6 ms·

Climate was hotter in Roman, medieval times than now

36 points by iProject 14y ago

JacobAldridge 14y ago
"it is a central plank of climate policy worldwide that the current temperatures are the highest ever seen for many millennia, and that this results from rising levels of atmospheric CO2 emitted by human activities" No, it's not. It's known (see edit) that the earth was warmer about 1,000 years ago - it was part of why I resisted climate science for so long (the Roman part is new to me, though of course no Romans were growing trees in Scandinavia). That it was hotter then does not mean recent warming is natural - it just means needing other evidence for claims of human contribution. Which I believe exists. Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
- graeme 14y ago
  Err...even if temperatures were higher in the past, that doesn't affect whether humans are contributing to recent warming (i.e. whether it is natural). Everyone agrees that humans are warming the climate. It's referred to as a "forcing" in the quoted study. The disagreement is on how much of an impact we're having. edit: sorry, just noticed the study didn't mention human forcings. But, if you read most skeptic scientists, they're just disagreeing about impact. You can replicate CO2's warming effect in a lab.
jellicle 14y ago
Nothing to do with Hacker News, therefore flagged. Here is a very simple, short, 15-minute guide to climate change: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7ktYbVwr90 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7ktYbVwr90
- EvilTerran 14y ago
  http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
gouranga 14y ago
Probably was. Climate doom and gloom is a political thing, not a scientific thing. It's not possible to take at best 80 years of reasonable data from 4.54 billion years of the planet's lifetime and come up with sensible climate projections.
- jellicle 14y ago
  > Climate doom and gloom is a political thing, not a scientific thing. No, it sure isn't. It's been made into a political thing because one group of businesses and their wholly-owned political party have decided to deny reality.
  - gouranga 14y ago
    I think you haven't been around long enough to remember the climate scandals of the 1970s. You know when we had an impending ice age. My grandfather also reminded me of the heatwaves in the 1950s and the associated "science" which came out then. In climatology, the hypothesis has become the theory. The scientific method is therefore invalid ergo it is not science.
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    Let's pretend for a moment that the entire Republican party has a miraculous change of heart, and agrees to everything the "scientists" are asking for. Cap and trade, emissions taxes, unshackled EPA emissions limits, huge subsidies for renewables... you name it. A cost in trillions, I'm quite sure. What will we have accomplished? China's still going to keep right on industrializing. They'll probably industrialize even faster because we'll have pushed all our "dirty" energy consuming industries their way, where they'll be run at less efficiency and with even greater overall emissions. The Chinese are the "deniers" you should be worried about: They've never promised to do anything but potentially reduce their emissions "intensity", which means emissions/GDP. That was always bound to happen anyway as their industries become more mechanically efficient. In absolute terms their emissions are going to keep on growing and growing. Even if they go as "green" as the nuclear French, they'll be emitting more than the U.S. in a decade or so. They are smart folks and they've decided that giving their people a Western standard of living is more important to them than a few potential degrees of warming. And there's nothing you or I can do about it. EDIT: Oops, they're already emitting 50% more than the U.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#List_of_countries_by_2010_emissions_estimates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio...
forgotAgain 14y ago
So how come glaciers that are thousands, if not tens of thousands of years old are disappearing now?
- brohee 14y ago
  Hotter atmosphere but with less direct sun exposure (more clouds, less solar activity) may mean less ice melting on a glacier.
- gouranga 14y ago
  How do we know if thousands of years ago, glaciers that were thousands of years old weren't disappearing as well?
  - antidaily 14y ago
    pretty easy to date the materials under them
- rimantas 14y ago
  Some are growing: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/9206785/Himalayan-glaciers-growing-despite-global-warming.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/9...
graeme 14y ago
The study: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nc...
ramblerman 14y ago
I'm not versed in climatology or environmental science, and frankly neither are most people. As such the issue of global warming really confuses me, to the point that I'm now on the fence. I've seen people with no knowledge on the matter become violent when it is challenged. A typical rebuttal might be "Well the glaciers are disappearing" in the same way christian fundamentalists use one liners to negate evolution. Science shouldn't be emotional, and I find that worrying. As stated though, I don't know much about the issue first hand, I read the paper and have to make my assumptions based on it. If anyone can chime in and correct me then by all means feel free. --- P.S I have no doubt we are screwing up our environment and need urgent change, but the psychology surrounding global warming is a bit odd to me.
- ljf 14y ago
  I think that part of the issue is the old school title of 'global warming' - as a whole it may well be that the planet earth is warming - but many (may) see their areas get cooler, or nothing happen at all. I prefer to refer to it as 'climate change' - you can add 'man made' to the front of that if you wish, but just slightly changing the term of reference stops at least a few of the standard comments in the UK; "well the last few summers have been rubbish, so there is no global warming!". Just a thought.
  - iuguy 14y ago
    I'm with the parent on this one. The politics really make it difficult for a normal person to see the wood for the trees, let alone the science. There are interest groups on all sides, and I have a couple of research scientist friends who've told me that they've been able to find funding for research that otherwise wouldn't be available as long as they can relate that research in terms of climate science, which also makes me feel as though the whole thing is politicised. I think I can definitely agree that the climate is changing, so the term climate change would (at least as far as I can tell as a layman, not a climate scientist) be accurate. Historical records in either direction show that the climate has changed, and that continuation makes a lot of sense. It would also make sense to me that changes in one area in one direction may be different to others, making it more difficult to measure in a simplified manner.
Produce 14y ago
Wow, so the Romans must have used fossil fuels too!
twelvechairs 14y ago
Its probably important to point out that this study is about one area of the globe only (northern Scandinavia).
pilgrim689 14y ago
Similarly to ramblerman, I am not well versed in climatology. I do remember reading in Superfreakonomics, though, that what's cause for concern is not the temperature or the amount of CO2 in the air (both being arguably normal), it's the rate at which CO2 amounts are increasing (which is abnormal).
- gnud 14y ago
  That chapter in superfreakonomics is terrible. I only have a superficial knowledge of common claims and counter-claims in climate science, but I put down the book in disgust halfway through that chapter. Read more at [The Economist](http://www.economist.com/node/14738383 http://www.economist.com/node/14738383) or Eric Pooley for [Bloomberg](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2009-10-19/freakonomics-guys-flunk-science-of-climate-change-eric-pooley.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2009-10-19/freakonomics-guys-f...). If you do a google-search, you'll probably find point-for-point rebuttals at the normal climate science blogs, too.
saalweachter 14y ago
This graph is of a single data source (tree rings) with no error bars. If the world isn't warming significantly, fantastic, but tree rings is a data source already heavily incorporated into the climate models. Climate models don't just look at one data source -- thermometers, ice cores, tree rings -- they look at all data sources. It's quite possible a subset of the lines of evidence actually indicate cooling, but pulling them out and reporting on them separately isn't breaking the great climate change conspiracy, it's cherry-picking. And regarding error bars, if you look at the classic hockey-stick graph[1], you'll notice the error bars (grey region) are so huge, especially for times prior to 1600, that the data could indicate a cooling trend. But the un-shown error bars on the tree-ring only graph are going to be even larger, because the tree-rings are a subset of the data going into the hockey stick graph. Not showing error bars on a graph like this is extremely deceptive. All in all, I don't like the smell of this article. Cherry picking and omitting error bars smells like a hit. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_la...
- nirvana 14y ago
  What specific models are you talking about? Can you give me links with the lists of the sources of data, the adjustment factors applied, and also the predictive results of the model (forward in time, not backward)?[1] Regarding the chart you link to, it is at least 11 years old, and we don't know what factors were applied to it. It seems to confirm the claims of this article, showing a clear, slow, decline in temperatures up to the point where a different source of data is introduced. At the more resent end, what it could be showing is simply incorrect correction of the differences in results from the new sources of data. [1] Totally sincere question. I am always hearing about these "models" but have never gotten a link to a specific model with an explanation of these relevant issues.
  - saalweachter 14y ago
    For the sake of argument, let's just say the Mann, et al, 2008 models. [1] They include an updated version of the hockey stick graph. [2] But I'm not actually arguing that this specific model is correct or even that the IPCC's review of the state of the science is correct; I'm arguing that the article on the Register smells like a hit job. Let's just look at the differences between the Register's graph and the original article's graph. [3] First, they've bizarrely omitted the scale from the left-hand side of the graph. Maybe they were trying to save space, since the ticks are each one, but when your story is your graph you shouldn't skimp. The "Reconstruction" has been relabeled "Summer temperature". The "Trend" has been helpfully relabeled the "Cooling trend". The hundred year filtered reconstruction has been left completely unlabeled, despite its prominence in the graph, and as mentioned previously, the error bars have been left off entirely. This looks like an interesting line of evidence, and it may even point towards what the authors of the original article claim (some orbital forcing of climate). But this is only a single line of evidence, so far: Scandinavian tree rings collected and studied by a group of Scandinavian researchers. I would like to see followup studies, by other researchers looking at tree rings in other parts of the world -- and non-tree ring based temperature records! -- before people start jumping up and down declaring the IPCC to be lying liars who lie. A single line of evidence can be wrong; a single line of evidence can mean something different from what you think it means. Only many corroborative lines of evidence can build a scientific consensus. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/?tool=pmcentrez http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/?tool=pm... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/figure/F3/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/figure/F... [3] http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nclimate1589_F2.html http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
davidjohnstone 14y ago
The Register are very biased concerning climate change. For example, take http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_kn... and compare and contrast it with the original paper at http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1547.html http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nc.... Things you might notice include the absence of any horrible backfire; that they didn't just find a slight decrease in perceived risk over climate change with increasing scientific literacy, but also a polarisation of opinions between the left and the right, where increased in scientific literacy strengthens one's beliefs about climate change whatever they are (see also: the title of the paper); and the way the quotes used by The Register don't say what the author wants them to. This isn't just a case of differing opinions over complicated ideas, this is blatantly dishonest twisting of words. (For even worse reporting, The Telegraph picked up The Register's article and made it even worse: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100161868/official-the-more-scientifically-illiterate-you-are-the-more-you-believe-in-climate-change/. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100161868/...) I don't yet have anything in particular to say about the present article, but being by The Register doesn't inspire confidence in me...
peeters 14y ago
> If it is the case that actually the climate has often been warmer without any significant CO2 emissions having taken place - suggesting that CO2 emissions simply aren't that important... How does one follow the other? Just because it's been that hot "naturally" doesn't in itself imply that CO2 isn't causing the warming now, nor that CO2 won't cause warming to rise over Roman levels.
andrewflnr 14y ago
I really thought we all knew this, already, and the only reason our current situation was an issue is because of the slope of the current temperature graph, the extrapolated temperatures that would be disastrous.
nirvana 14y ago
This article is being pushed down as people flag it, and given how popular pro-AGW hypothesis articles are on HN, it is, to me, a clear cut example of AGW proponents trying to bury scientific data that disagrees with their belief. I'd rather none of these political stories were on HN at all, but I'm sad to see this rejection of rationality at work.
- EvilTerran 14y ago
  Alternatively, it's a scandal piece in a tabloid, going off a study that looks at a dataset a tiny fraction of the size and statistical quality that studies which have found the opposite have looked at. In other words, low-grade journalism based off low-grade science. Maybe that's why it got pushed down.
podperson 14y ago
This is an interesting article, but I don't think it's saying what the register writer or climate change deniers think. Casting my mind back to primary school, we all learned that Earth's axis wobbles -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession -- and that today the north has hotter summers than the south because the northern hemisphere's summer is mainly driven by the axial tilt, but reinforced by orbital eccentricity (i.e. the Earth is closer to the sun during Summer, further during Summer). The degree to which tilt varies and coincides with distance from the sun will drive the intensity of Summer (in a given hemisphere), and this article argues (with evidence) that this effect has been stronger than the effect of greenhouse gases over the last 2000 years. I.e. that Summer in Europe has been getting cooler over the last 2000 years owing to axial precession. Not that Summer has gotten cooler on average over the entire Earth, or that the Earth has gotten cooler on average, or anything else. I am neither a physicist nor a climate scientist.
jonhendry 14y ago
Ugh. Lewis Page.

36 points by iProject 14y ago

"it is a central plank of climate policy worldwide that the current temperatures are the highest ever seen for many millennia, and that this results from rising levels of atmospheric CO2 emitted by human activities" No, it's not. It's known (see edit) that the earth was warmer about 1,000 years ago - it was part of why I resisted climate science for so long (the Roman part is new to me, though of course no Romans were growing trees in Scandinavia). That it was hotter then does not mean recent warming is natural - it just means needing other evidence for claims of human contribution. Which I believe exists. Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

graeme 14y ago
Err...even if temperatures were higher in the past, that doesn't affect whether humans are contributing to recent warming (i.e. whether it is natural). Everyone agrees that humans are warming the climate. It's referred to as a "forcing" in the quoted study. The disagreement is on how much of an impact we're having. edit: sorry, just noticed the study didn't mention human forcings. But, if you read most skeptic scientists, they're just disagreeing about impact. You can replicate CO2's warming effect in a lab.

jellicle 14y ago

Nothing to do with Hacker News, therefore flagged. Here is a very simple, short, 15-minute guide to climate change: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7ktYbVwr90 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7ktYbVwr90

EvilTerran 14y ago
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.

gouranga 14y ago

Probably was. Climate doom and gloom is a political thing, not a scientific thing. It's not possible to take at best 80 years of reasonable data from 4.54 billion years of the planet's lifetime and come up with sensible climate projections.

jellicle 14y ago
> Climate doom and gloom is a political thing, not a scientific thing. No, it sure isn't. It's been made into a political thing because one group of businesses and their wholly-owned political party have decided to deny reality.
- gouranga 14y ago
  I think you haven't been around long enough to remember the climate scandals of the 1970s. You know when we had an impending ice age. My grandfather also reminded me of the heatwaves in the 1950s and the associated "science" which came out then. In climatology, the hypothesis has become the theory. The scientific method is therefore invalid ergo it is not science.
- twoodfin 14y ago
  Let's pretend for a moment that the entire Republican party has a miraculous change of heart, and agrees to everything the "scientists" are asking for. Cap and trade, emissions taxes, unshackled EPA emissions limits, huge subsidies for renewables... you name it. A cost in trillions, I'm quite sure. What will we have accomplished? China's still going to keep right on industrializing. They'll probably industrialize even faster because we'll have pushed all our "dirty" energy consuming industries their way, where they'll be run at less efficiency and with even greater overall emissions. The Chinese are the "deniers" you should be worried about: They've never promised to do anything but potentially reduce their emissions "intensity", which means emissions/GDP. That was always bound to happen anyway as their industries become more mechanically efficient. In absolute terms their emissions are going to keep on growing and growing. Even if they go as "green" as the nuclear French, they'll be emitting more than the U.S. in a decade or so. They are smart folks and they've decided that giving their people a Western standard of living is more important to them than a few potential degrees of warming. And there's nothing you or I can do about it. EDIT: Oops, they're already emitting 50% more than the U.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#List_of_countries_by_2010_emissions_estimates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio...

forgotAgain 14y ago

So how come glaciers that are thousands, if not tens of thousands of years old are disappearing now?

brohee 14y ago
Hotter atmosphere but with less direct sun exposure (more clouds, less solar activity) may mean less ice melting on a glacier.
gouranga 14y ago
How do we know if thousands of years ago, glaciers that were thousands of years old weren't disappearing as well?
- antidaily 14y ago
  pretty easy to date the materials under them
rimantas 14y ago
Some are growing: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/9206785/Himalayan-glaciers-growing-despite-global-warming.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/9...

graeme 14y ago

The study: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nc...

ramblerman 14y ago

I'm not versed in climatology or environmental science, and frankly neither are most people. As such the issue of global warming really confuses me, to the point that I'm now on the fence. I've seen people with no knowledge on the matter become violent when it is challenged. A typical rebuttal might be "Well the glaciers are disappearing" in the same way christian fundamentalists use one liners to negate evolution. Science shouldn't be emotional, and I find that worrying. As stated though, I don't know much about the issue first hand, I read the paper and have to make my assumptions based on it. If anyone can chime in and correct me then by all means feel free. --- P.S I have no doubt we are screwing up our environment and need urgent change, but the psychology surrounding global warming is a bit odd to me.

ljf 14y ago
I think that part of the issue is the old school title of 'global warming' - as a whole it may well be that the planet earth is warming - but many (may) see their areas get cooler, or nothing happen at all. I prefer to refer to it as 'climate change' - you can add 'man made' to the front of that if you wish, but just slightly changing the term of reference stops at least a few of the standard comments in the UK; "well the last few summers have been rubbish, so there is no global warming!". Just a thought.
- iuguy 14y ago
  I'm with the parent on this one. The politics really make it difficult for a normal person to see the wood for the trees, let alone the science. There are interest groups on all sides, and I have a couple of research scientist friends who've told me that they've been able to find funding for research that otherwise wouldn't be available as long as they can relate that research in terms of climate science, which also makes me feel as though the whole thing is politicised. I think I can definitely agree that the climate is changing, so the term climate change would (at least as far as I can tell as a layman, not a climate scientist) be accurate. Historical records in either direction show that the climate has changed, and that continuation makes a lot of sense. It would also make sense to me that changes in one area in one direction may be different to others, making it more difficult to measure in a simplified manner.

Produce 14y ago

Wow, so the Romans must have used fossil fuels too!

twelvechairs 14y ago

Its probably important to point out that this study is about one area of the globe only (northern Scandinavia).

pilgrim689 14y ago

Similarly to ramblerman, I am not well versed in climatology. I do remember reading in Superfreakonomics, though, that what's cause for concern is not the temperature or the amount of CO2 in the air (both being arguably normal), it's the rate at which CO2 amounts are increasing (which is abnormal).

gnud 14y ago
That chapter in superfreakonomics is terrible. I only have a superficial knowledge of common claims and counter-claims in climate science, but I put down the book in disgust halfway through that chapter. Read more at [The Economist](http://www.economist.com/node/14738383 http://www.economist.com/node/14738383) or Eric Pooley for [Bloomberg](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2009-10-19/freakonomics-guys-flunk-science-of-climate-change-eric-pooley.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2009-10-19/freakonomics-guys-f...). If you do a google-search, you'll probably find point-for-point rebuttals at the normal climate science blogs, too.

saalweachter 14y ago

This graph is of a single data source (tree rings) with no error bars. If the world isn't warming significantly, fantastic, but tree rings is a data source already heavily incorporated into the climate models. Climate models don't just look at one data source -- thermometers, ice cores, tree rings -- they look at all data sources. It's quite possible a subset of the lines of evidence actually indicate cooling, but pulling them out and reporting on them separately isn't breaking the great climate change conspiracy, it's cherry-picking. And regarding error bars, if you look at the classic hockey-stick graph[1], you'll notice the error bars (grey region) are so huge, especially for times prior to 1600, that the data could indicate a cooling trend. But the un-shown error bars on the tree-ring only graph are going to be even larger, because the tree-rings are a subset of the data going into the hockey stick graph. Not showing error bars on a graph like this is extremely deceptive. All in all, I don't like the smell of this article. Cherry picking and omitting error bars smells like a hit. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_la...

nirvana 14y ago
What specific models are you talking about? Can you give me links with the lists of the sources of data, the adjustment factors applied, and also the predictive results of the model (forward in time, not backward)?[1] Regarding the chart you link to, it is at least 11 years old, and we don't know what factors were applied to it. It seems to confirm the claims of this article, showing a clear, slow, decline in temperatures up to the point where a different source of data is introduced. At the more resent end, what it could be showing is simply incorrect correction of the differences in results from the new sources of data. [1] Totally sincere question. I am always hearing about these "models" but have never gotten a link to a specific model with an explanation of these relevant issues.
- saalweachter 14y ago
  For the sake of argument, let's just say the Mann, et al, 2008 models. [1] They include an updated version of the hockey stick graph. [2] But I'm not actually arguing that this specific model is correct or even that the IPCC's review of the state of the science is correct; I'm arguing that the article on the Register smells like a hit job. Let's just look at the differences between the Register's graph and the original article's graph. [3] First, they've bizarrely omitted the scale from the left-hand side of the graph. Maybe they were trying to save space, since the ticks are each one, but when your story is your graph you shouldn't skimp. The "Reconstruction" has been relabeled "Summer temperature". The "Trend" has been helpfully relabeled the "Cooling trend". The hundred year filtered reconstruction has been left completely unlabeled, despite its prominence in the graph, and as mentioned previously, the error bars have been left off entirely. This looks like an interesting line of evidence, and it may even point towards what the authors of the original article claim (some orbital forcing of climate). But this is only a single line of evidence, so far: Scandinavian tree rings collected and studied by a group of Scandinavian researchers. I would like to see followup studies, by other researchers looking at tree rings in other parts of the world -- and non-tree ring based temperature records! -- before people start jumping up and down declaring the IPCC to be lying liars who lie. A single line of evidence can be wrong; a single line of evidence can mean something different from what you think it means. Only many corroborative lines of evidence can build a scientific consensus. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/?tool=pmcentrez http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/?tool=pm... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/figure/F3/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/figure/F... [3] http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nclimate1589_F2.html http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab...

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

davidjohnstone 14y ago

The Register are very biased concerning climate change. For example, take http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_kn... and compare and contrast it with the original paper at http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1547.html http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nc.... Things you might notice include the absence of any horrible backfire; that they didn't just find a slight decrease in perceived risk over climate change with increasing scientific literacy, but also a polarisation of opinions between the left and the right, where increased in scientific literacy strengthens one's beliefs about climate change whatever they are (see also: the title of the paper); and the way the quotes used by The Register don't say what the author wants them to. This isn't just a case of differing opinions over complicated ideas, this is blatantly dishonest twisting of words. (For even worse reporting, The Telegraph picked up The Register's article and made it even worse: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100161868/official-the-more-scientifically-illiterate-you-are-the-more-you-believe-in-climate-change/. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100161868/...) I don't yet have anything in particular to say about the present article, but being by The Register doesn't inspire confidence in me...

peeters 14y ago

> If it is the case that actually the climate has often been warmer without any significant CO2 emissions having taken place - suggesting that CO2 emissions simply aren't that important... How does one follow the other? Just because it's been that hot "naturally" doesn't in itself imply that CO2 isn't causing the warming now, nor that CO2 won't cause warming to rise over Roman levels.

andrewflnr 14y ago

I really thought we all knew this, already, and the only reason our current situation was an issue is because of the slope of the current temperature graph, the extrapolated temperatures that would be disastrous.

nirvana 14y ago

This article is being pushed down as people flag it, and given how popular pro-AGW hypothesis articles are on HN, it is, to me, a clear cut example of AGW proponents trying to bury scientific data that disagrees with their belief. I'd rather none of these political stories were on HN at all, but I'm sad to see this rejection of rationality at work.

EvilTerran 14y ago
Alternatively, it's a scandal piece in a tabloid, going off a study that looks at a dataset a tiny fraction of the size and statistical quality that studies which have found the opposite have looked at. In other words, low-grade journalism based off low-grade science. Maybe that's why it got pushed down.

podperson 14y ago

This is an interesting article, but I don't think it's saying what the register writer or climate change deniers think. Casting my mind back to primary school, we all learned that Earth's axis wobbles -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession -- and that today the north has hotter summers than the south because the northern hemisphere's summer is mainly driven by the axial tilt, but reinforced by orbital eccentricity (i.e. the Earth is closer to the sun during Summer, further during Summer). The degree to which tilt varies and coincides with distance from the sun will drive the intensity of Summer (in a given hemisphere), and this article argues (with evidence) that this effect has been stronger than the effect of greenhouse gases over the last 2000 years. I.e. that Summer in Europe has been getting cooler over the last 2000 years owing to axial precession. Not that Summer has gotten cooler on average over the entire Earth, or that the Earth has gotten cooler on average, or anything else. I am neither a physicist nor a climate scientist.

jonhendry 14y ago

Ugh. Lewis Page.