Study: Arctic warming at 'stunning' rate – highest temps in 44,000 years A recent study has shown that over the past 100 years the average summer temperatures in the Eastern Canadian Arctic have been toastier than at any time for at least the past 44,000 years, and perhaps for as long as 120,000 years. "This study really says the warming we are seeing is outside any kind of known natural …
I like to think they have a running wager for who generates the most traffic and comments. That being said I have far more respect for Rik's articles as he rarely (if ever?) censors the comments or hides the discussion in some dark corner of the forums.
When it is shown that parts of Europe were warmer 1000 years ago than they are now, it is derided as being meaningless because that is just a small region, not the whole earth. Now suddenly a small region is important after all? I guess that's true only when it supports your theory, not when it works against it.
When you suspect your girlfriend is cheating on you, everything that happens and everything she does appears to confirm that she has someone on the side. The evidence is there and you can see it.
See any similarities?
This is all about confirmation bias and the very simple "follow the money" notion.
While the earth is gradually warming (and has been on average for a very long time), the idea that we are experiencing some sort of global disaster caused by CO2, and that turning off the human created component of the global CO2 output f the earth is at best a broken idea, hit upon for political and financial expediency.
"Our results indicate that anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases have led to unprecedented regional warmth,"
How does their research provide any indication of the cause of recent regional warming they think they have discovered?
With such blatant bias in reporting of the results how can the possibility of a similar bias in creating them be ignored?
""This study really says the warming we are seeing is outside any kind of known natural variability, and it has to be due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," the study's lead, geological sciences professor Gifford Miller of the University of Colorado Boulder, said in a press release."
Typical sloppy thinking of scientists motivated by - and educated by - politically biased professors, teachers, and those politicians who respond to the lure of money.
It MAY be true that "the warming we are seeing is outside any kind of known variability", but only because what we actually know - about nature and other things - is very little, and mostly wrong, while the length of any time - variability - of which out "learned ones" can speak knowledgeably is miniscule in the overall scheme of things.
It is DEFINITELY false to assume that a rise in temps "has to be due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere". Especially given that we have other records which show that any such rise would take hundreds and thousands of years to have an effect.
Yet what else have we come to expect form the children crying out that they need more money to save us?
@ shovelDriver
It seems that the "scientists" have had access to records from ice cores and tree rings it seems, this and other data gives them "records" going back a while ...
The "little ice age", Europeans experience during middle ages, was tied APPARENTLY to a ICE DAM melting in North America, flooding the north antlantic with fresh water, slowing the "gulf stream" thermostat, because it works via convection, they estimated the flip in temp took only 15 years, I believe...
Greenland has been releasing more fresh water than before, it seems to be increasing, its flooding North Atlantic again, so why will effects be so different ?
We understand wheather patterns better these days, so we can see/feel things changing, Who cares who fault it is ? Lets make sure ALL children survive whatever happens, not just the rich kids, there is NO planning for future generations anymore, it all about what you can have now ....
@ at a few others ....
Sorry that the "uneducated" reader, seeing, feeling hearing about the effects and commenting, but have to point out most things are discovered by accident, not in a lab, if it is, it is usely after a guy in a shed makes it happens once ...
I have read newscientist since 1968, great mag, but I had to laugh at a cover the other week, " Space has 3 dimensions" or close in big letters, someone got a grant for it, and I can't believe these dudes has never fallen of a bike before ....
A specific problem with the thrust of this paper comes from the core statistic that temperatures have risen 3.9 degrees in 22 years. This may well be true, but since it is acknowledged that the temperature of the earth as a whole has not changed in 15 years, it is much more likely that there are local warming effects. But there is no analysis of what they may be. There is no real analysis of any alternative cause for the rise in temperature other than made-made causes.
The report states: “This study really says the warming we are seeing is outside any kind of known natural variability, and it has to be due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
No, they are not known. So the author and colleagues should get off their collective butts and go find them. This is supposed to be science. In scientific research the challenge is to disprove a hypothesis not find a favorite excuse and go blame it. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are the most accurate theories we have know and yet these are under constant review. However the basic tenet of the green movement get precious little truly critical review. Why is this?
The change in temperature, if true, it large and over a vast area. The energy required to do this is enormous. So where is this energy coming from? If its from the sun, are the concentrations of greenhouse gases like CO2, CH4 and H20 higher in the artic?
The green movement suffers massively from the delusion that if they point to something and claim their favorite excuse everyone will believe. Then there's the massive sulk and tantrum when people don't agree. People are stupid - just not that stupid.
...A recent study has shown that over the past 100 years the average summer temperatures in the Eastern Canadian Arctic have been toastier than at any time for at least the past 44,000 years, and perhaps for as long as 120,000 years....
Er, not exactly.
The study looked at 139 sites. At 135 of them, the age of the moss exposed was around 1000 years, showing that it had been warmer than this 1000 years ago.
At 4 of them, the the age of the moss exposed was around 44,000 years, close to the limit of the age-measuring process.
It seems surprising that just a few sites should show a very great age of ice, when all around them, in some cases only a few hundred yards away, there is clear evidence of greater warmth in the last 1000 years. More work is obviously needed. I would consider those 4 sites closely, re-examine them, and check for error and contamination. With this data, I certainly wouldn't announce that the average summer temperatures in the whole Eastern Canadian Arctic are now 'toastier' than at any time for at least the past 44,000 years.
Unless I hadn't read the fine detail of the study, of course. I wonder if Rik Myslewski has...?
The only time the self appointed experts. media and governments will finally believe there is a problem is when a major western city disappears under water or the air we breath is so polluted milllions in the so called developed world are dying.
This is the reverse of the mobile phone radiation scare or MMR vaccine debacle in the UK.
Issues with mobile phone radiation were ridiculed as it would inconvenience people's lifestyles. It is only now that the long-term effects of electromagnetic radiation are stating to be understood and it is not necessarily good news.
MMR was a classic. A single paper linking MMR to Autism was seized upon by the media and milliions of parents stopped imunising their children. That paper has subsequenly been discredited however the fallout is that German Measles as becoming a major issue as the vaccination rates are too low to be effective.
German Measles is not a minor illness to be shrugged off like a cold and can have life changing consequences, particularly for females.
I bet u are, but not as much as your parents .....
WHY is everyone thinking a green future is low tech, green is high tech ....
Business can flood the planet with Mobile Phones/ Tablets etc, anything that comes with a bill, but a solar panel, a wind turbine something that don't get ongoing royalitys from is impossible, dreams, and for knuckle dragging cave dwellers ...
You are the lacky of energy companies who want you to keep them money .....
"WHY is everyone thinking a green future is low tech, green is high tech"..
That's debatable, as neither solar or wind are particularly high tech. The conversion efficiencies are dismally low and they both very high upfront capital investment. The only one that is high tech is nuclear, but we have had that working safely in the uk since the 1950's, in case anyone has forgotten.
Perhaps if we got really serious and spent a lot more money on fusion research, we would have a workable solution that really would tick all the boxes.
Ok, so what do you see as high tech in relation to green ?...
Well while not unopposed to teaching somebody something, Maybe you could use some of the tech in front of you, and look at ...
www.wired.com
www.newscientist.com/
Are 2 places I check out regularly, but GOOGLE is a choice.....
What is high tech about solar panels, wind turbines, Low Power Associated electrical control, lights/appliances, most coming from developments in Space Industry ?, Systems used in Hydroponics, ( cause we be growing food indoors, soon ), Systems for Water, (because that’s what we may be doomed to fight over ...) Cheap Relocatable housing, may be a boom industry, as people may need to move to avoid issues, but they always do...
Not to mention that most of this has only been around last 30 years, and a industry thats has roots in space missions, not be a high tech ? .....
Well while not unopposed to teaching somebody something, Maybe you could use some of the tech in front of you, and look at ...
www.wired.com
www.newscientist.com/
Are 2 places I check out regularly, but GOOGLE is a choice.....
That's very patronisingly good of you to suggest, but having done electronic design for a wortking life, software engineering since the late 1970's and mechanics / physics out of interest, I really ought to have some sort of clue. All I can say is that if the above two links above are the sort of places you go for scientific info, then i.m afraid you will end up misinformed. Most web sources are pretty lightweight in terns of fact, no depth etc and you have to go to specialist journals and websites to get the real picture. Still, all is surfaces and 2 minute attention spans on the web / social media, isn't it ?.
"What is high tech about solar panels, wind turbines, Low Power Associated electrical control, lights/appliances, most coming from developments in Space Industry ?, Systems used in Hydroponics, ( cause we be growing food indoors, soon ), Systems for Water, (because that’s what we may be doomed to fight over ...) Cheap Relocatable housing, may be a boom industry, as people may need to move to avoid issues, but they always do."
Absolute tripe. Sorry, 90% is just run of the mill electronics and engineering. While stuff like wind turbine blade design may have benefitted from aerospace practice, there's little else afaics. Space engineering ?, hilarious, you msut be kidding. :-)...
Chris
You sound like a Tripe salesman, you would know .....
Yeah, 2 sites where the basics, I am NOT google for idiots ....
Water conservation & recycling, nothing to do with space industry ?
Hydroponics, developed so they could grow plants in space ?
Solar Panels ?
Does the local servo give you cheap gas, to do "tripe" deliverys, or do you still work as engineer in tyre dept ?
As a child, I regularly used to watch my grandfather up north eating tripe every Saturday, with raw onions and malt, not wine venegar, but I never liked either the texture, or the taste, though it is supposed to be very good for you :-). And, we were discussing energy, not all the peripheral green stuff, but even that isn't space technology, though there may have been a few spinoffs.
As for batteries, there is a lot of research and progress, but again no free lunch. You have to take into account the cost / energy use of extraction of raw materials, processing, manufacturing, limited lifetime and disposal, much of which is bad for the environment.
Anyway, rather than comment something rational, you throw toys out of the cot, diss and have a sulky ?. How can I take that seriously ?...
Chris
Cost to whom .... arseholes who think they own it, or the planet/ecosystem that made them ???
When are the people who live on this world, allowed to own a share of the planet....
As for Batteries 1000 years they only got Erik Von Daniken WET, 100 years ago Tesla ruled, edison Electrocuted dogs to prove, it was better to give him money or more dogs would die(if u use AC by Tesla), 60 years ago Hiroshima learn't that conversation of energy, and sudden release can be a bad thing, 25 Years ago Sega made GAMEGEAR and batteries made sense to you, NOW days batteries do all sorts of things, power's chris's & Tridacs girlfriends, or boyfriends, Drills, Saws, CARS, SPACE SHUTTLES, SPAIN(solar/thermal) ? Not Enough I know, but we try, but trust me batteries are improving ....
Batteries that are enviromentally friendly ? No worries, try the Atlantic Ocean, or the Pacific Ocean, if easy to do thermal heat pump into deep ocean, might even suck out excess heat, but no, some rock/golf/tv star needs a boat the size of same island, or house the size of westfields, sure, but anything green is knuckledragging, unless it's on google play ?
Grind all cars into fillings, tip into sea, let plankton eat it, suck carbon out of atmosphere, nearly symbotic, Cars are big cause ... ( and young can't drive since GTA)...
The reason I gripe on is, 55 years ago, when I was little boy ....
The sun didn't sting your skin, like it does now ...
The sun didn't burn your Skin red after 1 hour exposure...
Suburbs in Sydney didn't flood, on high tides, like they do now ....
and many more whinges are available ......
"Suburbs in Sydney didn't flood, on high tides, like they do now ...."
I don't know what's causing the flooding or where precisely, I don't live in Sydney any more. However, the Fort Dennison tidal records which have been kept since the Fort's inception do not show any sea level increase beyond the trivial amount expected as we exit the ice age, and at a rate very consistent with proxy records.
I suspect there are other reasons for the "floods" to which you refer.
JamesTQ "cause we be growing food indoors, soon "
Err, no: with global warming, won't we simply return to farming in Greenland and northern Russia...?
"Systems for Water, (because that’s what we may be doomed to fight over ...) "
There's no shortage of water, only a shortage of infrastructure. It is reckoned that the London area population has increased by 10 in the last 20 years, while reservoir capacity has been increased by 0% in the same time...
@ Clunking Fist
With increasing severe weather patterns outdoor large scale farming needed may not survive these Changes ...
When/IF himalayas melt, and all fresh water for 4 Countries gets tipped into sea, Places like Pakinstan, India, Afganstan ETC, will have something new to fight over I think ...
All these things are just scenario's, get a grip, because I say it, doesn't make it law, you grant me more power than I need or want ...
@Tridac - "The conversion efficiencies are dismally low . . ."
First, I don't think it really is that low. The most economical ones might only run 7-10% but other technologies have reached to around 45%. Surely that means that solar energy is a very good candidate for investment to try and increase efficiency.
Coal stations started at around 20% efficiency and were improved with research and investment so that now the top stations can manage up to 45-48% efficiency.
One of the important points, however, is that a low efficiency solar panel is not really the same as a low efficiency coal-fired power plant. With the coal, the better the efficiency, the more power you get for each unit of finite fuel (coal) AND the less pollution per unit of power. That means that the difference between a coal plant running at 40% and one at 20% is that the latter effectively doubles the pollution per unit of energy generated and doubles the rate at which you deplete the finite resource of coal.
On the other hand, a solar panel running at 10% efficiency is not producing double the pollution (per unit of energy generated), nor is it using up more of the fuel per unit of power. (Not in any meaningful sense, anyway; a low-efficiency solar panel won't mean we run out of sunshine sooner, in contrast to low-efficiency coal plants.)
Obviously, what it does mean is that you need to spend more, either on additional land and infrastructure to place more cells or on better cells but the more that solar power is used, the more research and investment there will be into improvements and new technologies and the better the efficiency will get.
I know you weren't comparing solar power to coal but I used it as a parallel to illustrate how, firstly, the efficiency isn't really that low and secondly, how increased investment and utilisation will lead to gains in efficiency just like it has for coal.
"Dams are better "
They sure are! ...unless you live on a small, densely populated island with little in the way of mountains/high hills.
JamesQuirk, I think we can all agree that coal has draw backs. Where we can agree to disagree is whether CO2 is a pollutant or not.
So ideally, in the UK, gas is better than coal. You would like dams, however, dams flood large areas of land, not a goer in the UK. They're okay in Australia, and you can just about get away with it in NZ. But be advised, greenies, to whom you would wish to be associated with, hate dams. But in fact they seem to hate anything that brings energy to the proles and allows them to live a life.
@ Flunkies Grist
Ok I will try to make it easier for you to understand, as you have a vendetta (maybe it;s my typos/spelling), DAM = STORAGE, containment in a tank, on a hill, to drive a turbine downhill, Pump uphill with wind/solar/Vacume/Donkey and you have Storage to release power, when wind dont blow, sun dont shine
I think it's important to look at alternatives, adapt to change, learn from errors, I understand some people will cling on to what they know, it;s easier .... just not see this and take it as sort of personel attack, but this is a forum, wisps of ideas & thoughts, by Varied people, I Like hearing other opinions, why don't YOU ?
Overall efficiency also includes the cost of manaufacturing the item, installation, maintenance and expected life time, as well as the the efficiency of generation.. Solar would be a great idea if it were cheaper, but at present, if you cover you roof with solar panels, in the uk, it will take 10 to 15 years to recoup that investment in terms of energy generated, though it may give you a nice warm green feeling. Also, panels don't have an indefinate life. 15-20 years is typical, from figures i've seen, so just at the point where you've paid for them, they need replacement. As for wind farms out at sea (nimbys don't want to see them in nice parts of the landscape where there *is* loads of wind), the initial costs are astronomical and the salt atmosphere means that they need regular, expensive (as in difficult to access) maintenace.
No free lunch i'm afraid and nuclear is the only relaistic option at present...
Chris
@ Tridac
Nuclear Reactors, stalled bombs u get power from, seems to be current design, not much more evolved than the manhattan project ? That nuclear Power, is a evolutionary step, that westinghouse dont want people to leave, they must like cleaning & storage of left overs, or get a BIG fee ....
Thorium may be a goer, but doesn't mean it answer, Nuclear is messy horrible crap, not a battery or supply I favour, Seeing in tent, with Solar Panels, can happily have lights, Laptop, Phones, even a elec fridge, it gets comfy sometimes, and I seem to survive for weeks at a time, but maybe its not enough for some, they want AirCon in their CarPort, so I understand ....
Since the earths climate has changed to global warming... the glaciers have been retreating at an average rate of about 750 feet per year. Not yet equaled by the rate in the recent few decades, which might run as fast as 100 feet per year. The oceans have been rising an average of 6 mm per year, about double of todays predicted rate of 3 mm per year. The deeper one looks into the data, the more one suspects that todays situation is that the earths climate change is near the top of global warming and is wobbling around at the peak... to maybe, and sooner than later, start back into a cooling cycle. This change in direction probably will take hundreds of years or more. By then, we might have sequestered into permanent storage all the carbon needed by nature to maintain the natural cycle that has been continuous for over a million years. We just might make our future into a permanent ice ball !!
My personal opinion is that it a building reaction, we will enter, after peak inputs are reached, into long period of "ping-pong" effects in climate as it settles back to equilibrium, that we perceive as calm weather, how rough it gets depends on if we get a grip, and stop feeding processes & reactions, and making sure our society has technology in place to ride it out.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
