 |
Old ships’ logs show temporary global warming in 1730s
Lewis Page
THE REGISTER
Monday, August 4, 2008
A climate prof noted for data mining of archived ships’ logs has produced further insights into global warming. Dr Dennis Wheeler of Sunderland Uni says his latest analysis shows sudden warming of the North Atlantic and Europe – much like that seen in recent times – during the 1730s.
This, Wheeler believes, shows that widespread rises in temperature of the kind recorded lately can be caused naturally. He thinks that human-caused carbon emissions are contributing to climate change now, but says it is unwise to link human emissions to specific events unless evidence is very strong.
“Global warming is a reality, but what our data shows is that climate science is complex and that it is wrong to take particular events and link them to CO2 emissions,” Wheeler told the Times at the weekend.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
Wheeler’s new 1730s temperature spike info comes from trawling through mountains of archived ship’s logs. Royal Navy logbooks have been particularly valuable, both for this project and previous ones.
“British archives contain more than 100,000 Royal Navy logbooks from around 1670 to 1850 alone,” says Wheeler. “They are a stunning resource.”
The new research, compiled by Wheeler and colleagues from the Met Office and other institutions, is to be published in the journal Climatic Change. The paper has already gained a good deal of ink in the UK media, generally referencing Admiral Nelson and Captain Cook for their zeal in keeping accurate records.
As neither Cook nor Nelson were at sea during the 1730s, this seems a bit unreasonable. Perhaps the most famous British naval officer active at the time was Captain (later Admiral) George Anson. Anson subsequently became a naval legend after his epic voyage round the world from 1740-44, during which he and his crew captured a Spanish treasure galleon in the Pacific – making the survivors who eventually got home to England rich men. Later, as an admiral, Anson also handed the French a massive kicking at Cape Finisterre and then became First Sea Lord – the head of the Navy.
Prison
Planet.tv Members Can Watch
Fall Of The Republic
Right Now Online -
Don't Miss Out! Get
Your Subscription Today!
CANCER CONSPIRACY? Are
"they" suppressing the cure? Will YOU
be the next victim? Learn
the Secret Truth! - READ FULL STORY
-
- Social bookmarks
- Email this article
-
- Print this page
24 Responses to “Old ships’ logs show temporary global warming in 1730s”
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |||||||
| By N2H | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
August 4th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
“However, it wasn’t normal for warships to carry thermometers at the time, so much of the analysis draws on winds and the “consistent language” used by sea officers of the time, as well as European shore-based records.”
Aha, well that “proves it”, AGW “is a hoax”!
“Wheeler makes clear he has no doubts about modern human-induced climate change. He said: “Global warming is a reality, but what our data shows is that climate science is complex and that it is wrong to take particular events and link them to CO2 emissions. These records will give us a much clearer picture of what is really happening.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....449527.ece
Oh, never mind. What climate scientists have been saying all along (you can’t blame any specific event on CO2 emissions without a very clear link) has simply been confirmed. Wow, I’m underwhelmed!
Very interesting, but nothing has really changed.
August 4th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Addendum
Oh shit I almost missed it. Thanks you Prison Planet for reprinting the article with the LYING headline rather than the truth.
The lie:
“Old ships’ logs show temporary global warming in 1730s”
The truth:
“This shows that during the 1730s, Europe underwent a period of rapid warming similar to that recorded recently”
Notice any difference? Yes, that’s right the headline does NOT match the data. The data is localised to Europe at the least, and the northern hemisphere at the most.
Why did The Register feel the need to LIE in their headline? Why did Prison Planet feel the need to reprint the LIE, rather than the accurate articles that DON’T LIE (one of them was even linked in the register article)?
Hmm?
August 4th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I just posted the following on that register article:
“All of you, including the people that recognise that this is not evidence against AGW, have failed to see that The Register is LYING to you. The headline says “global warming” but if you check the Times article, what do you find?
“This shows that during the 1730s, Europe underwent a period of rapid warming similar to that recorded recently”
The data does not show GLOBAL warming, it shows EUROPEAN warming. Why did The Register feel the need to LIE in their headline?”
Let’s see if it shows up, shall we?
August 4th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Hear the echo krazykarma? You’re all aloooooooooone……..
August 4th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
@Paul T
“Hear the echo krazykarma? You’re all aloooooooooone……..”
I KNEW IT! You ARE a figment of my imagination! I knew there couldn’t REALLY be someone as ignorant as you out there! Thank god for that!
August 4th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Karmakaze: So you saying that if a period of warning occurs in the northern hemisphere that the southern hemisphere will magically be protected from this.
For all the stupid people (like Karmakaze) let me explain it in a very simple analogy. I have a heater in a room at the front of my home. When i turn it on it heats the front of the house nicely, and though not as rapidly it also heats the distant back of my home also.
Karmakaze: Your an idiot. Here is some advice, if you just keep you fingers away from the keyboard people will automatically think your more intelligent than when you start typing this crap.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:31 am
@Not telling
“Karmakaze: So you saying that if a period of warning occurs in the northern hemisphere that the southern hemisphere will magically be protected from this.”
OH MY GOD ARE YOU SERIOUS?
You do know that when the Northern Hemisphere is in summer, the Southern is in winter, right?
Have you ever asked yourself why when the North gets hotter, the South gets colder, and answered to yourself that it should be impossible because the heat should spread?
If you HAVE, then you are a complete idiot, and there is no helping you.
Of course one hemisphere can warm up without warming up the other. Jesus.
“For all the stupid people (like Karmakaze) let me explain it in a very simple analogy. I have a heater in a room at the front of my home. When i turn it on it heats the front of the house nicely, and though not as rapidly it also heats the distant back of my home also.”
Good try, but retarded none the less.
Let’s try a better analogy. Say I have a basketball court, and I put a small 1KW fan heater at one end. How long before the other end heats up too?
There is your answer – the THERMAL INERTIA of the atmosphere is quite HIGH. That’s why when the Sun goes down, we don’t freeze solid. So you have to warm the North A WHOLE LOT, or for a VERY LONG TIME, before the heat will dissipate to the South at detectable levels.
Jesus. That old saying a “little knowledge can be a dangerous thing” is proven on an hourly basis here.
“Karmakaze: Your an idiot. Here is some advice, if you just keep you fingers away from the keyboard people will automatically think your more intelligent than when you start typing this crap.”
I just proved you wrong in about 10 seconds, so yeah, what does that say about you?
August 5th, 2008 at 5:24 am
Karmakaze: You make some reasonable points, and may be more sophisticated that me in your attempts at explaining non global warming, yet this odes lead us to a more important point.
based on you last post you do imply that there is no such thing as global warning, though I really have the time to debate this topic in length, I will try to extend upon my earlier analogy, by answering yours.
You said “Let’s try a better analogy. Say I have a basketball court, and I put a small 1KW fan heater at one end. How long before the other end heats up too?”
Well to answer that I would say very quickly, though obviously the increase in temperature would be something like
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 degrees and would dissipate due to the natural heating and cooling of the early as it rotates. So again I would say that technically (and I do think you try to be a technical person don’t you) I am correct that a northern hemisphere warning period would in fact very quickly become a global warming.
Which comes to the point that if I am wrong then so are all the “man made global warming theory followers” (which I guess you are one of) as their general theory is one of ozone depletion causing a hole in the ozone, now though I have ignored such theories for years now, the last time I listened to any of that crap there was only one ozone hole limited to one of the caps.
So please try to explain “man made global warming” if I am so far from correct?
August 5th, 2008 at 5:25 am
Excuse my typo’s below “early” should be “Earth”
August 5th, 2008 at 6:53 am
@Not telling
“Excuse my typo’s below “early” should be “Earth””
Don’t worry, I don’t mock people for typos, they are a fact of life. Obviously stupid use of the English language on the other hand, I do. So far, you are not falling into the trap of appearing to be illiterate
—-
@@Not telling 2
“based on you last post you do imply that there is no such thing as global warning”
Actually I don’t do any such thing. The reason it may appear that way is because you are assuming “Global Warming” means warming everywhere, when it actually means “an increase in global mean temperature”. Some areas CAN get colder (at least temporarily) as a result of “Global Warming”.
It’s confusing, I know. That’s why the liars and deniers focus on increasing that confusion. But trust me, like Relativity, what may appear contradictory or even illogical on the surface is totally explainable by the science.
Aside from that, there is another aspect that you have overlooked which also shows why I have not implied there is “no such thing as global warming”, which I will cover below.
“Well to answer that I would say very quickly, though obviously the increase in temperature would be something like
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001″
Actually, no. As I will explain in a moment. That is not the case. Just as a preview let me point out I said a “fan heater” which blows hot air, rather than a “radiant heater” which gives off IR radiation. There is a significant difference, as you will see.
“So again I would say that technically (and I do think you try to be a technical person don’t you) I am correct that a northern hemisphere warning period would in fact very quickly become a global warming.”
OK, to get technical, we have to look at thermodynamics. You see, “temperature” is probably NOT what you think. “Temperature” is just a word we use to describe the kinetic energy stored in a system such as a gas.
If for example we consider the air in the basketball court, what we have is a gas made up of a huge amount of molecules. Each of these molecules is moving about within the container (the basketball court), sometimes colliding with each other, and sometimes colliding with the walls. These molecules are ALSO moving internally (that is the two oxygen atoms are not stationary relative to each other).
All this motion is the kinetic energy.
When you increase the “temperature” what you are doing is increasing the kinetic energy, or motion, of the molecules. So a simplified system would be if we “grabbed” ONE molecule and accelerated it (by whatever means). Now THAT molecule has a higher “temperature”.
It goes flying off, and eventually hits something. When it does, it passes some of its kinetic energy to whatever it hit, either another O2 molecule, or a molecule making up the walls. Both of those molecules now have a higher “temperature” than at the start, but lower than the “temperature” WE gave the first molecule.
This continues until all molecules are at the same “temperature”. That is called thermodynamic equilibrium. Now as you can imagine, dividing the energy we gave into the system through one molecule takes quite a bit of time, and divides it by so much that the end temperature would probably not be detectably different from when we started.
The process is the same with the fan heater, even though we are heating many more molecules than the simplified example. The fan heater heats a parcel of air, and then that parcel via collisions spreads the energy out until thermodynamic equilibrium is reached. It gets more complex though, because we don’t stop with the original parcel of air, but overall the effect is the same. It takes a lot of time, and a lot of energy to heat up a lot of gas from only a small source.
The difference with a radiant heater is that the method of heating is not based on heating a small parcel of air over and over again, but by radiating IR energy at the speed of light. A powerful enough radiant heater could be felt instantly on the other end of the court.
Air molecules at the far end of the court would be heated by the IR at the speed of light, rather than relying on the heat from one end to be propagated via collisions to the other. However the closer to the source, the more energy the air absorbs, and thus the IR doesn’t go forever. Sooner or later all the photons have hit a molecule. So the far end will still be cooler than the close end.
So back to our fan heater. Simply put, it heats up a stream of air which is then blown into the room. That air then warms the air around it, slowly bit by bit passing the heat to the far end. If the energy we put in isn’t enough though what will happen is the reverse of what you would think. Rather than the warm end causing the cold end to warm up too, the energy lost trying to warm the far end up simply results in the close end going cold again. There just isn’t enough energy to go around AND result in a temperature increase of the entire system.
If you are close enough to the heater, the air will be warmer. But get far enough away, and the temperature will NEVER increase.
That’s what they mean by thermal inertia. It takes a certain amount of energy, just to propagate the energy, and if you don’t add enough, it won’t propagate very far.
Imagine lining up a million billiard balls, touching each other. If you lightly tap one end, the energy will dissipate before it reaches the other, and the last ball won’t move at all. Do the same thing with 10 balls though, and the same tap will make the last one roll away.
This is why the liars and deniers can fool you. They KNOW this stuff is fairly complex, not intuitive, and not that well known by most people. They RELY on it, in fact. It is far easier for THEM to spout bullshit, than it is for us to correct them. You remember their catchy soundbites and forget the boring science lecture.
“Which comes to the point that if I am wrong then so are all the “man made global warming theory followers” (which I guess you are one of) as their general theory is one of ozone depletion causing a hole in the ozone,”
I’m trying VERY hard not to mock you, because you seem genuinely to be trying to understand, unlike some around here.
The fact is Ozone depletion has NOTHING to do with Global Warming. Ozone depletion and the holes are caused by chemical reactions in the upper atmosphere. Ozone blocks much of the UV light coming from the Sun, sort of a global sunscreen. CFC’s chemically reacted with Ozone causing it to no longer block these rays, leading to much increased UV levels hitting the surface.
UV or Ultraviolet energy doesn’t heat things up, that’s IR or Infrared energy, what UV DOES do is damage biological cells. That’s why UV light is used as a disinfectant, and why you get “sunburned”. It’s NOT due to heating, but direct cellular damage. Increased UV levels also increase skin cancer levels, which is why banning CFC’s was so important. Global Warming hasn’t killed anyone yet (well not that you could prove anyway), but the Ozone holes killed LOTS of people due to skyrocketing cancer rates.
“I have ignored such theories for years now, the last time I listened to any of that crap there was only one ozone hole limited to one of the caps.”
There is your problem. You somehow got a wrong impression of what was happening, and since then have closed your mind to the evident truth. Conflating Ozone depletion and Global Warming is EXACTLY the kind if thing the liars and deniers are trying to accomplish. They want to trick you into believing BULLSHIT, so that they can keep screwing you over. Don’t fall for it. I have given you enough information that if you REALLY want to know the TRUTH, you should be able to find out more, easily, especially with this wonderful resource, the internet.
Just don’t fall for the bullshit that comes from the liars and deniers, check it out! Verify what they are saying against, not just climate science, but even basic uncontested science like thermodynamics. They rely on you NOT to do that.
“So please try to explain “man made global warming” if I am so far from correct?”
Ok, but in a nutshell because this post is WAY long
The Greenhouse Effect describes the mechanism by which certain gases in the atmosphere interact with the IR energy coming from the Sun. That energy is more easily absorbed by GHG’s than by non-GHG’s like nitrogen and oxygen, which don’t absorb much at all. By increasing the relative concentration of CO2 and other GHG’s you increase the ability of the atmosphere in general to absorb IR radiation. This has the effect of warming the atmosphere (remember, heat one molecule and it passes that heat to other via collisions), and is the reason global mean temperature of the Earth is not a crisp MINUS 18 degrees Celsius, but rather a much more friendly positive 14 degrees Celsius.
If it wasn’t for the Greenhouse Effect (that was discovered in 1820 by the way) then life on Earth would have been unlikely to have ever got going.
So, if WE increase atmospheric CO2, we increase the ability for the atmosphere to hold the energy the Sun radiates at us. That is Global Warming. It doesn’t mean the whole globe gets hotter simultaneously, and it is actually a very complex system of forcing and feedback, but that’s pretty much how it works.
NONE of this is in question any more. This is a FACT. The only questions that remain are how much are we putting there, how much is too much, and what will happen if we get to that level. Even the liars and deniers will not dispute the basic facts.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Science is not a popularity contest, as a lot of you people seem to think.
It doesn’t matter how many people believe that 2+2=5. Billions of people could jump up and down and ferverently believe that 2+2=5 is really and truly the truest of truly true truths, and that still won’t make it so. Two plus two equals four.
A carbon dioxide molecule or a methane molecule or whatever molecule are going to behave exactly as what they are. You can’t popularity contest them into behaving in ways you would rather have them do. The laws of physics these molecules actually behave by are exactly the same over the entirety of the universe. The way a carbon dioxide molecule behaves is exactly the same on Venus as it is on Earth or any other planet that’s warm enough that lets CO2 exist as a gas. There is absolutely no difference. None. Zilch. Nada.
I would highly recommend that people stop simply engaging in a knee-jerk reaction to whatever the neocons/globalists/elitists say. For a long time they denied any climate change going on because they didn’t want their applecart upset of sucking in as much money as they could by polluting the planet as they felt like. And then they figured out that they could exploit the climate change situation to their advantage and started doing so by hopping on the bandwagon. (In bizarre and repulsive ways, of course.) And then people started doing a knee-jerk reaction that if the neocons/globalists/elitists said such-and-such, then the opposite must be the real truth!
If the neocons/globalists/elitists told you not to crap on your pillow and use it to sleep with because it’s a disgusting and unsanitary thing to do, would you still do it because they told you not to? Just being knee-jerk contrary isn’t necessarily the wisest and healthy thing to do.
Let’s make this absolutely clear: living things (including humans) can and do make their impact on the Earth. The oxygen you are currently breathing is in the air because living things put it there. Before they had, there was virtually no oxygen in the air. If you had a time machine and went back billions of years and you weren’t wearing a respirator, you would die of suffocation. And the lifeforms that started creating the oxygen that completely changed the fate of the Earth were just little itty-bitty single-celled organisms. And most of oxygen we breathe is still created by single-celled organisms. Oxygen isn’t just magically in the air. It’s there because living things are putting it there. If they weren’t, in about 3000 years or so, the oxygen currently in the air would be used up in various ways of oxidation.
Living things have the ability to change their environment. In a multitude of different ways.
So enough already with the “We humans are just too puny and insignificant to make any real difference to how the Earth works.” What goofy and blatant balderdash! For a long, long time, humans have had a lifestyle of uncaring slobness, and now the consequences of that slobness are catching up.
Kids, just say no to being total slobs!
August 5th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Ha ha! Just kidding in my previous post!
All our problems are being caused by the molepeople living on the Moon, which, as everyone knows, is made of green cheese!
If it weren’t for the molepeople, we would all be living lives of absolute happiness and joy. The molepeople are trying to fool us into believing there’s a problem with the climate so we’ll become too discomboobalated to resist their invasion of the Earth!
I, for one, welcome our new overlords. Hail to the molepeople from the moon!
(Ok, Karmakaze, rake me over the coals. And make it funny!)
August 5th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
That’s right Steve keep taking Medication it might just cure your BRAINWASHED mind..
August 5th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
@Steve Williams
“All our problems are being caused by the molepeople living on the Moon, which, as everyone knows, is made of green cheese!”
You utter retard. Seriously, where did you get your education? I would demand a refund and compensation if I were you.
Fortunately, I’m not you, and have enough brains to know that the molepeople are actually trying to save us from the impending disaster that will exterminate us all.
That disaster of course is Planet X, an invisible planet that was fired at us by the Greys from Alpha Centauri and is due to hit in 2012!
Idiots like you though, keep claiming the molepeople are the bad guys and we shouldn’t listen to them! Seriously! Who would you rather believe, Bush and his neocon NWO demons, or the nice, cuddly, essentially blind molepeople? I know who I trust, but I’m not a mentally deficient semi-vegetable, like SOME people.
You will NOT live to regret your stupidity, MARK MY WORDS!
“If it weren’t for the molepeople, we would all be living lives of absolute happiness and joy.”
That’s what the NWO WANT you to think. Hell they have even planted a “mole” (hmm notice the negative connotation???) to spread the truth of Planet X, but convince us that in fact the best way to solve the problem is to give all our first born children to the Greys in the hope they will call off the attack! Don’t be fooled, that’s just Plan B! They even prefer that way, because then the Greys get slaves, and we get toasted.
What we REALLY need to do is just LISTEN to the molepeople, because they are TELLING us what we have to do, and sacrificing our firstborns is NOT it.
“I, for one, welcome our new overlords. Hail to the molepeople from the moon!”
See how they have programmed you to hate the molepeople? You think they WANT to rule over you? Hell, they can’t even see you. Just don’t go messing about with the Moon, and they’ll be more than happy to help us for nothing – after all, If we go, then they do too!
August 5th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
@Steve Williams addendum
“The previous message was brought to you by Veiled Analogies Inc, a subsidiary of Intelligent Mockery International. All rights Reserved © 2008″
August 5th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
@The Truth Is Out There
“That’s right Steve keep taking Medication it might just cure your BRAINWASHED mind..”
Ah TTIOT, my old adversary, we meet again!
Once more I shall cut you down with my sharp tongue and rapier wit. You will bleed from every natural orifice and a few extras by the time I am done with you!
En Garde!
August 5th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
@Steve Williams addendum addendum
“Intelligent Mockery International” -> “IMI”
“Israel Military Industries” -> “IMI”
Is it all just a Zionist conspiracy???? You decide!
August 5th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
@The Truth Is Out There Addendum
“En Garde!”
Oh shit, I just spoke French, which means I must BE French, which therefore means you have about 5 seconds to have a shot at me before I surrender unconditionally!
(isn’t that right, my *cough*ignorant*cough* American friends???)
August 5th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
@ Karmakaze
Sniffle… sniffle… I got my education from the backs of cereal boxes… sniffle… What? That wasn’t good enough? Sniffle…
Jeez… didn’t anyone here actually bother reading the webpage you previously linked to?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
I mean, that webpage pretty much says it all. It’s the cake that all the other stuff is just icing upon.
And if that page isn’t dumbed down enough for the drooling, gibbering masses, it has a link to an even more dumbed down version.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
@Steve Williams
RealClimate is an incredible resource. It is an unfiltered source of the actual science from the actual scientists. Forget the media, the liars and deniers and the legion of ignorant fools, if you want to know what the truth behind AGW is, go straight to the source.
Of course they are not the ONLY good source, but RealClimate is a few prominent scientists’ way of fighting back against all the bull floating around out there. So instead of having to find some sources to fight against the current load being spouted by the liars and deniers, they usually have the documented answer in easy to understand language. Even the comments are often posted by climate scientists, so simply reading through the comments can be an educating experience.
Even if you DON’T “believe in” AGW, RealClimate should be your first port of call when trying to find out what the climate scientists themselves are saying, rather than relying on ignorant journalists to relay it to you. That way, at least you can argue against what the scientists are really saying, rather than some distorted and often ridiculously wrong article.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Kamakaze..(kaze?? is’nt that slang for a SHITHOUSE!!)
Once more I shall cut you down with my sharp tongue and rapier wit. You will bleed from every natural orifice and a few extras by the time I am done with you!
YAWN YAWN YAWN….ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
August 6th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
@The Truth Is Out There
“Kamakaze..(kaze?? is’nt that slang for a SHITHOUSE!!)”
You should know I suppose, after all you spend so much time in public ones… Why is that, by the way? And what’s wrong with your foot? It keeps tapping…
“YAWN YAWN YAWN….ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz”
No cigarette first? I guess I did pound you pretty hard… so to speak
August 6th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
we let them do it.. thats why they do it
http://www.youtube.com/user/giantshadows
GS
August 7th, 2008 at 3:39 am
@Giant Shadows
Sounded good, if you like that kind of music… Good for you though, and no I’m not being a smart arse – I like it when the little guy does his own thing, and tries to break through or bypass the gateway the corporations have put on our culture (ie music etc).
Hope you are successful and have a good time doing it.