
Climate was hotter in Roman, medieval times than now - iProject
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/10/global_warming_undermined_by_study_of_climate_change/
======
ramblerman
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.

~~~
nirvana
One thing I do know is this:

There are uncounted[1] numbers of glaciers in alaska alone. I mean that
literally.

There are so many glaciers on the planet that nobody has ever even counted
them, let alone done a study on whether they are, on average, advancing or
declining. They do both, advance and decline as a natural part of changes in
_weather_ not climate...they'll do one for a very long time and then change as
weather patterns change. This is certainly an indicator of changes in local
weather patterns, but to draw global conclusions requires a global survey of
some sort.

I don't see evidence that we are screwing up our environment. I see that as
taken as an article of faith, and when I attempt to discuss the issue with
people, as soon as they detect that I'm not a believer, they decide I'm a
denier. And once they decide you're a denier, they seem to think that the
rules of science no longer apply, because by being a "denier" you're somehow
irrational by definition.

I think the Glaciers example you bring up is one of the best... because it is
purely unscientific. (If someone's got an example of a holistic study of
glaciers, let me know. I have never seen one.)

Another unscientific claim is that all scientists agree with global warming,
_therefor_ it is scientifically "true" that it is happening. This simply isn't
right. I've never seen evidence that even a majority agree, and even if a
majority do agree, that itself is not an actual argument. What percentage of
them are experts on the area? Certainly most scientists are not climatologists
(and even this "specialty" seems to be brand spanking new, and basically seems
to include acceptance of the AGW hypothesis in its definition of what a
"climatologist" is.)

The argument that a majority believing makes it true is like saying that
science is based on consensus or democracy, and it is not.

Most people in the USA are christians (according to demographics.) While
scientists may be more likely to be atheists, I believe that most of them are
going to be christians as well.

Since a majority of scientists are christians, and thus believe in god, does
that translate into proof of gods existence, scientifically? (If not, why does
this same mechanism work for the AGW hypothesis?)

At the same time I've seen many examples of prominent scientists coming out
against the theory, or parts of it, and read about a petition with, I think,
45,000 signatures from scientists.

The reason that this issue is so prominent is not that it is a scientific
controversy, but a political one. The IPCC and the UN at large sees it as an
opportunity to get the UN some control, some global governmental powers, and
politicians in individual countries see it as a political opportunity.

If you make carbon a pollutant, then you have the power to regulate every
industry, even eventually, people themselves (as carbon emitters). That's
significant power!

[1] If you want to disagree with me on this, please first give me a link to
some exhaustive survey that shows how many glaciers there are, then we can
have a basis for any question not whether a statistical number of them are
growing or declining.

~~~
YmMot
> (If not, why does this same mechanism work for the AGW hypothesis?)

Because your comparison is flawed in multiple ways.

> Another unscientific claim is that all scientists agree with global warming,
> therefor it is scientifically "true" that it is happening.

This is something of a straw man. I have no doubt that there are people out
there making this claim...just as there are people out there who think
unicorns exist. It does nothing to refute this claim because only a small
kooky minority are making it.

The REAL point is that "Most experts in the field believe it is true,
therefore it is reasonable to go with that belief until we have a reason to
think otherwise".

You are confusing "scientific proofs" with how one should act when faced with
making a decision. We cannot say that "AGW is true because So-and-so says it
is"....that is an argument from authority. However, as citizens trying to make
decisions about how to run our society, it's reasonable to go along with the
consensus of (expert) scientists in matters of science.

This brings up another point, it's not a matter of what scientists as a whole
statistically believe... it's a function of what field the scientists are in,
their experience, and their expertise. The assertion is that most experts in
the field of climate science (and related fields) agree with AGW and that it
is a somewhat concerning issue (though the issue of to what degree is in
debate), and there is a sort of rippling of agreement throughout semi-related
fields which is worthy of consideration but less heavily weighted.

Where your point is fatally flawed is you are making a false comparison. You
cannot compare Christianity which is a vague cultural identity with what they
have found via research.

I think if you talk to the majority of scientists who are Christian, you will
find that they are Christian mostly only in culture. They are not
fundamentalists. They believe there is something called God, and there was
this guy a few thousand years ago with some good ideas and maybe he was
connected with this God....but if you press them I think you will find they
are generally flexible and admit they don't know for sure and are just going
on belief.

What you are talking about is an _UNSCIENTIFIC BELIEF_ that they have arrived
at completely arbitrarily. It's the same as if you found out that the majority
of scientists prefer chocolate ice cream....that doesn't lend some validity to
chocolate...it's just an interesting statistic.

AGW on the other hand __IS __a scientific idea. It's something that was
arrived at THROUGH A SCIENTIFIC PROCESS. The fact that most experts agree with
it (if it's true) lends it credibility because they either:

a) were able to reproduce the results with their process b) studied the
process of others and found them reasonable

You can argue that the science is flawed, or argue that most experts DON'T
agree with it...but it's perfectly reasonable and correct to think that
something is more likely to be true if the experts say it is in proportion
with the amount of consensus...when you are talking about science . The
logical fallacy is only if you claim it is DEFINITELY true, particularly based
on a small amount of consensus.

The opinion of scientists absolutely has weight....in matters of science.
Christianity as a whole is entirely outside the realm of science, and
therefore the fact that many scientists happen to be Christian is irrelevant.

Furthermore, if you do a survey of all the scientists in the world, I think
you may find that the majority of them are not Christian. However, the
consensus for AGW and it's potential harm will remain.

------
saalweachter
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_la...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg)

~~~
nirvana
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
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=pm...](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/?tool=pmcentrez)
[2]
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/figure/F...](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/figure/F3/)
[3]
[http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab...](http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nclimate1589_F2.html)

------
davidjohnstone
The Register are very biased concerning climate change. For example, take
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_kn...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/)
and compare and contrast it with the original paper at
[http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nc...](http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1547.html).

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/...](http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100161868/official-
the-more-scientifically-illiterate-you-are-the-more-you-believe-in-climate-
change/.))

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...

------
graeme
The study:
[http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nc...](http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html)

------
JacobAldridge
_"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>

~~~
graeme
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.

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

------
podperson
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> \-- 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.

------
pilgrim689
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
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>) or Eric
Pooley for [Bloomberg]([http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2009-10-19/freakonomics-
guys-f...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2009-10-19/freakonomics-guys-flunk-
science-of-climate-change-eric-pooley.html)). If you do a google-search,
you'll probably find point-for-point rebuttals at the normal climate science
blogs, too.

------
gouranga
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
> 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.

~~~
twoodfin
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_dio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#List_of_countries_by_2010_emissions_estimates)

~~~
jellicle
>A cost in trillions, I'm quite sure.

First order of business would be to cut the $50 billion per year in oil
industry subsidies in the U.S., so the first $50 billion/year spent in any
sort of anti-climate change effort is "free". Denmark, China, Germany are all
countries making large investments in renewables which are likely to provide
large returns. Much of what can be done for climate change are investments
with real returns, not just money sinks.

The tragedy of the commons you describe is real, of course. A pound of coal
burned in China does damage just like a pound of coal burned in Ohio. And yet,
the U.S. does quite well at pushing countries toward what it wants, in other
areas. Worldwide, the U.S. has pushed nearly every country toward supporting
pro-U.S. copyright laws. These laws hurt every other country, but the U.S. has
been mostly successful at pushing them. Is there some reason the U.S. would be
unable to push climate laws, if it wanted to? And at the various climate
conferences, it's clear that many nations are ready and willing to combat
climate change, but the U.S., Canada and perhaps a few other nations are
strongly opposing any action.

Why should I not throw trash in the park? Someone else could come along and
throw trash in the park (perfectly true), so I should too? It's a group
effort: each piece of trash not thrown in the park makes a park that is
slightly cleaner.

~~~
twoodfin
> First order of business would be to cut the $50 billion per year in oil
> industry subsidies in the U.S.

Those supposed "oil industry subsidies" just keep getting bigger and bigger.
In 2009, the claim from an environmental think tank was "approximately $72
billion over 5 years":

[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090918100004.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090918100004.htm)

Where do you get your figures?

EDIT: Here's a good summary of where things stand. Nowhere near $50B, and the
oil companies have a reasonable argument that the money they pay in royalties
to drill in foreign nations is aptly described as a tax.
[http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/breaking-it-down-
oil-i...](http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/breaking-it-down-oil-industry-
tax-breaks-20110512). Most of the other "subsidies" are the sort of tax breaks
available to any producer of manufactured or extracted goods. Even windmills.

------
andrewflnr
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.

------
peeters
> 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.

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

~~~
gouranga
How do we know if thousands of years ago, glaciers that were thousands of
years old weren't disappearing as well?

~~~
antidaily
pretty easy to date the materials under them

------
jonhendry
Ugh. Lewis Page.

------
nirvana
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
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.

------
jellicle
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>

~~~
EvilTerran
<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._

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

