The National Academy of Sciences has released a report about
Earth's temperatures over a long period of time and they say
they are confident that right now we are at the
hottest point for at least the last 400 years, if not the
last several millenia. The findings are based on all the physical
evidence they can use, such things as tree rings, ice cores and
marine sediments.
partial press release:
"There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes,
retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past
surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that
the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any
comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new
report from the National Research Council. Less confidence
can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface
temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote
the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate
that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than
during any other 25-year period since 900. Very little
confidence can be placed in statements about average global
surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy data for
that time frame are sparse, the committee added.
Scientists rely on proxies to reconstruct paleoclimatic surface
temperatures because geographically widespread records of
temperatures measured with instruments date back only about 150
years. Other proxies include corals, ocean and lake
sediments, ice cores, cave deposits, and documentary sources,
such as historic drawings of glaciers. The globally
averaged warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees
Celsius) that instruments have recorded during the last century
is also reflected in proxy data for that time period, the
committee noted.
The report was requested by Congress after a controversy arose
last year over surface temperature reconstructions published by
climatologist Michael Mann and his colleagues in the late 1990s.
The researchers concluded that the warming of the Northern
Hemisphere in the last decades of the 20th century was
unprecedented in the past thousand years. In particular,
they concluded that the 1990s were the warmest decade, and 1998
the warmest year. Their graph depicting a rise in
temperatures at the end of a long era became known as the
"hockey stick."
The Research Council committee found the Mann team's
conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th
century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be
plausible, but it had less confidence that the warming was
unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies -- in fewer locations
-- provide temperatures for periods before then. Because of
larger uncertainties in temperature reconstructions for decades
and individual years, and because not all proxies record
temperatures for such short timescales, even less confidence can
be placed in the Mann team's conclusions about the 1990s, and
1998 in particular.
The committee noted that scientists' reconstructions of
Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures for the past thousand
years are generally consistent. The reconstructions show
relatively warm conditions centered around the year 1000, and a
relatively cold period, or "Little Ice Age," from
roughly 1500 to 1850. The exact timing of warm episodes in
the medieval period may have varied by region, and the magnitude
and geographical extent of the warmth is uncertain, the committee
said. None of the reconstructions indicates that
temperatures were warmer during medieval times than during the
past few decades, the committee added.
The scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence for temperatures
before 1600, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, is the main
reason there is less confidence in global reconstructions dating
back further than that. Other factors that limit confidence
include the short length of the instrumental record, which is
used to calibrate and validate reconstructions, and the
possibility that the relationship between proxy data and local
surface temperatures may have varied over time. It also is
difficult to estimate a mean global temperature using data from a
limited number of sites. On the other hand, confidence in
large-scale reconstructions is boosted by the fact that the
proxies on which they are based generally exhibit strong
correlations with local environmental conditions.
Confidence increases further when multiple independent
lines of evidence point to the same general phenomenon, such as
the Little Ice Age.
Collecting additional proxy data, especially for years before
1600 and for areas where the current data are relatively sparse,
would increase our understanding of temperature variations over
the last 2,000 years, the report says. In addition,
improving access to data on which published temperature
reconstructions are based would boost confidence in the results.
The report also notes that new analytical methods, or more
careful use of existing methods, might help circumvent some of
the current limitations associated with large-scale
reconstructions.
The committee pointed out that surface temperature
reconstructions for periods before the Industrial Revolution --
when levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases were much lower --
are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the
conclusion that current warming is occurring in response to human
activities, and they are not the primary evidence."
free online
report
Though I haven't yet read the actual report, I am glad that someone on that side of the debate has pointed out what the skeptics have been saying for several years, specifically that the Mann team's proxy data past a certain a point is less precise than it was claimed to be.
I'm still not convinced -- it does take a lot to get me to go along with many things, especially if they are counter-intuitive -- but I'm willing to give the human-assisted climate change (HACC) theory more credence. Whether it is, or not, what I believe to be solutions to pollution and energy supply in general are the same as what I think would be the best solution to HACC: nuclear power, supplemented by solar power sourced from non-PV sources, on the grid side of things, and high-efficiency pluggable hybrids and generally lower-power devices at the home. I'd prefer to buy a TV with NVRAM to store settings with a standard CR2032 battery RTC than have it leech 5W of power from the wall. I'm looking at replacing my CRT monitors at home with LCDs in the near future (within the next three months). It will just make power consumption that much lower for me.
BTW, does anyone know if there are decent LED light bulb replacements for 60W and 100W lights? I've found replacements for 25W bulbs, but considering how bad my roommate is about leaving lights turned on all over the apartment, I'd like to minimize that cost as well.
this place has 5W LED bulb supposed to equal 50W bulb in output for $50, maybe two of these could fit in "Y" one-to-two bulb socket, or maybe you'd have to rig something else up to get 100W. cost 1.6 cents per 10 hours to run instead of 8 cents.......
I use a number of them around my house and they are getting quite inexpensive. A 13 watt fluorescent produces equivalent light to a 60 watt incandescent with a much longer life.
I used them, too, in all but one lamp (no one sells 3-way compact fluorescents around here -- even Home Depot didn't have them in stock when I checked). But I'd like to push the situation even further if I can. Merely mentioning it to someone could spark them to consider it. It's at least an interesting novelty item.
I only have a couple of them and am happy to use the single brightness ones in most applications. As I recall, I got them at Lowes. I even got some flood lamp replacements to use in some recessed lights, but they seem to take a minute or so to come up to full brightness for some reason.
The downside to the fluorescents is the color of the light which is not quite as "warm" as incandescents.
We do not usually have snowfalls this early, and certainly not down to almost sealevel. I live in Wellington (bottom of the North Island - not shown in photo but is to the upper right) and in the last few days we have had a sprinkling of snow around the hills, again not usually this early in the year. Makes for good skiing though, if it keeps up to the beginning of the season. :-)
Well, then that's in keeping with how global warming has affected the Northern Hemisphere- earlier, more violent swings in weather marking the begining of the seasons. This weekend in Portland, OR, which is normally rainy throughout June, we had recordbreaking high temperatures.
Climate change, or "HACC", does not necessarilly mean increased temperature, you yourself have admitted these climate patterns you are experiancing to be unusual.
Temperature is only one form energy can take within our climate, another being motion. Where are the real energy studies of our climate?
Infact if someone could point me in the direction of non-temperature based Earth-Science climatological resources and websites, I would be most appreciative.
Earth at Highest Temps for 400 Years
The National Academy of Sciences has released a report about Earth's temperatures over a long period of time and they say they are confident that right now we are at the hottest point for at least the last 400 years, if not the last several millenia. The findings are based on all the physical evidence they can use, such things as tree rings, ice cores and marine sediments.
partial press release:
"There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council. Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900. Very little confidence can be placed in statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy data for that time frame are sparse, the committee added.
Scientists rely on proxies to reconstruct paleoclimatic surface temperatures because geographically widespread records of temperatures measured with instruments date back only about 150 years. Other proxies include corals, ocean and lake sediments, ice cores, cave deposits, and documentary sources, such as historic drawings of glaciers. The globally averaged warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) that instruments have recorded during the last century is also reflected in proxy data for that time period, the committee noted.
The report was requested by Congress after a controversy arose last year over surface temperature reconstructions published by climatologist Michael Mann and his colleagues in the late 1990s. The researchers concluded that the warming of the Northern Hemisphere in the last decades of the 20th century was unprecedented in the past thousand years. In particular, they concluded that the 1990s were the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year. Their graph depicting a rise in temperatures at the end of a long era became known as the "hockey stick."
The Research Council committee found the Mann team's conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be plausible, but it had less confidence that the warming was unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies -- in fewer locations -- provide temperatures for periods before then. Because of larger uncertainties in temperature reconstructions for decades and individual years, and because not all proxies record temperatures for such short timescales, even less confidence can be placed in the Mann team's conclusions about the 1990s, and 1998 in particular.
The committee noted that scientists' reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures for the past thousand years are generally consistent. The reconstructions show relatively warm conditions centered around the year 1000, and a relatively cold period, or "Little Ice Age," from roughly 1500 to 1850. The exact timing of warm episodes in the medieval period may have varied by region, and the magnitude and geographical extent of the warmth is uncertain, the committee said. None of the reconstructions indicates that temperatures were warmer during medieval times than during the past few decades, the committee added.
The scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence for temperatures before 1600, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, is the main reason there is less confidence in global reconstructions dating back further than that. Other factors that limit confidence include the short length of the instrumental record, which is used to calibrate and validate reconstructions, and the possibility that the relationship between proxy data and local surface temperatures may have varied over time. It also is difficult to estimate a mean global temperature using data from a limited number of sites. On the other hand, confidence in large-scale reconstructions is boosted by the fact that the proxies on which they are based generally exhibit strong correlations with local environmental conditions. Confidence increases further when multiple independent lines of evidence point to the same general phenomenon, such as the Little Ice Age.
Collecting additional proxy data, especially for years before 1600 and for areas where the current data are relatively sparse, would increase our understanding of temperature variations over the last 2,000 years, the report says. In addition, improving access to data on which published temperature reconstructions are based would boost confidence in the results. The report also notes that new analytical methods, or more careful use of existing methods, might help circumvent some of the current limitations associated with large-scale reconstructions.
The committee pointed out that surface temperature reconstructions for periods before the Industrial Revolution -- when levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases were much lower -- are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that current warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence."
free online report