Previous in Forum: Roger Pink - this one's for you...   Next in Forum: Squirrels Eating Wire Insulation
Close
Close
Close
6 comments
Rate Comments: Nested
The Engineer
Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Physics... United States - Member - NY Popular Science - Genetics - Organic Chemistry... Popular Science - Cosmology - New Member Ingeniería en Español - Nuevo Miembro - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Albany, New York
Posts: 5060
Good Answers: 129

2000s Were Warmest Decade

12/07/2009 9:25 AM

Here's the story from the AP wire:

Decade of 2000s was warmest ever, scientists say

By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent Charles J. Hanley, Ap Special Correspondent – 2 hrs 1 min ago

It dawned with the warmest winter on record in the United States. And when the sun sets this New Year's Eve, the decade of the 2000s will end as the warmest ever on global temperature charts.

Warmer still, scientists say, lies ahead.

Through 10 years of global boom and bust, of breakneck change around the planet, of terrorism, war and division, all people everywhere under that warming sun faced one threat together: the buildup of greenhouse gases, the rise in temperatures, the danger of a shifting climate, of drought, weather extremes and encroaching seas, of untold damage to the world humanity has created for itself over millennia.

As the decade neared its close, the U.N. gathered presidents and premiers of almost 100 nations for a "climate summit" to take united action, to sharply cut back the burning of coal and other fossil fuels.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told them they had "a powerful opportunity to get on the right side of history" at a year-ending climate conference in Copenhagen.

Once again, however, disunity might keep the world's nations on this side of making historic decisions.

"Deep down, we know that you are not really listening," the Maldives' Mohamed Nasheed told fellow presidents at September's summit.

Nasheed's tiny homeland, a sprinkling of low-lying islands in the Indian Ocean, will be one of the earliest victims of seas rising from heat expansion and melting glaciers. On remote islets of Papua New Guinea, on Pacific atolls, on bleak Arctic shores, other coastal peoples in the 2000s were already making plans, packing up, seeking shelter.

The warming seas were growing more acid, too, from absorbing carbon dioxide, the biggest greenhouse gas in an overloaded atmosphere. Together, warmer waters and acidity will kill coral reefs and imperil other marine life — from plankton at the bottom of the food chain, to starfish and crabs, mussels and sea urchins.

Over the decade's first nine years, global temperatures averaged 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees F) higher than the 1951-1980 average, NASA reported. And temperatures rose faster in the far north than anyplace else on Earth.

The decade's final three summers melted Arctic sea ice more than ever before in modern times. Greenland's gargantuan ice cap was pouring 3 percent more meltwater into the sea each year. Every summer's thaw reached deeper into the Arctic permafrost, threatening to unlock vast amounts of methane, a global-warming gas.

Less ice meant less sunlight reflected, more heat absorbed by the Earth. More methane escaping the tundra meant more warming, more thawing, more methane released.

At the bottom of the world, late in the decade, International Polar Year research found that Antarctica, too, was warming. Floating ice shelves fringing its coast weakened, some breaking away, allowing the glaciers behind them to push ice faster into the rising oceans.

On six continents the glaciers retreated through the 2000s, shrinking future water sources for countless millions of Indians, Chinese, South Americans. The great lakes of Africa were shrinking, too, from higher temperatures, evaporation and drought. Across the temperate zones, flowers bloomed earlier, lakes froze later, bark beetles bored their destructive way northward through warmer forests. In the Arctic, surprised Eskimos spotted the red breasts of southern robins.

Story Cont. Here

Register to Reply
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.
Guru
Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cairns, Qld, Australia
Posts: 968
Good Answers: 65
#1

Re: 2000s Were Warmest Decade

12/09/2009 7:31 AM

On tonight's news, the Bureau of Meteorology claimed that every decade for the last 70 years has been warmer than the last.

In the 1970's, temperatures were falling so rapidly, that academic circles were worried about an imminent ice age.

How reliable are these figures and how much of it is spin?

Incidentally, we still can't grow grain in Greenland like they could during the medieval warm period, so that was presumably warmer than now. Note that it cooled off and we got a mini ice age. Right on schedule, this has now warmed up, only now we say man caused it, when the natural cycle was due to bring it about anyway.

Register to Reply
The Engineer
Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Physics... United States - Member - NY Popular Science - Genetics - Organic Chemistry... Popular Science - Cosmology - New Member Ingeniería en Español - Nuevo Miembro - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Albany, New York
Posts: 5060
Good Answers: 129
#2
In reply to #1

Re: 2000s Were Warmest Decade

12/09/2009 8:46 AM

Again you refuse to let facts get in the way of your beleifs. Good for you. To limit confusion, I'll respond to only the 1970s claim you made with the hope that you'll at least realize that one is wrong.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Register to Reply
Guru
Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cairns, Qld, Australia
Posts: 968
Good Answers: 65
#3
In reply to #2

Re: 2000s Were Warmest Decade

12/10/2009 7:58 AM

Thanks for the link Roger.

During some of the 1970's, I was doing post grad work at uni and the talk in the staff room was basically about the probability of an imminent ice age. General consensus was that it was coming and we needed to be prepared to deal with it.

One proposal suggested at the time was that spraying carbon black on the snowfields would reverse this cooling.

I don't know where the results in your link come from, but they seem to be somewhat revisionist. At the time, Nature and New Scientist had lots of articles leaning towards global cooling. In those days there were few leaning towards warming. Those came, (I think), about a decade or more later.

The claim of your link dates from a later time and doesn't seem to conform to the reality of the times.

I remember reading recently a claim that the medieval warm period was a minor warming, much smaller than today and was largely restricted to Europe.

Such a claim is necessary because otherwise the computer models on which AGW are based are shown to be incorrect, and the occurrence of a non AGW warming of present magnitude weakens the AGW case.

History shows this warm period was world wide with average temperatures higher than today. It was also a period of exceptional agricultural productivity.

AGW has been "proven" politically and there are many scientists who seem to be willing accomplices as evidenced by the scandal of the hacked emails showing rigging of results and suppression of raw data.

Rhetoric, however, is a poor substitute for sound science, an item which seems to be missing from the pro-AGW arguments.

Register to Reply
The Engineer
Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Physics... United States - Member - NY Popular Science - Genetics - Organic Chemistry... Popular Science - Cosmology - New Member Ingeniería en Español - Nuevo Miembro - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Albany, New York
Posts: 5060
Good Answers: 129
#4
In reply to #3

Re: 2000s Were Warmest Decade

12/10/2009 9:09 AM

Sceptic,

You Wrote:"I don't know where the results in your link come from, but they seem to be somewhat revisionist."

I'm afraid they aren't revisionist at all. Here are some more links detailing the misconception. (Wikipedia is the first):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Here's the article from Encyclopedia Britannica

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/32062295/ICE-AGE-MYTH-DEAD

But this is your modus operandi right? You misunderstand the first time, then when it's pointed out later that you misunderstood, you say that "history is being changed" or that "the source is biased".

You don't like the news you see, you say it's biased.
You don't like the science you hear about, you say it's biased.

You simply believe what you want to believe, and any evidence, say the melting of the Northern Polar Ice cap, the climate refugees of Bangladesh, etc. you ignore, or say that the source is biased.

You Wrote:"History shows this warm period was world wide with average temperatures higher than today. It was also a period of exceptional agricultural productivity."

Yes, temperatures have been this high before in recent geological history. But CO2 levels have never been this high in the last few million years and more importantly the acceleration of the warming has never been this fast. Plus, according to precession models (which explain the periodic nature of ice ages), we should be cooling, not warming. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of your "beliefs".

You Wrote:"AGW has been "proven" politically and there are many scientists who seem to be willing accomplices as evidenced by the scandal of the hacked emails showing rigging of results and suppression of raw data."

Out of thousands of emails, you found two. One which basically calls you guys idiots, which I told you we do all the time, I'm just the one who does it to your face (out of respect, though I don't expect you to understand how that is a sign of respect). The other says they are going to manipulate the data to hide a trend, which means something different in science than your dumb interpretation. But again, why let facts get in the way of paranoia.

You Wrote:"Rhetoric, however, is a poor substitute for sound science, an item which seems to be missing from the pro-AGW arguments."

You wouldn't know good sound science if your life depended on it. You are just a pawn being manipulated by millionaires.

Roger

Register to Reply
Guru
Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cairns, Qld, Australia
Posts: 968
Good Answers: 65
#5
In reply to #4

Re: 2000s Were Warmest Decade

12/11/2009 3:37 AM

Roger, I was present at uni as a post grad during the early 70's and I was reporting to you what actually happened, not what someone years later claims must have happened.

Those reports are definitely revisionist.

...and more importantly the acceleration of the warming has never been this fast.

On what basis is this comment made? We know cooling can happen much faster than the present rate of warming. Why can't warming be fast also, without it being anthropogenic?

Register to Reply
The Engineer
Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Physics... United States - Member - NY Popular Science - Genetics - Organic Chemistry... Popular Science - Cosmology - New Member Ingeniería en Español - Nuevo Miembro - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Albany, New York
Posts: 5060
Good Answers: 129
#6
In reply to #5

Re: 2000s Were Warmest Decade

12/11/2009 7:00 AM

You Wrote:"I was present at uni as a post grad during the early 70's and I was reporting to you what actually happened, not what someone years later claims must have happened."

What part of this don't you understand? Someone went back through the literature and counted. I'm not saying you didn't think what you thought. What I'm saying is that more scientists were publishing about warming then then cooling. You got sucked into misconceptions at the time. Just as you are sucked into flat out lies now.

You Wrote:"On what basis is this comment made? We know cooling can happen much faster than the present rate of warming. Why can't warming be fast also, without it being anthropogenic?"

Yes, cooling has happened this quickly, after a meteorite strike, or the release of a giant resevior of fresh water that has been trapped on glaciers and is suddenly released and is enough to change existing ocean currents dramatically. Heating is not cooling though, it doesn't happen quickly on Earth. You know why? Because the heat capacity of water is 4X that of land, meaning that the water soaks up the heat.

That's why we are only experiencing a small temperature increase while the polar icecap disappears at an alarming rate. The water on this planet has been soaking up the excess heat. Ice takes a lot of heat to melt as well. When the ice disappears, say on the northern polar icecap in the summer in a few decades, then all that heat the was melting that ice warms the ocean faster and Greenlands glaciers will start to melt at a stunning rate.

Like I said, even when it becomes terribly obvious that you were wrong about the heating in a decade or two, you will find an excuse based on half information to absolve you from your irresponsible misconceptions.

Register to Reply
Register to Reply 6 comments

Previous in Forum: Roger Pink - this one's for you...   Next in Forum: Squirrels Eating Wire Insulation

Advertisement