(AP Photo/U.S. Coast Guard, Petty Officer Patrick Kelley)
The news reports are full of it: arctic temperatures are the highest in the last 2,000 years – big hairy deal, and probably incorrect to boot.
It is wise to always be wary of reports that impose arbitrary limits on their time frames. This report says that the arctic is supposedly warmer now than at any time in the last 2,000 years. What about the last 3,000 years? Reports like this are politically motivated blatant attempts to get people excited over comparatively short term phenomena.
There are things we know from human history that argue very strongly against this notion. We know that Vikings were able to settle in Greenland between 900 AD and 1300 AD. They grew crops, raised cattle and thrived in climate that was warmer than today's. We know that from archaeological evidence, ice core studies, and a variety of other complicated scientific measuring tools. This period of time is known to geologists as the Medieval Warming which was a global event. During this time temperatures were at least 2 to 3 degrees Celsius warmer than the are today.
When Julius Caesar and Marc Anthony were busy sparking Cleopatra, global temperatures were higher than they are today, possibly as much as 6 degrees Celsius (10 degrees Fahrenheit). We know this from archaeological evidence (farmers were able to successfully grow crops at higher altitudes in the mountains than they can today), and the usual compliment of tree ring studies, ice core sampling, etc. But we don't need any of the science to realize that it was warmer then: Roman men wandered around in what amounts to a T-shirt, mini-skirt and bare-legged year round - something Italians cannot do today.
This period is known to geologists as the Roman Warming. It lasted from 250 BC to 450 AD, and it was substantially warmer then – world wide – then it is now. This very warm period in earth history is probably the reason why the reports state that “arctic temperatures are the highest in last 2,000 years,” because they most likely are NOT the highest in the last 2,250 years. See what a difference a couple centuries can make.
2,000 years is no big deal in the nearly 4,000,000,000 years of the planet's history. More importantly, we only have 37 years of accurate temperature records for the arctic to go on – measuring did not start until 1972. We know the last 37 years with certainty, and the rest by inference from other sources. And combining the two, we discover that the arctic has been warming for at least 120 years.
Bear in mind also, that the two warm periods mentioned above – the Medieval Warming and the Roman Warming – both occurred before the post WWII massive industrialization which is claimed to be causing catastrophic changes in earth's climate. Pfui. Something other than carbon dioxide must be driving climate change.
Melting arctic ice is normal. The ice cap always melts at its leading edge. It has been doing this for thousands of years and will continue to do this for thousands of years to come. Ice bergs form all the time, sometimes they wipe out ocean liners but most sailors are wise enough to steer clear of them. This is the way the world works.
It takes a huge gob of heat to melt ice. 80 calories of heat must be applied to a single cubic centimeter of ice (approximately 1/16 of a cubic inch) to convert it from ice to water. From then on a single calorie of heat will raise the temperature of water one degree Celsius (that's the definition of a calorie, by the way). To melt a significant amount of ice requires a lot of heat. Much more heat than can be accounted for by 6/10 of a degree Celsius which was the net increase recorded in the 20th century.
The arctic region is one of the least well understood parts of the planet. It's climate depends on incoming solar radiation, the circulation of tropical ocean currents and probably several more things we have yet to notice.
It's counter-intuitive but colder weather causes the ice caps to shrink and warmer weather causes the ice caps to grow. It works like this: warmer weather causes more water to evaporate from the oceans thus increasing precipitation on the ice cap. Colder weather yields less evaporation and less precipitation. The ice cap is in a constant state of rebuilding itself.
The notion that you can explain arctic temperatures by the use of single variable, CO2, is poppycock.
There are more things going on in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the Global Warming alarmist's philosophy.
Want to read more articles by the Washington County Independent Examiner?
Subscribe at the top of this column to receive e-mail updates.
Make a comment and add to the discussion, or send Dave an e-mail.
Comments
What irresponsible nonsense, and what an abuse of your journalistic voice. To take a few misinterpreted facts, string them into an incoherent argument with a few tastes of historical fact and to then throw them against the consensus of the world of international science – you should be ashamed. The scientists of the world have invested lifetimes into carefully analyzing and interpreting real data to provide the most realistic interpretation of modern warming trends, yet you use a (misguided) opinion and politics to erode the urgent fact that we ARE influencing climate, and that the way of life you seem to value is dependent upon us taking action. Have a look at Google Earth someday and try and find a large path of ground outside of the Arctic or Antarctic that is not bearing the evidence of industrial development – things have changed since the days of the Vikings and the Romans.
I'll only take to the most blantant lies in your pieces:
- Medieval warming was not a global event as you write, but rather, as the Wikipedia entry YOU LINK TO says: "a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region". Regional event. Mainly in Europe. Get over it.
- Greenland was just as green as today - that is, a little in the South, where the few settlements still are, and definitively white in the North. The Greenland is green myth was invented by Eric the Red, a Viking king, who wanted to encourage people to settle there. False advertising before its time.
Lets look at Greenland, shall we. Viking settlers raised crops and livestock higher up in the fjords than are usable today. They buried their dead in six foot deep graves during the height of the Medieval Warming. Towards the end of their existence in Greenland, as the world cooled, their graves are shallower and their settlements moved south. Grave digging is a function of the permafrost - as the permafrost returned, graves grew shallower. No fancy-dancy scientific studies with tree rings or ice-cores needed. It was warmer for a while and then grew colder.
Because of precession (or earth's 'wobble'), Arctic temperatures should be much COOLER today than 2000 years ago. But they are not.
We have had two years of unusually low solar activity yet Arctic sea ice is still less than the last 30 year's average (which included 1998).
Please tell me this article is a hoax.
During the Medieval Warming period, during the Northern Sung Dynasty(961 AD - 1127 AD) China experienced a warming period as well. We know this from a study of palace records which include both harvest records and populations counts. Funny, last time I looked China was not connected to the North Atlantic. BTW, similar things were recorded in Japan at this time.
This was a global event.
In order to support the nonsense of Global Warming, the Medieval Warming must be ignored or diminished since it undermines the theory if allowed to exist. But wishes don't make thigs go away. Facts are stubborn things.
Arctic ice melting - baloney. Try this one:
www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/
Pat, what about the scientists who invested lifetimes into documenting past climate records, only to have it all trashed by the modern day AGW supporters. Prior to 1980, it was well excepted that the Medieval warm period did exist and was much warmer than it was today, it was taught in grade school and in university. I have science books to prove it.
As I stated - misinterpreted facts. I do not for a second doubt regional warming trends in Europe; there is a wealth of information about this including in the same ice cores that tell us about the more worrying human induced warming we are have witnessed since the industrial revolution. I am not about to update the 1980s text books with the nearly three decades of science since they were written - if you read even a fraction of the information available in scientific literature you will find the answers you are looking for. I encourage you all to look to science not journalistic opinions and political mandates. You will find the real answers disturbing...much more disturbing than an alleged hoax. Unfortunately for climate skeptics, the so called scientific debate over climate warming does not actually exist in the scientific literature - the overwhelming consensus of the facts points to human induced warming.
Pat,
"[T]he so called scientific debate over climate warming does not actually exist in the scientific literature..."
On that you are quite wrong. Do some research and you'll discover that on many different fronts there is increasing skepticism on Global Warming. Don't get your science from the AP or the NYT, check it out for yourself.
Your article seems reasonable, but given the temperature anomoly graphic and explanation in this article, I have to give this round the alarmist folk.
www.examiner.com/x-10834-Pittsburgh-Weather-Examiner~y2009m9d7-Arctic-temperatures-highest-in-2000-years
Kevin,
Space does not permit a reply here - see:
www.examiner.com/x-12465-Washington-County-Independent-Examiner~y2009m9d9-High-arctic-temperatures-simply-continuing-a-120-year-trend
Interesting read.
http: //www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure.htm
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!