Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
warming from history
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
Given the concerns today about climate temprature rise as a result of C02 emmissions etc,do the contributers think that mans activities 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 could have exacerbated the problem?
If you think about the levels of desruction and the amount of fumes given off(from fires,cordite etc,the fact that a lot of industry was coal driven and that production had been "ramped up" to maximum levels,is it possible that it could have an effect?
Vf -
Message 2
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
Global warming...Since the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has barely changed in the last 100 years, I doubt that Man has anything to do with the climate change that is going on. This post from another website sums it up nicely.
Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930's the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.
The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth's climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.
What the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.
Something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970's, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age.
A letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6, 2006 by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism, clearly explains the current state of scientific knowledge on global warming. The 60 scientists wrote: "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." The letter also noted: "‘Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise."
In 2006, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks Alaska, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than "science fiction."
"Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again." That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.
A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor "Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age." The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the "Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold." An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: "Ice Age Coming Here."
By the 1930's, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming: "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise" stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.
The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles. An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared: "Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada." The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be "wiped out" and Switzerland would be "entirely obliterated."
A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade." The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, "mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence" would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that "A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable."
On February 19, 2006, CBS News's "60 Minutes" produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water. "60 Minutes" failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.
According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was "0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average."
In August 2006, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun's output.
Ìý
It's part of 21st century thing which says that regardless of what happens, someone is to blame. As far as I'm concerned, things change and we may not know the reason. -
Message 3
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
HiVF,
The enviromental damge caused by the wars isnt so much atmospheric. There are still problems in France with unexploded shells and leakage from the ones containing poison gas. Although aparantly mustard gas degrades to a rather good fertiliser.
There are still mine fields in the English channel and the North Sea.
One of Eygpt and libyas complaints is that there are huge minefields left in the western desert.
Parts of Laos and Cambodia are literally littered with UXO's from the Vietnam wars.
As for climate change as a whole it may be that humans are having an effect but the world is quite capable of changing things itself, ice ages etc. I dont think theres anyone who can say for sure that we are definetly causing some of the problems. But I dont think it will do too much harm if we proceed as if we are. We only have one planet to call home it seems a silly to soil the nest. -
Message 4
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
What's the source of that quote George?
I have to disagree though - I studied climate change at uni and there is plenty of evidence to suggest (we cannot prove it remember) that the current warming of the earth if anthropogenically induced, the trouble is often the reporting in the non-academic press and the propoganda you often read (admittedly from both sides!).
The reason why many scientists were talking of an ice age a few decades ago is due to the Milankovic Cycles, which are the cycles the earth goes through in its orbit round the sun - the orbit isn't regular and goes through cycles, thus affecting the amount of heat/energy reaching the earth. These cycles match the periods of glacial and inter-glacial periods (glacials last c.100,000 years, inter-glacials last c10,000-15,000 years). As the last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago, and as we know the earth is heading towards a period when the amount of energy from the sun will be diminishing, then it is logical to conclude that an ice age is imminent (when I say imminent, I mean in geological terms - i.e. the next few thousand years).
When you have a complex and huge system such as the earth's atmosphere, it takes time for any changes in atmospheric content to have an effect on the climate. That is why the end of the Little Ice Age has nothing to do with the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
Your assertion Since the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has barely changed in the last 100 yearsÌý is wrong, as mentioned in the article you quoted. Also, looking at some atmospheric data, such as the link below, shows that CO2 levels have risen.
Oh yes, it might be from Wikipedia, but this data is used in academic text books and this graph is taken from here:
I always find this graph interesting. It clearly shows the level of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 400,000 years following the Milankovic cycles, and you'll note that the warm inter-glacials are very short in relation to the glacials. However, on the extreme right of the graph there is an explosion far beyond any of the natural variations in CO2, as shown in the insert over a much shorter time frame.
Using data like this (much more than what I've shown), in my opinion I think the current climate changes are due to human interaction with the atmosphere. But I also believe that even if we are not the cause, can we really afford to be so blasé (or arrogant) to ignore the possibility that we might be...? I think that's the important point to consider. -
Message 5
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
A good description of the Milankovic Cycles, which are considered the driving force behind the glacial and inter-glacial periods in earth's history.
The Little Ice Age is thought to have been caused by heightened volcanic activity and solar activity (something called the Maunder Minimum) - both natural phenomona and which the opposites cannot be used to explain the current climate changes/fluctuations. -
Message 6
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
Stoggler
Those graphs look very dramatic because of the scaling. I am not a scientist, but an increase of 60 parts per million - or .006% - is not going to have a significant effect on the climate. The cycles in the graph show that CO2 levels rise and fall over really long periods of time, and the most likely explanation for climate change is not to do with CO2 emissions.
Incidentally, that response was from a scientist to a message board debating global warming. -
Message 7
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
an increase of 60 parts per million - or .006% - is not going to have a significant effect on the climate.Ìý
Take another look George. The cycles that correspond to the ice ages are only +/- 60 ppm. So that number IS significant in climate terms. And the recent increase is on top of a long term natural increase.
Can you say which oil or energy corp. the scientist you are quoting works for?
Several newspapers today are reporting how big pharmaceutical cos. suppress negative test results when publicising drug trial outcomes. It's the same thing with energy and climate change. -
Message 8
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
Did the CO2 levels cause the ice ages? Or did the ice age cause CO2 levels to increase?
I don't know whether there is a causal effect going on here. Whatever, I don't think there is any evidence that the levels of CO2 are causing the climate to change. I don't dispute that the climate is changing, nor that CO2 is increasing. I don't know whether the two are linked, that's all.
The scientist works at Edinburgh University. -
Message 9
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
So, we take on the biggest engineering works ever. Round the likes of Australia, Africa and the U S, we build be desalination plants converting the sea water (That will rise if/when the ice melts) into fresh water. Then pump it inland turning the deserts into green fields. On the Missippi River,great pipes could be built to divert the flood waters that strike the mid west, and again the water diverted into the deserts, or even into the grass lands that have been in a drought for years. It may mean using Nuc. power, but change the deserts.
-
Message 10
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
George
As Plotinlaois mentions, 60 parts per million is significant, and looking at the graph where the levels of CO2 are now are way above that or any of the natural cycles over the last half a million years - it's a huge increase in an exceptionally short amount of time (geologically speaking) - that is not natural.
However, your comment about whether CO2 is the cause or a sympton of climate change is a valid one, and the point is WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
But as I said in an earlier message - CAN WE AFFORD TO DO NOTHING? To do nothing just because we cannot be certain is very obtuse and short-sighted. Yes, some scientists are not convinced by the anthropogenic cause of climate change, but many others are so to just take the reasonings of one group and ignore the others is like sticking your head in the sand. -
Message 11
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
Grumpyfred - the ice in Greenland is thicker than it's been for 40 years. If the ice at the North Pole melts it won't make any difference whatsoever to the sea level because the Arctic is just sea ice anyway.
Sure, let's take action to reduce CO2 levels, and make our use of fossil fuels more efficient but let's not get caught up in this media frenzy. CO2 levels will come down anyway, regardless of what we do. -
Message 12
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
CO2 levels will come down anyway, regardless of what we do. Ìý
How do you know that? Again, look at the charts - the recent rise in CO2 is not a natural increase. And if it does come down, when will it be? As such changes take centuries at the least to kick in, the damage could be way too late and life on earth as we know it would have ceased.
the ice in Greenland is thicker than it's been for 40 years.Ìý
Please can you back that assertion up with a reference? As what I have read is contrary to what you say:
Again, I am using Wikipedia but look at the reference at the bottom of the page, this is a page that has been properly researched and referenced, and in my opinion represents the academic findings.
If the ice at the North Pole melts it won't make any difference whatsoever to the sea level because the Arctic is just sea ice anyway.Ìý
Yes it will. When molecules have more heat applied to them they vibrate more and expand - this happens to water molecules when the sea temperature rises (as is happening) and the sea level will rise as a result. But this also ignores the melting ice on Greenland and the other polar land regions in the Arctic, as well as a retreating polar ice cap in Antarctica.
let's not get caught up in this media frenzyÌý
I'm not, I've read academic papers and books on this subject, and am trying to be objective about it. I dispair at the way this subject gets reported in the press as it glosses over a complex subject (so nothing new there then). -
Message 13
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
...and life on earth as we know it would have ceased. Ìý
Ok, maybe not! But it will certainly be affected greatly. -
Message 14
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
Water expands when it turns to ice - it is densest at about 4C or 39F. That's why pipes burst when the water inside freezes (although you don't find out until the thaw comes). The ice at the Arctic is floating on the Arctic Ocean. If and when it melts, the sea level will not be affected.
-
Message 15
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
We should not worry about life as we know it comming to an end. Senior Gov. and their friends will live on somewhere. So I can stop loosing sleep. Over the years, many inventores have come up with other ways of powering engines. Some have been silly, Some have worked, but all have vanished. All seemed to have been bought out by the Petro companies, not wanting to see their profits vanish. H M G invested in an engine that converted water. (B B C Radio Merseyside a few years ago) but realised you cannot tax something that falls from the sky. So, is it time for governments to take a stand. If they are really interested in global warming, one answer would be to state that as from 2000 and ?? no new petrol/ deisel engine will be allowed to be built. Then say as from 2000 and ?? no car over say 1000lt. or doing less than 40 miles per gallon in towns will be allowed to be sold. But all this government (And I mean whoever is in power) is see Global warming as a way of getting more tax. Most of which, (Green Taxes) never go into green projects.
Rant over. -
Message 16
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
"Both the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps are thickening. The temperature at the South Pole has declined by more than one degree C since 1950. And the overall area of sea ice around the continent has increased over the last 20 years." -- Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia. -
Message 17
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
Well the second link says:
A U.S. study suggests two of Greenland’s largest glaciers are melting at variable rates and not at an increasing trend.
The glaciers shrank dramatically and dumped twice as much ice into the sea during a period of less than a year between 2004 and 2005.
Then, fewer than two years later, they returned to near their previous rates of discharge.Ìý
Fair enough. It then says:
"Our main point," said Ian Howat, a researcher with the University of Colorado who lead the study, "is that the behavior of these glaciers can change a lot from year to year, so we can’t assume to know the future behavior from short records of recent changes."Ìý
So not a lot can be read into that particular article.
The first article refers to a link which is a news story from the ABC in Australia. This article does say that the ice cap is thickening in places, and has this for a reason:
But, they say, the thickening seems consistent with theories of global warming, blamed by most experts on a build-up of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars.
Warmer air, even if it is still below freezing, can carry more moisture. That extra moisture falls as snow below 0°C.
And the scientists say that the thickening of the icecap might be offset by a melting of glaciers around the fringes of Greenland. Ìý
So it would appear that this thickening in places is probably anthropogenic too!
The same article mentions a second published piece in which says:
"Ice sheets now appear to be contributing modestly to sea level rise because warming has increased mass loss from coastal areas more than warming has increased mass gain from enhanced snowfall in cold central regions," the report by a team led by Professor Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University in the US says.
"Greenland presently makes the largest contribution to sea level rise." Ìý
That last sentence is rather interesting, don't you think. Just to reiterate:
"Greenland presently makes the largest contribution to sea level rise." Ìý
Ok, I was wrong to say that the ice cap in Greenland is not thickening. It is, but not everywhere. As usual, the situation is not straightforward and is more complex than is often made out. As this map shows:
there are rapid retreats of ice on the edge of the ice cap in Greenland, but accumulation in the interior. -
Message 18
Posted by Scarboro (U2806863) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
Discussion about glaciers growing/retreating are interesting. Observations: mountain glaciers in North America and Europe are definitely receding, Arctic sea ice is definitely thinning.
The amount of water tied up in glaciers can be measured, and sea level increases can be predicted for any given amount of melting. This is just mathematics.
Unknown factors are the actual causality of the changes, and whether they are cyclical or not. This is not a science board, and we should not pretend to the contrary.
From a historical perspective, one might look at the climate in 1000 AD, when Greenland had arable farmland, and then at approx 1400 AD when the Thames River froze over. I am aware that the data from the past hundred years is just a drop in the bucket, and it is possible that man-made forces are not as prominent as we might wish to believe.
I also am aware that whatever the cause, a climate change that raises sea levels even a little could drown cities at sea level, like poor New Orleans. Climate change that dries up the American Southwest and makes the Canadian Prairies lush could create some interesting international diplomacy.
Whether man-made or natural, we need to understand climate change, and the historical records can serve to help.
Brian -
Message 19
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
one might look at the climate in 1000 AD, when Greenland had arable farmlandÌý Do we know what the sea levels were at that time?
-
Message 20
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
and then at approx 1400 AD when the Thames River froze over.Ìý
An interesting bit of info I got from QI once - it's thought that it was the old London Bridge that caused the Thames to freeze over in some winters. The reason why was because the medieval London Bridge had (I think) 14 arches, all very close to each other. The result was that it had a weir effect on the river with the river being slowed down, with often as much as 6 feet difference in height between the river level either side of the bridge. Because the river was not moving very quickly up-river, it was slow enough for it to freeze over.
The River Thames has never frozen over completely in central London since the old medieval bridge was demolished. -
Message 21
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
"Discussion about glaciers growing/retreating are interesting. Observations: mountain glaciers in North America and Europe are definitely receding, Arctic sea ice is definitely thinning"
Definitely interesting Scarboro.
Glaciers in the Andes and Himalayas are also retreating at an alarming rate. Glacial lakes are full to the brim from the melt which, of course, endangers everyone living in lower regions.
"Whether man-made or natural, we need to understand climate change, and the historical records can serve to help."
Much more than help, we can't possibly know which climatic cycles are normal and which are abnormal without historical data. Whether written or findings from dendrochronology, ice-core samples etc. It all serves to piece the puzzle and history is key to reaching conclusions. -
Message 22
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
There was a series of frost fairs on the Thames, the last being 1814.
You are right about the effect of the London bridge, but it was built in 1823, not in medieval times. -
Message 23
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
Erm, do you want to reread what you wrote there George, as it doesnt make sense. Last frost fair was in 1814 so how come the bridge built in 1823 have an effect after the last frost fair?
There have been a number of London Bridges. It was the medieval bridge which had 14 arches and restricted the flow of the river. The one built in the first half of the 19th century replaced the medieval one and it was this one that crossed the river until the 60s when it was sold and was replaced by the current one. -
Message 24
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Thursday, 28th February 2008
I guess between 1814 and 1823 it wasn't cold enough for long enough for the river to freeze over. After 1823 the bridge and the building of the embankments meant that the river flowed too fast even when it was cold enough.
I have seen ice on the Thames a few times though, near Putney where it's a bit wider and shallower at the edge. -
Message 25
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Thursday, 28th February 2008
An article on the Frost Fairs
Another factor on the Thames freezing was that before it had quays built it was a wider and slower-flowing river, thus it was easier for the river to freeze over.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.