Skip to main content

New research shows the Arctic is practically baking under anthropogenic global warming, hottest in 120,000 years Comments

A new study reveals that temperatures across the Canadian Arctic are now greater than they have been in the last 44,000 years, and possibly longer. Scientists say it is more proof of anthropogenic global warming. Continue Reading

1 - 10 of 25 Comments

  1. ManassasGrandma
    11 months ago

    BUNK.

  2. windy
    11 months ago

    Catholic Online missed this part:

    "The new study also showed summer temperatures cooled in the Canadian Arctic by about 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit) from roughly 5,000 years ago to about 100 years ago – a period that included the Little Ice Age from 1275 to about 1900."

    Don't you just love cherry picking? The article headline could have easily been "Unprecedented Arctic Summer Cooling In Last 5,000 Years'.

    Did Catholic Online cover new ice age warning and solar impacts on climate?


    'Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist'

    It’s known by climatologists as the ‘Little Ice Age’, a period in the 1600s when harsh winters across the UK and Europe were often severe.

    The severe cold went hand in hand with an exceptionally inactive sun, and was called the Maunder solar minimum.

    Now a leading scientist from Reading University has told me that the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there’s a real risk of seeing a return of such conditions.

    I’ve been to see Professor Mike Lockwood to take a look at the work he has been conducting into the possible link between solar activity and climate patterns.

    According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985.

    Since then the sun has been getting quieter.

    By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years.

    Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.

    He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now - and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.

    Based on his findings he’s raised the risk of a new Maunder minimum from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%.

    And a repeat of the Dalton solar minimum which occurred in the early 1800s, which also had its fair share of cold winters and poor summers, is, according to him, ‘more likely than not’ to happen.

    He believes that we are already beginning to see a change in our climate - witness the colder winters and poor summers of recent years - and that over the next few decades there could be a slide to a new Maunder minimum.

    It’s worth stressing that not every winter would be severe; nor would every summer be poor. But harsh winters and unsettled summers would become more frequent.

    Professor Lockwood doesn’t hold back in his description of the potential impacts such a scenario would have in the UK.

    He says such a change to our climate could have profound implications for energy policy and our transport infrastructure.

    Although the biggest impact of such solar driven change would be regional, like here in the UK and across Europe, there would be global implications too.

    You can see more on Inside Out on Monday 28th October on BBC1, at 7.30pm.

  3. Jerry N
    11 months ago

    Holon,

    "So how do you explain the consensus which was just laid out for you? "

    I already explained it in my previous post. Once again, for the umpteenth time: Consensus has nothing to do with science. Where is your factual scientific evidence that man is causing global climate change? All the available evidence indicates that Earth's climate has been changing as far back in its history as anyone can measure, even before man is thought to have existed. Why is man now the cause, but was not the cause for the previous 4 billion or so years of global climate change?

    "Are you implying that some or all of the organizations I cited are not part of the consensus? "

    I am implying that I don't care how many organizations you cited or what their official positions happen to be. When facts stare one in the face, one does not need organizations with fancy-sounding names to validate those facts. Human history is replete with examples of overwhelming consensus turning out to be overwhelmingly wrong.

    "Really, Jerry N.? Please provide a third."

    Really, Holon? There are about a billion or more people who have concluded that man-caused global climate change is a hoax and you claim they all share only one of two idiotic motives that you have invented for them? Here's a third: sensible people choose to examine and believe the available scientific data instead of blindly accepting nonsense spewed out by those who are either ignorant of the facts, or who are politically-motivated enough to choose to ignore the facts.


  4. Peter Anderson
    11 months ago

    Anna, proxy data is made using many presumptions...the most incorrect is that CO2 has any correlation to temperature thus the proxy data can be considered at least suspect and quite validly otherwise considered invalid. There is no observed correlation of CO2 to Temperature and it's irrational to deny what's sitting right in front of us! Next, the funding of Climate Science is not generating anything of worth, its been over run by non-science effort. That 'federal funding' is nothing more than a drain on the public coffers, if there was worth then private endeavors would be being made without coercion.
    "Map: The Climate Change Scare Machine — the perpetual self-feeding cycle of alarm"
    (http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/map-the-climate-change-scare-machine-the-perpetual-self-feeding-cycle-of-alarm/).

    Next, Holon, do notice that in mentioning...
    "Since 2007 when the United Nations issued its Fourth Assessment Report on global warming dozens of published surveys of thousands of climate and earth scientists from all over the world have been conducted to determine whether a consensus exists regarding anthropogenic global warming. In each of these surveys the number of scientists who believe humans have nothing to do with global warming varied from 0 to 5%. In others words, those that do varied between 95 and 100%."
    ...it is naught more than a few 'scientists' voting, but there is no Science made in that effort so you cannot call those individuals Scientists by surveying then. Next, are those individuals a clique...such a grouping as the 'Union of Concerned Scientists' might be considered a clique (for example). There is no actual Science to support your (or their) assertions that is supported by direct observation. Regarding the IPCC (http://joannenova.com.au/tag/ipcc/), and notice the 5th report is been made and seems unable to notice any anthropogenic effect (of actual significance anyway)!

    Proxy data doesn't replace direct observation, do notice you both, Anna and Holon and there remains no actual observation of the supposed CO2 effect...its actual properties cannot be ascertained still after 30 years of funded 'research' and so it must be considered as non-existent. No observable problem at the Poles, none in Sea Level rise or Ocean Temperature, none even in the Polar Bear population! Just accept that there is no problem within Climate (or Warming) Effect, it is the only rational position to take. Recall (http://joannenova.com.au/tag/alarmist-behaviour/).

  5. Ned
    11 months ago

    "Research proves humans are causing the warming." Editorial advocacy masquerading as news.

  6. holon
    11 months ago

    Jerry N., Jerry N., Jerry N.,

    How sad. Look up the definition of denial. It fits your response to the T.

    "There is little or no scientific evidence that supports the ridiculous notion that man controls the earth's temperature,". So how do you explain the consensus which was just laid out for you? Are you implying that some or all of the organizations I cited are not part of the consensus? Please name one. And please don't give us some link to some study by some scientist. Give us all a reputable science organization other than the Association of Petroleum Engineers. "You also choose to propose a false dichotomous premise that there are only two possible motives that fit we sensible people who know that man-made global warming is a hoax." Really, Jerry N.? Please provide a third.

  7. Jerry N
    11 months ago

    Holon,

    Your "consensus" diatribe is the only position remaining for you natural earth process deniers. There is little or no scientific evidence that supports the ridiculous notion that man controls the earth's temperature, so you must resort to claiming "consensus" and trying to marginalize the opposition - a tactic worthy of Saul Alinsky, but far removed from scientific method.

    Consensus is not science, as has been pointed out numerous times on this forum. All the groups with impressive names that you think support man-made global warming are all highly dependent on government grants as a source of funding. The hundreds of thousands of independent general members of these groups are never polled as to their opinions. You are relying on the politically convenient opinions of a very small numbers of individual that occupy their leadership ranks.

    You also choose to propose a false dichotomous premise that there are only two possible motives that fit we sensible people who know that man-made global warming is a hoax. The intelligent skeptics of man-made influence on global climate are as diverse as would be any collection of tens of millions of people. Your offering a phony boolean option for the motivations of those you call "deniers" is just further evidence that your statements are politically, not scientifically, motivated.

  8. Holon
    11 months ago

    Since 2007 when the United Nations issued its Fourth Assessment Report on global warming dozens of published surveys of thousands of climate and earth scientists from all over the world have been conducted to determine whether a consensus exists regarding anthropogenic global warming. In each of these surveys the number of scientists who believe humans have nothing to do with global warming varied from 0 to 5%. In others words, those that do varied between 95 and 100%. This consensus is supported by thirty-four national academies of science (including the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Sweden, and Russia), NASA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Research Council, the World Meteorological Organization, the American Meteorological Society, the American Chemical Society, the American Institute of Physics, the Australian Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, European Physical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the European Geosciences Union, and the Geological Society. The US military (yes, the US Military!) and CIA’s Center on Climate Change and National Security agree with this consensus. The world’s biggest re-insurance companies agree as do many of the world’s biggest corporations. The Vatican supports the consensus.

    So then one is lead to believe that all the AGW deniers on this post think either (1) this is a global pandemic of mass stupidity by world's best scientists, or (2) this is some Orwellian, World Order scheme concocted by one fat ex-VP (Al Gore) to make scientists rich and screw the world. Which is it? If it's the former then you should just write off the entire scientific community (doctors, astronomers, geologists, public health researchers, you name it) as charlatans and not believe a word of what they say, or if its the latter, then you believe Elvis lives and Pope Francis is a space alien.

  9. Bruce
    11 months ago

    Why did they use 120,000 years?

    The simple answer is that the Eemian interglacial was warmer and it's peak warmth occurred 125,000 years ago.

    "The warmest peak of the Eemian was around 125,000 years ago, when forests reached as far north as North Cape (which is now tundra) in northern Norway well above the Arctic Circle at 71°10′21″N 25°47′40″E. Hardwood trees like hazel and oak grew as far north as Oulu, Finland.

    "At the peak of the Eemian, the northern hemisphere winters were generally warmer and wetter than now, though some areas were actually slightly cooler than today.

    The Hippopotamus was distributed as far north as the rivers Rhine and Thames.

    Trees grew as far north as southern Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago instead of only as far north as Kuujjuaq in northern Quebec, and the prairie-forest boundary in the Great Plains of the United States lay further west — near Lubbock, Texas, instead of near Dallas, Texas, where the boundary now exists.

    The period closed as temperatures steadily fell to conditions cooler and drier than the present, with 468-year long aridity pulse in central Europe, and by 114,000 years ago, a glacial period had returned."


    There were no SUV's during the Eemian. And it ended. Just like the Holocene will end.

  10. Ben Vincent
    11 months ago

    The Danish Meteorology Institute reported that for the entire summer of 2013 the Arctic above 80N had cooler than average temperatures.
    Alaska has cooled 2.4 degrees since the year 2000.

    And even if it is the warmest in 120,000 years all that tells us is that it had to have happened naturally 120,000 years ago. I for one do not see man as more powerful than God and nature today.


Leave a Comment

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment

Newsletter Sign Up

Daily Readings

Reading 1, Ephesians 3:14-21
This, then, is what I pray, kneeling before the Father, from ... Read More

Psalm, Psalms 33:1-2, 4-5, 11-12, 18-19
Shout for joy, you upright; praise comes well from the honest. ... Read More

Gospel, Luke 12:49-53
'I have come to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were ... Read More

Saint of the Day

October 23 Saint of the Day

St. John of Capistrano
October 23: St. John was born at Capistrano, Italy in 1385, the son of a ... Read More