on climate change, but I am fairly skilled at logic and researching theories and arguments, so I usually succeed in persuading intelligent students (fortunately, I have not had many who were not intelligent) of what is real and what is imagined.

    I worked for a time as Public Affairs Officer for Energy Programs at NASA, where the boss was Harrison H. Schmitt, the only scientist to walk on the Moon (and later a US Senator). He resigned a while back because the Planetary Society had taken a position attributing global warming to human activity. His view is that scientists have taken this position because the money put out by politicians is for those who confirm the theory — and anyone who does not is persona non grata.

    The planet is in an Ice Age that goes back two million years — the last time that Antarctica was free of ice. We are in, if I recall, the eighth interglacial period (a period of warming between periods of more severe glaciation). Things have been getting warmer for about 20,000 years, and in that time the seas have risen perhaps 100+ meters.

    The current panic is neither reasonable nor supported by significant data. In 1968, to put things in perspective, the New York Times wrote about the serious threat of climate change — and the fear of a resumed Ice Age (temperatures had been dropping since around 1940).

    For those who are able to look beyond the cherry picking of data and the measurements of a mere hundred or so years, it may be useful to search for an interview with a professor from the University of Pennsylvania (one of the eight Ivy League schools in the US). He is an expert on paleogeology, has been studying this matter for nearly 50 years and looks back millions of years. The article, which appeared in 2007 is called “Al Gore is a Greenhouse Gas Bag.”

    I entertained my students by showing them a chart of temperature changes — average daily high temperature went from 0 C. to 30 C. — and asked what would it be reasonable to assume might follow? I mentioned that these were actual figures from January to July in Seoul, Korea. I then explained that I predicted 60 C. by December, and much worse to follow. Somehow they didn’t accept my projections as probable. They insisted on looking back a bit further.

    The planet is getting warmer — very slowly. It is not likely to be a result of human activity (we have delusions of grandeur). It has been going on for a long time and this is not the first time. It is unlikely to be harmful (warm climate generally equates to better food supply and more moisture in the air — which is both cause and effect of warming). And, being realistic, there is nothing much that can be done about it — unless we decide to use a contaminant to the upper atmosphere (similar to what occurs naturally when a large volcano erupts). Cutting down on our drives to the grocery store will have no significant effect.

    I may have just one prejudice — I live in Wisconsin, in an area which was, twenty thousand years ago, under a sheet of ice several hundred meters thick. It produced the lake that is now a tourist attraction and home to many wealthy people from Chicago. I have no bitterness toward glaciers, but I do not mourn their passing.

  • rog

    Logically, if you are not an expert on climate change your opinion is little value.

  • John mashey

    Fredric:
    I offer a suggestion:
    1) Every year, about 20,000 people attend the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, typically early December.

    2) You could attend and express your views to the experts, telling them why you are right and they are entirely wrong. I’m sure people could manage to video you and put it up on YouTube, making you a hero to folks at the nearby Heartland Institute, who agree with you 100%. Of course, they also support the right of tobacco companies to kill children slowly. Are you with them on that, also?

    3) You defame honest scientists and Harrison Schmitt betrayed science and the USA by using his legitimate astronaut achievements to opine on topics on which he is demonstrably clueless.

    4) But, I feel sorry for the students you have damaged.

  • John Mashey

    Frderic lives about 90 minutes’ drive from the University of Wisconsin, which has a well-known, strong climate research group. They run ~weekly seminars, open to the public.

    SO, he doesn’t have to attend AGU, he can go to a nearby university, meet experts, and explain why his background enables him to know they are wrong. Alternatively, he might learn enough to raise his level of knowledge at least to zero from its current negative level.

    (Normally, except for sociological studies, “old guys clueless about climate, but absolutely certain” get ignored, but to run across one proud of misleading students is worth a comment. Fredric is an easy drive from one of a well-respected climate research learn from experts.