A A A A Search :
Toledo Talk   (musing about Lake Erie West and beyond)
From pink_slip's workspace   

Study finds recent global warming unprecedented in 1,300 years

A new scientific study adds evidence that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere fluctuated a bit over time, but that the sharp increase during the past few decades is bigger than anything in at least 1,300 years.

The report was published Tuesday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Its conclusion is that temperature increased and decreased a little over the centuries, but the fluctuations were small enough that the line was roughly flat, like the shaft of a horizontal hockey stick. Then, from about 1980 to now, temperature increased sharply, more than any increase before — like the blade of the hockey stick.

For the past 10 years, climate-change skeptics have been calling the hockey stick bogus. Now the scientists who studied the climate record and produced the original hockey-stick graph have done a new study using more data from more sources — and they got the same pattern.

The new study "establishes further evidence that the recent warming isn't just part of a typical cycle," said climatologist Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. (more)

created by pink_slip on Sep 13, 2008 at 09:34:46 am     Comments: 8

print      source      versions

Comments ... #

The new study "establishes further evidence that the recent warming isn't just part of a typical cycle,"

What if a "typical cycle" takes 10,000 years?

posted by JeepMaker on Sep 13, 2008 at 11:32:21 am     #



Maybe you should have copied and pasted more from the article:

"Of course, this alone doesn't establish the cause of that warming - that it must be due to human influences," Mann said. That's left to other scientific studies of the climate.

Forces of nature - changes in the output of the sun's energy and volcanic eruptions - and random variation explain the changes in climate before industrial times, Mann said. But only if human factors are taken into account - particularly the production of long-lasting, heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels - can scientists explain the unusually high recent temperature increase, he said.

Mann's group's study collected additional data for the centuries before the mid-19th century, when scientists began recording temperatures.

Their previous study depended on tree rings, and some critics said it was not a reliable way to reconstruct past climate over a long period. Mann said that while it's not always true that tree rings aren't reliable, his team decided to conduct a new study that didn't depend on them.

They took data from other natural sources of clues about past climate - corals, ice cores and lake and cave sediments.

"We found we got more or less the same answer," Mann said. The recent temperature increase is an anomaly over 1,300 years without using tree rings, and for 1,700 years if the tree-ring data are used, the study found.

posted by SillyWabbit on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:19:00 pm     #



Maybe you should have copied and pasted more from the article:

Isn't it appropriate to only post part of the article and link to the rest? What are the fair use rules?

But besides that, what is your point silly?

posted by pink_slip on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:35:48 pm     #



Playing dumb are we?

posted by SillyWabbit on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:52:15 pm     #



Seriously. I don't want to assume I know your point. Please elaborate.

posted by pink_slip on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:56:06 pm     #



Re-read the portion that I copied/pasted above. It's about as clear (as mud) as all the other "studies" out there.

Nobody can prove that global warming is man-made. Every group that studies it, tends to go into it with a bias one way or the other. Every study has some validity and some holes.

posted by SillyWabbit on Sep 14, 2008 at 07:34:56 am     #



Isn't it appropriate to only post part of the article and link to the rest?

It's not appropriate if the copy and paste is misleading and presented out of context. A lot of people do not click on included links (especially when they are not recognizable as a link as your was by simply linking the word "more") and could come away with a distorted view of the truth as the poster "spins" the article to fit their beliefs.

posted by KraZyKat on Sep 14, 2008 at 09:47:39 am     #



silly--thanks for clearing that up.

krazy--whatever. Read the article

posted by pink_slip on Sep 14, 2008 at 10:41:22 am     #