SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Wharf Rat who wrote (19465)7/11/2012 10:37:04 AM
From: longnshort3 Recommendations  Respond to of 85487
 
Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years
  • Tree ring study gives first accurate climate reading back to 138BC
  • World has been slowly cooling for 2,000 years
  • World was warmer in Roman and Medieval times than it is now
  • Study of semi-fossilised trees in Finland


  • By Rob Waugh

    PUBLISHED: 07:22 EST, 11 July 2012 | UPDATED: 07:22 EST, 11 July 2012




    Rings in fossilised pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought - with measurements dating back to 138BC

    Rings in fossilised pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought - and the earth has been slowly COOLING for 2,000 years.

    Measurements stretching back to 138BC prove that the Earth is slowly cooling due to changes in the distance between the Earth and the sun.

    The finding may force scientists to rethink current theories of the impact of global warming.

    It is the first time that researchers have been able to accurately measure trends in global temperature over the last two millennia.

    Over that time, the world has been getting cooler - and previous estimates, used as the basis for current climate science, are wrong.

    Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.


    ‘This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant,’ says Esper, ‘however, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C.

    'Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia.’


    The finding was based on semi-fossilised tree rings found in Finnish lapland.

    Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC.

    In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling.

    ‘We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low,’ says Esper. ‘Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods.’

    The annual growth rings in trees are the most important witnesses over the past 1,000 to 2,000 years as they indicate how warm and cool past climate conditions were.


    More...

    Researchers from Germany, Finland, Scotland, and Switzerland examined tree-ring density profiles in trees from Finnish Lapland. In this cold environment, trees often collapse into one of the numerous lakes, where they remain well preserved for thousands of years.


    Global cooling: It is the first time that researchers have been able to accurately measure trends in global temperature over the last two millennia



    The annual growth rings in trees are the most important witnesses over the past 1,000 to 2,000 years as they indicate how warm and cool past climate conditions were




    The density measurements correlate closely with the summer temperatures in this area on the edge of the Nordic taiga; the researchers were thus able to create a temperature reconstruction of unprecedented quality.

    The reconstruction provides a high-resolution representation of temperature patterns in the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, but also shows the cold phases that occurred during the Migration Period and the later Little Ice Age.
    In addition to the cold and warm phases, the new climate curve also exhibits a phenomenon that was not expected in this form.

    For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years.

    Read more: dailymail.co.uk



    To: Wharf Rat who wrote (19465)7/11/2012 10:56:37 AM
    From: Sdgla2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 85487
     
    Refute the data rat... isn't that the scientific way ?



    To: Wharf Rat who wrote (19465)7/11/2012 11:25:01 AM
    From: Little Joe1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 85487
     
    For every skeptic who changes, there are more warmists who change to skeptic.

    Doesn't convince me of a thing.

    lj



    To: Wharf Rat who wrote (19465)7/11/2012 3:24:41 PM
    From: Wharf Rat2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 85487
     
    Kochs ain't getting their money's worth.

    Fear of Climate Change May Finally Be Trumping Ideological Denial
    Posted: 07/11/2012 11:36 am

    Human behavior is controlled by a lot of neural wiring and chemistry, and an incredible range of cognitive shortcuts and instincts, over which we have practically no conscious control. A lot of this behind-the-scenes "thinking", which often leads to decisions and behaviors that seem to fly in the face of the facts, is driven by one of the most fundamental imperatives - survival. The brain's job is first and foremost to get us to tomorrow.

    But the brain relies on several instincts to help us survive, and sometimes they conflict. One fear can literally contradict another. That's the case with climate change. The bad news is that at this point, the wrong ones are winning. The good news is, things may be changing.

    The three players in this subconscious cognitive battle are:

    1. Tribalism. We are social animals, and our survival depends on belonging to a tribe that helps protect us. So we do lots of things to remain members in good standing of our tribe(s). One of them is subconsciously shaping our opinions so they agree with those in the group(s) with which we most closely identify. (This phenomenon is known as Cultural Cognition. ) By adopting 'the party line', we are accepted as members in good standing of our tribe, and by reinforcing tribal solidarity we increase our tribe's influence in competition with other tribes for overall control of society. This survival instinct of tribalism grows more intense the more threatened we feel about how society is going - economically, morally, politically.

    With climate change, you can see this in the strong correlation between those who deny the evidence and their conservative or libertarian political and ideological affiliations. A Republican who fails to deny climate change is labeled a RINO...a Republican In Name Only...and shunned by "the base", the self-anointed true believers. Jon Huntsman acknowledged an open mind on climate change, and for his admirable honesty was resoundingly rejected in the GOP primary. Open minds are bad for tribal solidarity.

    2. The Hubris of Cartesian Reason. We think we can keep an open mind, and reason, and use the facts to make the 'right' decision, more than we actually can. This is particularly true of liberals, who generally score highly in one of the five major personality traits known as Openness, which "...reflects the degree of intellectual curiosity, creativity and a preference for novelty and variety... sometimes called "intellect" rather than openness to experience." The problem is, this pretense of open mindedness is a dangerous deceit, because liberals are no different than other social human animals. They feel safer when their tribe wins too. So when liberals argue with climate change deniers, to a large degree they aren't really trying to change the deniers' minds. They're trying to WIN...to get the deniers not just to change their minds but in the process to abandon their tribe. But that feels threatening to the deniers, and in response their denial grows stronger. And that enrages the liberals, whose stridency grows. In the end, then, this survival instinct for tribal solidarity makes the whole fight about climate change an unwinnable battle over underlying worldviews, and counterproductively leaves us further from progress and solutions, and less safe.

    3. Fear. Often the penultimate survival instinct of plain old fear - a direct worry about your physical health and safety - trumps almost everything else in human cognition. Think back to the frightening days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. Remember how all the angry ugly divisive tribal polarization between so many groups in America just disappeared?! In an instant, the mantra became "We are ALL Americans". That fear (and don't forget the anthrax attacks that hit a month later) made a lot of liberals ready to believe the Bush Administration's lies about Saddam Hussein's biological weapons of mass destruction and his non-existent connection with Al Qaeda, and support the invasion of Iraq. Fear - 1, Tribal Cohesion - 0.

    The problem with climate change, so far anyway, has been that for all its monstrous potential harm, very few people truly fear it, down in their gut. It just doesn't ring the right psychological risk perception alarm bells. (Those 'risk perception factors' are described in Chapter Three of "How Risky Is It, Really? Why Our Fears Don't Match the Facts", available free here.) It is seen as delayed, not a current danger. It's abstract and global, not tangible and local. Most of all, the threat doesn't feel personal. Even among the those really worried about it, few can honestly say to themselves "I'm worried something really bad is going to happen to ME."

    So climate change has yet to hit trigger our powerful self-protective instinctive fear response. Instead, climate deniers remain more worried about the social and political and economic changes that responding to climate change might mean, changes they see as a threat to the way their tribe wants society to operate. Deniers even use the word "threat" when they talk about climate change, but to them the greater threat is to freedom, and the free market, not to human and environmental health.

    Sooner or later, that will change, and the bad things that climate change is likely to do...really bad things...will start happening. Fear of climate change...real, visceral, good old-fashioned in-the-gut "I'm in serious physical danger" fear...will start to kick in. When it does, it will likely supercede their ideological/tribal concerns. And that shift may already be underway. Heat waves and droughts and fires in tinder dry forests, torrential rains and flooding, storms that cut off power to millions...lethal extremes that experts say are consistent with how climate change is likely to alter local weather...are starting to make the threat of climate change more tangible, current, and personal, psychological characteristics that make any risk scarier. And not just for 'those poor people in Africa' but all across the developed world, including places that are home to concentrations of conservatives and climate deniers. Weather, after all, makes no distinctions based on local politics.

    History teaches that fear trumps everything. Fear unites, and fear motivates, and fear for our physical health and safety dominates most other instincts. As the threat of climate change becomes big enough and real enough and 'now' enough, increased concern will first motivate the general public, the majority not caught up in the Climate Wars. At some point the fear of climate change will even trump the fear that divides us into tribes, and climate denialism will move even further into the fringe it is already heading towards (see the recent Heartland Institute embarrassment).

    It is harsh to say, but more of the extreme weather we've been suffering may be just what we need to help trigger the fear - our deepest and most powerful survival instinct - that we need to protect ourselves from one of the biggest threats our species has ever faced.

    huffingtonpost.com