|
A comprehensive study shows that the earth is now the warmest it has been in the last two thousand years:
The scientists found that while there was not enough good data to work out what the climate had been like in the southern hemisphere over that period, they could get a good idea of how warm the northern hemisphere had been."What we found was that at no point during those two millennia had it been any warmer than it is now. From 1980 onwards is clearly the warmest period of the last 2,000 years," said Prof Jones.
This study goes a long way to debunking the "other causes" fringe:
The study reinforces recent conclusions published by the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC). Scientists on the panel looked at temperature data from up to 1,000 years ago and found that the late 20th century was the warmest period on record.But the IPCC's report was dismissed by some quarters in the scientific community who claimed that while the planet is undoubtedly warming, it was warmer still more than a thousand years ago. So warm, in fact, that it had spurred the Vikings to set up base in Greenland and led to northern Britain being filled with productive vineyards.
(snip)
"The importance of the finding is that it shows there's something going on in the climate system that's certainly unusual in the context of the last 2,000 years, and it's likely that greenhouse gases are playing the major role," said Prof Chris Folland of the Met Office's Hadley Centre. "If you look at the natural ups and downs in temperature, you'll find nothing remotely like what we're seeing now."
(snip)
Not everyone agrees that climate change is largely driven by human activity. Some believe the warming the planet is experiencing now is part of a natural cycle. Historical anecdotes are sometimes used to support their case, but the new study debunks these claims.
· There were vineyards in the north of Britain
There were indeed vineyards in Britain in the 10th and 11th centuries, but only 50 to 60. There are now more than 350 in this country, with some as far north as Leeds.
· The Vikings went to Greenland
In AD980, Erik the Red and his crew headed from Iceland to Greenland, but it wasn't for the good weather. Erik had been kicked out of Iceland for murder so he took his crew westward where, they were told, they would find land.
· The Thames used to freeze over more often
The river's tendency to freeze over frequently in the 16th and 17th centuries is often cited as evidence that the climate used to be more erratic. But, according to the new study, the major cause was the original London Bridge, completed in the 13th century, which had very small spans between its supports for the Thames to run through. The result was that the river was tidal only as far as the bridge, causing the water to freeze over. When the bridge was rebuilt to a different design in the 1820s, the water flowed more easily and therefore became less prone to ice.
Essentially, this means that global warming is real and is definitely connected to a large degree to human activity. After this, unless the study is flawed in some serious fashion, anyone arguing against those two provisions is looking out for their own short term profits at the long term expense of the health of you and your family. The only question now is how to prevent further damage without crippling the world economy. Anyone who says that global warming is "natural" and therefore requires no action is not a serious person.
Nice job poisoning the well there Kevin.
Of course to actually do something to reduce or stop global warming will result in more deaths too. Gee, how caring of you.
Posted by: SteveBah. More junk science. Everyone knows global warming is natural and caused by bovine flatulence. The solution is to eat more beef.
Posted by: SK BubbaGee, Steve, I didn't realize promoting energy efficiency and campaigning against waste killed people. I've never seen that study. Perhaps you could actually back up your opinions with some facts, as Kevin did, rather than making blanket statements followed by digs.
Posted by: tgirschtgirsch,
I did, at my site. I pointed to two studies that showed efforts to reduce global warming are likely to be ineffectual. The first one is by Tom Wigley who is one the IPCC authors and he noted that even with 100% compliance the impact of the Kyoto Protocols is neglibible!
What the damn reference? Fine:
Thomas Wigley, "The Kyoto Protocol: CO2, CH4, and Climate Implications," Geophysical Research Letter, Vol. 25, 1998, pp. 2285-88.
The other study is easier to access:
Its a pdf file so you might want to download it first. That one has compliance with Kyoto and more compliance later on and again the impact of emission reductions is "small".
Further it is basic economics that the more regulations and constraints you put on something the more expensive it tends to be. The elderly and poor will likely see increases in their energy costs that will induce them to cut back. This can result in more deaths. Look what happened in France during the last heat storm there. People died due to lack of electricity. If rising costs result in people voluntarily reducing their electricity consumption (a lack of electricity) people can die.
That last one was Kevin's criterion for determining that people are not serious in this discussion. By this measure neither you nor he are serious since neither of you two are aware of the potential costs.
Posted by: SteveSo what's your solution, then?
Posted by: tgirschSteve
Not to be rude, but please point out where I said Kyoto was the solution. I merely pointed out that its now impossible, unless this study is flawed to the point of uselessness, to claim that human beings do not affect globabl warming significantly. Anyone who continues to do so cannot be taken seriously, and, frnakly, one has to doubt their motives. It is better to read what I said rather than let your prejudices talk for you.
And people died in France bcasue they do not have wall to wall air onditioning there like we do in the States. The price of electricity has nothing to do with it - it just doesn't normally get that hot in France, or the rest of Western Europe, for that matter.
Posted by: kevinWhose garden was this? To quote a title from a folksong by Tom Paxton.
Posted by: Steve PlonkKevin,
You didn't say Kyoto was the answer. However, you did say something must be done. To reduce global warming Kyoto is not sufficient. Thus it seems reasonable to conclude you'd favor stronger measures to curb CO2 output.
Further, try paleontology Kevin. It has been much warmer in the past. So much so that dinosaurs used to live at the South Pole.
The idea that this is all man-made is not at all clear. Even the article you site points out that the skeptics acknowledge the warming, just question the issue of attribution.
And people died in France bcasue they do not have wall to wall air onditioning there like we do in the States. The price of electricity has nothing to do with it - it just doesn't normally get that hot in France, or the rest of Western Europe, for that matter.
But the point still remains that making electricity cost more will induce more and more people to not use it when it is most needed.
You query as to whether or not global warming can be stopped without wrecking the world economy. Have you considered it can't be.
Posted by: Steve
