New Study Thoroughly Debunks Global Warming, Will Media Notice?

In the past several weeks as much of the nation suffered under a massive heatwave, global warming-obsessed media depicted the high temperatures as evidence of Nobel laureate Al Gore's favorite money-making scam.

A new study published in the journal Nature Sunday completely debunks all previous claims that temperatures in recent decades are in any way historic demonstrating instead that things were much hotter on this planet during Roman times:

Here, we present new evidence based on maximum latewood density data from northern Scandinavia, indicating that this cooling trend was stronger (−0.31 °C per 1,000 years, ±0.03 °C) than previously reported, and demonstrate that this signature is missing in published tree-ring proxy records. The long-term trend now revealed in maximum latewood density data is in line with coupled general circulation models indicating albedo-driven feedback mechanisms and substantial summer cooling over the past two millennia in northern boreal and Arctic latitudes. These findings, together with the missing orbital signature in published dendrochronological records, suggest that large-scale near-surface air-temperature reconstructionsrelying on tree-ring data may underestimate pre-instrumental temperatures including warmth during Medieval and Roman times.

The website of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz published a more reader-friendly explanation of the study Monday:

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." [...]


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."

The UK Register observed Tuesday:

Americans sweltering in the recent record-breaking heatwave may not believe it - but it seems that our ancestors suffered through much hotter summers in times gone by, several of them within the last 2,000 years.

A new study measuring temperatures over the past two millennia has concluded that in fact the temperatures seen in the last decade are far from being the hottest in history.

Here's a nice little graph to demonstrate what's really happened in the past 2,000 years:



This thoroughly debunks the claim that temperatures on the planet today are in any way historic or unprecedented.

The Register continued:

In the IPCC view, the planet was cooler during Roman times and the medieval warm spell. Overall the temperature is headed up - perhaps wildly up, according to the famous/infamous "hockey stick" graph.

The new study indicates that that's quite wrong, with the current warming less serious than the Romans and others since have seen - and the overall trend actually down by a noticeable 0.3°C per millennium, which the scientists believe is probably down to gradual long-term shifts in the position of the Sun and the Earth's path around it.

Just as many climate realists have been saying for years.

The only question remaining is whether America's global warming-obsessed media will pay any attention to this new information.

Stay tuned.



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/11/new-study-thoroughly-debunks-global-warming-will-media-notice#ixzz20LdQqNW5[b]

The journal Nature is one of my favorite publications.

And no, people will ignore.

They dont want facts, they want whats pushed in front of their faces by people who are trying as hard as they can to corral them into a tiny little bubble to tax every little thing they do.

and they have the nerve to worry about corporations taking over LOL

They are sheep

Utter nonsense. The question is not a denial of warming, but what remediation can be accomplished at this late date. Carbon from man like acid rain needs simple remediation. The rest is simply the merchants of coal and oil paying for a shell game where they hope the hand will be faster than the eye. You cannot handicap stupidity like you can handicap utter incompetency in golf.....you are left playing a scratch game.....and some are simply not up to the task.

This recent article absolutely does NOTHING to change the science, but shows historical high temp periods over 2000 years which shows a scientific range with set probabilities where the flat earthers could show the data that they could see a church steeple from four mile out at sea and that this showed the earth was flat, yet the science extrapolated facts and theory which debunked the apparent data that the earth is flat. Observational data is important, but Einstein had to wait sixty years to have that observational confirmation of his theories which were sound and correct from the beginning.......the observational data over two thousand years no more defeats the man made carbon argument than the flat earthers viewing a church steeple. It is irrelevant.Man's continued pouring of carbon into the atmosphere is warming this planet.

2seaoat wrote:Utter nonsense.   The question is not a denial of warming, but what remediation can be accomplished at this late date.  Carbon from man like acid rain needs simple remediation.  The rest is simply the merchants of coal and oil paying for a shell game where they hope the hand will be faster than the eye.  You cannot handicap stupidity like you can handicap utter incompetency in golf.....you are left playing a scratch game.....and some are simply not up to the task.

Carbon, UNLIKE acid rain, is NOT a pollutant.

Keep in mind, no Global Warming in 19 plus years.

Seaoat thinks he knows it all

Seaoat thinks he knows it all

What happens when the science is a lie? As in where the data is manipulated to get a certain desired result.

Besides, you are no climate scientist.

Science can be wrong. It has been, but the probability of the same is very low if the scientific method is applied and the standards of proof remain consistent. Science does not manipulate data to get a certain desired result. That is anti science and usually driven by large corporations like the tobacco industry which attempted to manipulate science which in the early sixties had created a scientific certainty that smoking was linked to cancer. Just like global warming the industry attempted to manipulate the science to get a certain desired result, and today we have oil and coal doing the same, but the science triumphs over the manipulation.

It does not require that every American become a climate scientist to accept the truth of science, any more than it requires a professional baseball player to observe a baseball game.

The article you posted did not do a thing to change the science of global warming, but again was an observational review of temp variations over 2000 years. The climate scientist are correct. Man is warming the planet because of pouring carbon into our atmosphere.

Carbon, UNLIKE acid rain, is NOT a pollutant.

Acid rain burning high sulfur coal resulted in high ph levels which were destroying lakes, and like the industry denying global warming, it was denied by the coal industry. However, in 1989 science triumphed and congress passed laws to lower emissions despite the disinformation campaigns by the industry and establish cap and trade. In 1995 it was implemented with the goal of reduction of ten million tons of so2. We have reduced so2 emissions by 60% and a great success.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution the burning of fossil fuels and extensive clearing of native forests has contributed to a 40% increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, from 280 ppm in 1750 to 392.6 ppm in 2012. It has now reached 400 ppm in the northern hemisphere. It has clearly become a pollutant which impact long term climate and like acid rain the industry argues the science, but once we passed laws to limit those emissions there was immediate improvements in the environment, and we can certainly slow and reverse the pollution of high levels of 400ppm of carbon in the atmosphere.

VectorMan wrote:
Besides, you are no climate scientist.

So you want to rely on what climate scientists think?

Can you say "consensus"?

lmao

Sal wrote:

VectorMan wrote:
Besides, you are no climate scientist.

So you want to rely on what climate scientists think?

Can you say "consensus"?

lmao

There's a huge chasm between the scientists and that's why they are in a mini-jihad with each other now because some have the balls to say that global warming errrrrrr now CLIMATE change isn't worth the paper it is written on. Nuf said. It's like Shia and Sunni calling each other aspostate.

There's a huge chasm between the scientists

Nope, there is consensus and just like Big Tobacco throwing billions into counter science that smoking had no causal link to cancer, the industry science was wrong, and there always was consensus that smoking caused cancer. There is no chasm between the scientists or any questions in regard to their findings. Pouring carbon into our environment impacts climate change. Recognition of science is not within the capacity of many, and that should not be confused with the science or scientist.

KarlRove wrote:
There's a huge chasm between the scientists

Wanna take another shot at this one, PeeDawg? ....

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t15321-question-for-climate-science-deniers-can-you-name-any-scientific-organization-that-denies-anthropogenic-global-warming?highlight=climate+change

lmao

2seaoat wrote:What happens when the science is a lie? As in where the data is manipulated to get a certain desired result.

Besides, you are no climate scientist.

Science can be wrong.  It has been, but the probability of the same is very low if the scientific method is applied and the standards of proof remain consistent.  Science does not manipulate data to get a certain desired result.   That is anti science and usually driven by large corporations like the tobacco industry which attempted to manipulate science which in the early sixties had created a scientific certainty that smoking was linked to cancer.  Just like global warming the industry attempted to manipulate the science to get a certain desired result, and today we have oil and coal doing the same, but the science triumphs over the manipulation.

It does not require that every American become a climate scientist to accept the truth of science, any more than it requires a professional baseball player to observe a baseball game.

The article you posted did not do a thing to change the science of global warming, but again was an observational review of temp variations over 2000 years.  The climate scientist are correct.  Man is warming the planet because of pouring carbon into our atmosphere.

Carbon, UNLIKE acid rain, is NOT a pollutant.

Acid rain burning high sulfur coal resulted in high ph levels which were destroying lakes, and like the industry denying global warming, it was denied by the coal industry.  However, in 1989 science triumphed and congress passed laws to lower emissions despite the disinformation campaigns by the industry and establish cap and trade.  In 1995 it was implemented with the goal of reduction of ten million tons of so2.  We have reduced so2 emissions by 60% and a great success.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution  the burning of fossil fuels and extensive clearing of native forests has contributed to a 40% increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, from 280 ppm in 1750 to 392.6 ppm in 2012. It has now reached 400 ppm in the northern hemisphere.  It has clearly become a pollutant which impact long term climate and like acid rain the industry argues the science, but once we passed laws to limit those emissions there was immediate improvements in the environment, and we can certainly slow and reverse the pollution of high levels of 400ppm of carbon in the atmosphere.  

Please show us how carbon has "clearly become a pollutant" when it is vital to our very survival and the earth has been cooling?

Instead of 1750, go all the way back to "0" and tell us what the carbon level was at that time.  Then tell us what it was around 1000 which was at the end of the Viking age.  That would be the middle ages warming period.  How did that happen?  How did the Vikings colonize Greenland, raise crops and herds of animals to replenish their ships on the way to North America?  

Oh, the difference between 280 parts per million and 400 parts per million comes to .012 percent, or, as a decimal .00012