Scientist prove the earth earth has been cooling for 2000 years

Lead author Professor Dr Jan Esper of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz said: ‘We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low.

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

In general the scientists found a slow cooling of 0.6C over 2,000 years, which they attributed to changes in the Earth’s orbit which took it further away from the Sun.

The study is published in Nature Climate Change.

It is based on measurements stretching back to 138BC.

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

Tree-ring study proves that climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is in the modern industrial age | Mail Online

evidence keeps mounting against man made climate change, wonder how all the chicken littles will try to spin this.

They will just ignore it.

Did you even read the article?

German researchers used data from tree rings – a key indicator of past climate – to claim the world has been on a ‘long-term cooling trend’ for two millennia **until the global warming of the twentieth century. **

They say the very warm period during the years 21 to 50AD has been underestimated by climate scientists.

The Earth has climate cycles. To claim that man is causing the entire planet to warm up is just plain stupid. Next they will be claiming we are slowing down the rate at which the Earth spins because there are to many obese people in the world.

I’m not putting much faith in this study one way or the other as tree rings have NOT been the best indicators of climate…(see Yamal tree rings and the Mann Hockey Stick as one such example.) Climategate reveals ‘the most influential tree in the world’ - Telegraph

That said… we have nothing to fear from global warming as the alarmists have it very wrong.

Climate in northern Europe reconstructed for the past 2,000 years: Cooling trend calculated precisely for the first time
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz
7/9/12

An international team including scientists from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) has published a reconstruction of the climate in northern Europe over the last 2,000 years based on the information provided by tree-rings. 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 new study has been published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

… 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. 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.”

As computer people have been saying for decades, “GIGO” (Garbage In, Garbage Out). If your standard for comparison, your baseline, is wrong, then the much-touted “warming” may diminish to insignificance or even be reversed. The hype is crumbling; VP Gore might have to find a way to make an honest living! Here is the full report from Nature Climate Change*.

CJ, if, as this study indicates, Roman and Medieval times were much warmer than previously assumed, the point of reference for claims of Global Warming is changed. So, the 20th Century might have been slightly warmer than the 19th, but in the context of the past couple of millennia, global warming, if any, is insignificant, and likely due to non-human causes (I don’t think Judah Ben Hur drove a Suburban, IYKWIM).

Hey Sera! Michelle might be interested in your theory about the Earth’s rotation!

Maybe man isn’t causing it. However, when a pretty big portion of scientists are saying that green house gas emissions are contributing to global warming, surely that’s cause for some action. Let’s do a cost benefit analysis:

If global warming is not caused at all by humans, and we do something, we waste money, possibly lots of money. If we don’t do something, we’re fine.

If global warming is caused by humans, at least a little bit, and we do something, we can decrease or slow it, or possibly halt it. If we don’t do something, we could have harsher weather, more fires, droughts, heat waves, storms, hurricanes, etc.

Now which of those scenarios is more appealing?

Dropping a pebble can contribute to an earthquake, but that’s hardly justification for walking on eggshells.

Two points…

  1. Your dichotomy is false. The real issue is that IF radical climate change by humans is false we will have WASTED $70 trillion dollars and both impoverished people and caused unnecessary suffering AND wasted the BENEFITS to our world that could have been had by doing OTHER things with that money. (Wiping our malaria, paying down the national debt, letting people have the money they earn to create jobs and wealth and pull more poor out of poverty etc.) MONEY doesn’t grow on tree rings. One “opportunity” taken means another “opportunity” lost.

  2. Even if global warming becomes a problem…several economic studies have shown that it is cheaper to deal with the effects in the future…than to try to stop it today. There is NO POINT in spending the money now without proof IN THE DATA that accelerated warming is present… AND caused by humans AND preventable by humans.

It has been cooling far more than 2000 years now.

LINK WITH CHARTS

My reply is in the BLUE

You offer junk because everything you said here have long been exposed as non science but loaded with political crap.

I agree.

I cringe when they make rather precise temperature statements based on a proxy that is not well defined for accuracy.

In general the scientists found a slow cooling of 0.6C over 2,000 years, which they attributed to changes in the Earth’s orbit which took it further away from the Sun.

But it IS true that the cooling of the last 4,000 years is because of the dropping Insolation level in the northern part of N.Hemisphere.

[quote=“Trekky0623, post:7, topic:35360”]
Maybe man isn’t causing it. However, when a pretty big portion of scientists are saying that green house gas emissions are contributing to global warming, surely that’s cause for some action. Let’s do a cost benefit analysis:

If global warming is not caused at all by humans, and we do something, we waste money, possibly lots of money. If we don’t do something, we’re fine.

If global warming is caused by humans, at least a little bit, and we do something, we can decrease or slow it, or possibly halt it. If we don’t do something, we could have harsher weather, more fires, droughts, heat waves, storms, hurricanes, etc.

Now which of those scenarios is more appealing?
[/quote]I’d generally agree that we should do something about Climate Change. But not cut carbon emissions. We need to chuck 100 billion or so at NASA to figure out how to manipulate the atmosphere to counter it.

About 1/4 of the growth in CO/2 is caused by humans. If we all shut down every power plant in the whole world, we would only slow things by 1/4. Is it just CO/2? I don’t see how, as there’s been a lot more with cooler weather. But in either case, we need to counter it. Curbing our CO/2 growth or scaling it back a little(at tremendous cost) is not going to do anything.

Every few months this topic comes up and the earthers don’t get it. Global warming, global cooling has been going on cyclic for millinias. The better barometer for telling the past is the Antarctica Ice cores. Tree rings are better at telling dry and wet climes. They do give a temp base but not that accurate.
All this being said; My beef with the EPA is the misdirect, and the adherence to the ‘New World Order " directives.
There are pollutive problems out there, that are real and dangerous. These are areas the EPA should begin to tackle USING EXISTING regulations. It’s either that or fully disband the EPA, and indict the leaders for corruption.
1] Potable water, nation wide.
2] trash and garbage elimination
3] free trash that clogs waterways and fields.
4] Safe removal of nonuse buildings in inner city slums.
We do have in this nation a talent in wasting natural resources, and building refuse piles with impunity. Too many people want to cover the earth with paving and buildings causing impervious areas of massive magnitude. People I know want to rid the area around theur homes of grass or gardens because of the work and money involved with upkeep. I DO know some who actually carpet their lawns and gardens with concrete and color it green.
In many states it IS required for building sites of an acre or more to build retainage ponds with active sand and rubble filters to keep mud and disbris from going to active watercourses. At the end of a project it is requested to keep the pond for wildlife and watercollection for watertable replenishing. I knew areas of trenton NJ where SQUARE MILES of the city were TOTALLY concreted and asphalt paved. SQUARE MILES!!! there had been two rivers in Trenton, The Delaware River which was lowered years ago by the Delaware watergap, and the Assupink river which was culverted entirely. Most people don’t know it exists.
All rain water is fully collected and put into the Delaware.
New Jersey has experienced a major drop in their Aquifer over the past 100 years [ more than 5’] because of poor water retainage and bad policies.
One of my pet peeves is the poor disposal methods of man induced waste. We pile up dumps with paper plastic and metals some of which bio-degrade but a majority does not. There are in many communities a selective collection process but too many do not because it is cost prohibitive. Here is a place for some bright engineer to find cost lowering methods th collect trash and recycle efficiently. Right now recycling is not cost effecient. And there are too many disease ridden open waste dumps.
I could go on with this but if the liberal do-gooders really want to make a difference, these are issues that need serious tackling.
And by the way as an Architect I am supposed to be LEED expert. I have found that LEED although is well meaning causes way more problems that is is supposed to fix. Some serious rethink by the Architect profession is due.

Yes, it is cyclic, but there is no doubt that warming is occurring (despite what Sunsettommy would have us believe). Further, it seems obvious that levels of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] do have an impact on global temperature. Ice cores tell us this:

And if humans are adding more CO[SUB]2[/SUB] into the atmosphere, even if it only accounts for 25% of total CO[sub]2[/sub], while the temperature may go down at some later time, the added CO[SUB]2[/SUB] will certainly not allow it to fall as much, and the temperature range that the Earth fluctuates at will rise.

CO2 lags temperature changes on all scales.

CO[sub]2[/sub] is only lagging behind temperature during cooling periods. During warming periods, the CO[sub]2[/sub] does not lag, with about 90% of warming following CO[sub]2[/sub] increases. Like a positive feedback effect, warming which may not have been initially caused by CO[sub]2[/sub] inevitable causes increases in CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions, which causes further warming by the greenhouse effect.

Source

Why are you making this crap up?

Here is what is known for years:

Post #78 and 79

There has been no evidence of global wide positive feedbacks at all.It is impossible because here we are still alive and the biological life strumming along and that factual reality alone disproves the idiotic idea.

But plenty of NEGATIVE feedbacks according to SEVERAL published peer reviewed science papers such as this one:

New peer reviewed paper: clouds have large negative cooling effect on Earth’s radiation budget

Do you realize that a true positive feedback would have quickly burned up the planet? Have you thought that far down the road about how stupid the idea is? It is similar to the perpetual motion machine idea.

Nature adds about 97% of the yearly total and Mankind the other 3%.

The IPCC says similar in their report.

You posted crap here and you never gave a source link for that misleading chart either.I am beginning to peg you as another CAWG believer and that means you are a mess!

The chart was actually used to try and disprove global warming somewhere. I find that ironic. Anyway, it comes from EPICA data, as it says on there, and you can see the script used to graph the data here.

But why is the default response to this stuff that I’m lying? The claim that the Earth is not warming is simply ludicrous. Even people who don’t believe it is caused by humans have to admit that it is warming, and data shows processes of warming and cooling going back for hundreds of thousands of years, with CO[sub]2[/sub] moving right along with it.