Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent (Filed: 06/04/2003) Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages. From the outset of the global warming debate in the late 1980s, environmentalists have said that temperatures are rising higher and faster than ever before, leading some scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases from cars and power stations are causing these "record-breaking" global temperatures. Last year, scientists working for the UK Climate Impacts Programme said that global temperatures were "the hottest since records began" and added: "We are pretty sure that climate change due to human activity is here and it's accelerating." This announcement followed research published in 1998, when scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia declared that the 1990s had been hotter than any other period for 1,000 years. Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists. The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world. The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today. They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages. The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's temperature rise. According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today's "unprecedented" temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period of time. The study, about to be published in the journal Energy and Environment, has been welcomed by sceptics of global warming, who say it puts the claims of environmentalists in proper context. Until now, suggestions that the Middle Ages were as warm as the 21st century had been largely anecdotal and were often challenged by believers in man-made global warming. Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history." According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone." In contrast, said Prof Stott, severe famines and economic collapse followed the onset of the Little Ice Age around 1300. He said: "When the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth." The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the official voice of global warming research, has conceded the possibility that today's "record-breaking" temperatures may be at least partly caused by the Earth recovering from a relatively cold period in recent history. While the evidence for entirely natural changes in the Earth's temperature continues to grow, its causes still remain mysterious. Dr Simon Brown, the climate extremes research manager at the Meteorological Office at Bracknell, said that the present consensus among scientists on the IPCC was that the Medieval Warm Period could not be used to judge the significance of existing warming. Dr Brown said: "The conclusion that 20th century warming is not unusual relies on the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon. This is not the conclusion of IPCC." He added that there were also doubts about the reliability of temperature proxies such as tree rings: "They are not able to capture the recent warming of the last 50 years," he said.
This news is a mixed blessing. While I welcome the new info on the earth's condition, some will view it as an excuse to continue to hurt our environment.
I think there is little doubt in the scientific community natural forces predominantly cause global temperature change. But that doesn't discount that there is pretty good evidence man has impacted our climate globally and that it may not be a good idea to exacerbate the problem. Now I want to take part some of the language used by the writer. The author clearly isn't every educated among the science of complex phenomenon or is educated but showing his bias. Namely, there are rarely single causes of complex phenomenom--there are multiple causal influences which often interact with each other. Replace "causing" with "contributing" in the above sentence and I think this better represents the view of most scientists. Changes the meaning quite a bit doesn't it? Again, once you recognize man and nature can both play a part in climate change, and interact with each other, you realize this statement is not all refuted by the new study the author refers to. "Prove" is way too strong given the numerous assumptions one has to do in a complex retrospective study of this nature, try "suggest". Ok, this is a little more like it ("confirms suspicians" versus prove). First sentence is fine. Then he talks about "believers" in man-made global warming. Yeah, I don't like it when they come prostelizing at my door. Prof Stott--don't you think the population distribution is a little different now and you do know England isn't the center of the world right? (sarcasim). Well sure, England could stand a few degree higher temp, might even be good for English winemaking, who hoo--but what about the world population center in Asia, Africa, S and C America who live closer to the equator and don't have similar ocean currents? It is hard to argue with this part.
How balmy were the Middle Ages when the Ross Ice Shelf that collapsed in 2002 may have survived for 12,000 years? http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/larsenb2002/ And we're still warming-up!
I agree that we are warming... I remember going to Banff in 98...I can't remember the name of the glacier (???), but it had a timeline of where the glacier had been...It was pretty amazing stuff and I tend to agree that some of man's creations have had an adverse effect on the world in general...
Even if you don't believe that man can effect the climate, how can people deny the effects of pollution on human beings? I hope the day will come when certain people won't have to stay indoors because of a smog alert.
This is an excellent post. Personally I'm not convinced that man is responsible for global warming. I agree that the earth is warming - just not convinced that it's man's fault (however, I'm open to the idea). Regardless, we should reduce emissions simply because it's a good idea in and of itself to do so. Breathing in pollution can not be a good idea!