Study shows it was warmer in Roman times than today

posted at 2:46 pm on December 13, 2013 by Jeff Dunetz

Scientists may have figured out why Romans wore togas and the global warming theorists are not going to be pleased. A new study by Swiss scientists finds the earth was warmer during Roman and Medieval times than it is today, which indicates that greenhouse gases may not be the driving force behind the modern global warming trend.

The study, by scientist Leif Kullman, analyzed 455 “radiocarbon-dated mega-fossils” in the Scandes Mountains and found that tree lines for different species of trees were higher during the Roman and Medieval times than they are today. Not only that, but the temperatures were higher as well.

“Historical tree line positions are viewed in relation to early 21st century equivalents, and indicate that tree line elevations attained during the past century and in association with modern climate warming are highly unusual, but not unique, phenomena from the perspective of the past 4,800 years,” Kullman found. “Prior to that, the pine tree line (and summer temperatures) was consistently higher than present, as it was also during the Roman and Medieval periods.”

Kullman also wrote that “summer temperatures during the early Holocene thermal optimum may have been 2.3°C higher than present.” The “Holocene thermal optimum was a warm period that occurred between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago. This warm period was followed by a gradual cooling period.”

According to Kullman, the temperature spikes were during the Roman and Medieval warming periods “were succeeded by a distinct tree line/temperature dip, broadly corresponding to the Little Ice Age.”

The importance of this report is that it indicates the Earth was warmer in pre-industrial times, meaning that mother nature rather than man may be driving climate change.

This latest study is part of the mounting evidence that global warming may not be the problem that Al Gore and others claim it is. Most of the “gloom and doom” predictions made by the global warming theorists  have not come true. Even the climate change histrionics one sees in the media after every major storm or fire are wrong, as the frequency of hurricanes, tornados, and wildfires are all way down.

Other facts arguing against the climate change theory include, in its latest report the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N.’s global warming organization, acknowledge that the Earth’s temperatures haven’t gotten warmer in over 15 years. Additionally, both polar ice caps are growing at near record rates. In fact some peer-reviewed studies are predicting the earth is about to experience a mini ice age.

One does not have to believe that there is an ice age coming, but there is enough scientific evidence disputing the climate change theory to throw it into doubt. Anybody saying climate change is settled science is either lying, trying to redistribute income internationally, or has a financial interest in closing off the debate.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

blockchords on December 13, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Main thing is Al Gore’s hockeystick graph doesn’t have a MWP.

That’s why it’s relevant. It falsifies everything Real Climate, Al Gore, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Skeptical Science, and the California Democratic Caucus, have been preaching about global warming since the beginning of time.

papertiger on December 13, 2013 at 5:40 PM

The fear mongering Chicken Littles, over and over again, have explicitly expressed the idea that deceiving the public in pursuit of their political goal is good. It’s shameless:
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.” -leftist Senator Tim Wirth, 1993
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Greenpeace
“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of.. how dangerous it is.” -Al Gore
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, first IPCC chairman
“We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective [lying] and being honest [ineffective].” -Stephen Schneider, lead ipcc author, 1989
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” -Daniel Botkin, ex Chair of Environmental Studies, UCSB
“Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed.” -Pentti Linkola, Finnish Ecologist

anotherJoe on December 13, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Schadenfreude in a toga!

Bmore on December 13, 2013 at 5:41 PM

papertiger on December 13, 2013 at 5:40 PM

That’s how I always felt. But I thought the hockey stick graph & MWP were both global temperatures. Are you saying that is really the case? That global temperatures were higher in the MWP than today, & not just temps in europe, etc.?

I do think Bill Nye is an a-hole.

blockchords on December 13, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Things that make you go ‘Hmmmm?’:

Why is it always “man-made this” or ‘Man-made that” and NEVER EVER “person made…”

Just an observation.

RavingLunatic on December 13, 2013 at 6:16 PM

I mean really, start saying phrases like “Due to woman made global warming” to your Lib acquaintances and see the look on their faces. Then ask, Why?

RavingLunatic on December 13, 2013 at 6:19 PM

That global temperatures were higher in the MWP than today, & not just temps in europe, etc.?

It was hotter in California, at the White Mountains of California to be precise.
The Medeval Warming happened at the same White Mountains who host the bristle cone pines, oldest trees in the world.
The ones Michael Mann couldn’t find any MWP in, when he went looking at tree rings to draw up the hockeystick.

Same trees.

papertiger on December 13, 2013 at 7:26 PM

I say again: this whole global warming scam, especially as the propaganda progressed, was never about “saving the planet”. It is, and always was, about squeezing more money out of the taxpayers of wealthy countries, and redistributing that money into Third World despots’ (oh, and incidentally, into Western opportunists”) pockets. And yes, I’m looking at you, Al Gore, may you rot in Hell.

RebeccaH on December 13, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Unfortuanatly most the believers will think it is the deniers killing them when they realize they are in gas chambers.

Slowburn on December 14, 2013 at 3:26 AM

In fact some peer-reviewed studies are predicting the earth is about to experience a mini ice age.

“Mini ice age”? Folks, we’re overdue for a full-blown ice age.

I wish we could make us some GW. Warm is good for us. Cold is bad.

Nomennovum on December 14, 2013 at 6:14 AM

Yeah, sure. Jeffdunetz cites an article about a study that drives a stake through the heart of modern global warming theories. Of course, if you actually read the article (which refers to an actual scientific study) you find that it has nothing whatever to do with global warming, but rather regional climate shifts in one little corner of the planet (i.e., the Scandes mountains). But of course, denialists aren’t really into reading, but rather parroting what other denialists assert (which is usually pure fabrication anyway).

In fact, this quote of his is a total fabrication: “A new study by Swiss scientists finds the earth was warmer during Roman Medieval times than it is today…” has quite a bit of nothing to do with the actual scientific study (if you actually read the abstract).

Let’s see what other gems Jeff has for us in this article. To wit:

“as the frequency of hurricanes, tornados, and wildfires are all way down.”
…which isn’t the case at all. The USA had a quieter than usual hurricane and tornado season, but that isn’t the trend for global climate. What’s actually “way down” is the Jeff’s knowledge of things like the CEI and other indicators of weather anomalies that are determined statistically.

“the Earth’s temperatures haven’t gotten warmer in over 15 years”
…which is more complete nonsense (but only if you bother to look at the actual statistics). The 1996-2012 warming rate is .14 degrees Celsius per decade. The 20-aughts is the warmest decade on the global meteorological record. The hottest years ever recorded with direct temperature measurements are 2005 and 2010 (according to folks who actually have respect for data – the WMO).

“both polar ice caps are growing at near record rates”
…which is completely misleading. Although the Antarctic ice is, for the time being, stable, the Arctic is not. The growth in ice this year is large in the Arctic, but this is after a record low year. Thus, the denialist assertion of “record growth” , using a baseline of a record low, has absolutely no significance. The general trend for Arctic ice is dramatically down so far this century.

“but there is enough scientific evidence disputing the climate change theory to throw it into doubt”
There’s always doubt (and yes, even in the scientific community on this subject). However, the “serious” doubt is only in the minds of those who aren’t so well informed, and who swallow whole these denialist phrase-bites as gospel.

“which indicates that greenhouse gases may not be the driving force behind the modern global warming trend.”
…which the article does no such a thing, as there is no mention of greenhouse gases in the article at all. Actually, the solar output is what actually drives warming. And it’s solar output that has been rather low lately. And the fact that we’re still experiencing warming (of if you look at the last several years, a flat trend) while the solar output is lower than normal is a very worrisome sign. If the next solar cycle turns out to be even average, look for global average temperature to spike again. We haven’t recovered at all from the last spike as denialists said we would when the solar output went into a minimum in the late nineties.

““tree line elevations attained during the past century and in association with modern climate warming are highly unusual, but not unique, phenomena from the perspective of the past 4,800 years,””
Thanks for quoting that, Jeff. Of course, there’s no significance in that statement at all (at least to your ‘argument’, should there actually be one), other than an admission that we are experiencing modern warming. And how can we be both experiencing warming and not experiencing warming? Which is it, Jeff? You can’t have both.

oakland on December 14, 2013 at 7:50 AM

Scientists may have figured out why Romans wore togas and the global warming theorists are not going to be pleased.

Togas worn only by Free Roman males were basically large woolen blankets draped over the body in a particular way to leave one arm free.

These were usually worn over tunics but in earlier times worn directly over the body.

Tunic varied in overall length and sleeves.

http://www.roman-empire.net/society/soc-dress.html

workingclass artist on December 14, 2013 at 8:06 AM

Poor, poor reprobate Oakland. :(

Murphy9 on December 14, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Going on three years now, and nobody – not one – has been able to answer any of the three questions I have posed over that time:
 
oakland on August 20, 2013 at 9:28 PM

 

Sorry if I’m spoiling anyone’s fun, but other readers may be helped by realizing how simple science is…
 
Let’s start with #3. It’s your hypothesis, so the onus of proof is on you to show that it’s enough to change things. It’s no one else’s responsibility to tilt at a “how much is actually enough to make a difference?” windmill. That’s your time to waste and then bring the information to us.
 
It’s also no one else’s duty to accept anything on faith. That’s religion, not science.
 
After you provide your results, any specific supporting data, and any methods to ensure reproduction of your results, if we submit information that negates any of your hypothesis or find procedural flaws you have to (for it to still be science) admit your hypothesis was a failure and begin again.
 
Basic science. Lather/rinse/repeat. And that is what makes science fun. And valuable, frankly. Ignoring that for the religious elements of faith and acceptance cheapens it to the point of worthlessness…
 
And we’ve already covered #3, so we’re done. Three years all in the span of a cup of coffee…
 
rogerb on August 21, 2013 at 6:59 AM

 
Thread abandoned, btw.

rogerb on December 14, 2013 at 11:10 AM

But I don’t have just one study. I have a whole host of studies. It’s tough to choose from the plethora of studies. Sometimes I even dip into the UNESCO world heritage sites, just for giggles.

Like did you know there is a shrine in Japan built at sea level back during the Medieval Warm Period?
And it’s still there! Conspicuously not innundated by the allegedly rising sea.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/776/ It’s called the Itsukushima Shinto Shrine. It’s real, it’s fabulous, and it wouldn’t be there except for the medieval warm period.

papertiger on December 14, 2013 at 1:58 PM

oakland on December 14, 2013 at 7:50 AM

I haven’t seen you in forever. What kind of thread is this anyway?

You’re boring.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 14, 2013 at 5:59 PM

Funny, I recall earlier reports that the Med region was cooler in Roman times.

Olo_Burrows on December 14, 2013 at 6:15 PM

rogerb on December 14, 2013 at 11:10 AM

I don’t think you get it. Scientists have posed an explanation and a prediction based on what they see as the best available evidence and modelling techniques. Their consensus for the last three decades or more has been that temperatures would rise. Years ago, they gave the most probable range of global average temperature increase, and the actual warming has fallen within that range (at the low end, thus far).

Occam’s razor asserts that the simplest explanation is most probably the correct one. And, since there are no other forcing mechanisms that can account for the recent warming – other than carbon dioxide (according to scientific consensus) effecting a measure of heat-trapping – the simple explanation is that the scientific consensus has been (and continues to be) the correct one.

But the denialist machine (or do you prefer the term “skeptics”) asserts that the 120 ppm (or so) rise in carbon dioxide concentration is too little to have any significance. Now imagine my relief when I heard that assertion. The gigatonnes of expelled carbon dioxide is just a trivial, insignificant amount! So, I’m hanging on this thread of hope that 120 ppm is not even a gnat’s worth of irritation to the climate systems of the planet. And things will soon return to the way they were forty years ago, and all this global warming hype will be put to bed along with all the other fairy tales.
So, if folks have the inside scoop (that has managed to elude all those highly trained experts), then throw it out there. Answer my simple question and give me hope. How much carbon dioxide increase in ppm – is enough to matter? Why are folks so afraid of questions that they can’t answer such a simple one when they know so very much? Can YOU answer it? Will YOU be the one to do it?
Or are you still hung up on the “proof” thing (as if science is all about “proof”?).

oakland on December 14, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Prominent Scientist Tells Congress: Earth in ‘CO2 Famine’

‘The increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind’

‘Children should not be force-fed propaganda, masquerading as science’

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=AF8F5B20-802A-23AD-49FB-8A2D53F00437

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Murphy9 on December 14, 2013 at 7:10 PM

oakland on December 14, 2013 at 6:54 PM

You forgot to preface your biased statements with the disclaimer that you are not a deacon in the Church of the Warmer Gaia.

Wino on December 15, 2013 at 12:38 AM

Ah but we have already seen the “high end” of their predictions in the histories. Our ancestors found global warming invigorating.
It inspired them to build shrines to their good fortunes.

But forget about talking like agw global warming exists. The only half way plausible evidence came from fabrication. NASA is even backing away from the ozone hole.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/11/at-agu-nasa-says-cfc-reduction-is-not-shrinking-the-ozone-hole-yet/

Same fraudsters involved, ozone hole and global warming.

papertiger on December 15, 2013 at 1:13 AM

Comment pages: 1 2