US lists polar bear as threatened species

[GaryC 7]

AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment

How Warm Was the Medieval Warm Period?

Thomas J. Crowley and Thomas S. Lowery

A frequent conclusion based on study of individual records from the so-called Medieval Warm Period (∼1000-1300 A.D.) is that the present warmth of the 20 th century is not unusual and therefore cannot be taken as an indication of forced climate change from greenhouse gas emissions. This conclusion is not supported by published composites of Northern Hemisphere climate change, but the conclusions of such syntheses are often either ignored or challenged. In this paper, we revisit the controversy by incorporating additional time series not used in earlier hemispheric compilations. Another difference is that the present reconstruction uses records that are only 900–1000 years long, thereby, avoiding the potential problem of uncertainties introduced by using different numbers of records at different times. Despite clear evidence for Medieval warmth greater than present in some individual records, the new hemispheric composite supports the principal conclusion of earlier hemispheric reconstructions and, furthermore, indicates that maximum Medieval warmth was restricted to two-three 20–30 year intervals, with composite values during these times being only comparable to the mid-20 th century warm time interval. Failure to substantiate hemispheric warmth greater than the present consistently occurs in composites because there are significant offsets in timing of warmth in different regions; ignoring these offsets can lead to serious errors concerning inferences about the magnitude of Medieval warmth and its relevance to interpretation of late 20 th century warming.

Science 23 February 2001:

Vol. 291. no. 5508, pp. 1497 - 1499

DOI: 10.1126/science.291.5508.1497

PALEOCLIMATE:

Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?

Wallace S. Broecker

During the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1200 A.D.), the Vikings colonized Greenland. In his Perspective, Broecker discusses whether this warm period was global or regional in extent. He argues that it is the last in a long series of climate fluctuations in the North Atlantic, that it was likely global, and that the present warming should be attributed in part to such an oscillation, upon which the warming due to greenhouse gases is superimposed.

Was there a ‘medieval warm period’, and if so, where and when?

Journal Climatic Change

Publisher Springer Netherlands

ISSN 0165-0009 (Print) 1573-1480 (Online)

Issue Volume 26, Numbers 2-3 / March, 1994

DOI 10.1007/BF01092410

Pages 109-142

Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science

SpringerLink Date Monday, February 07, 2005

Malcolm K. Hughes1, 2 Contact Information and Henry F. Diaz3

(1) Laboratory of Tree Ring Research, University of Arizona, 85721 Tucson, AZ

(2) Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science, University of Colorado, 80309 Boulder, CO, USA

(3) NOAA/ERL/CDC, 325 Broadway, 80303 Boulder, CO, USA

Received: 22 September 1993 Revised: 9 December 1993

Abstract It has frequently been suggested that the period encompassing the ninth to the fourteenth centuries A.D. experienced a climate warmer than that prevailing around the turn of the twentieth century. This epoch has become known as theMedieval Warm Period, since it coincides with the Middle Ages in Europe. In this review a number of lines of evidence are considered, (including climatesensitive tree rings, documentary sources, and montane glaciers) in order to evaluate whether it is reasonable to conclude that climate in medieval times was, indeed, warmer than the climate of more recent times. Our review indicates that for some areas of the globe (for example, Scandinavia, China, the Sierra Nevada in California, the Canadian Rockies and Tasmania), temperatures, particularly in summer, appear to have been higher during some parts of this period than those that were to prevail until the most recent decades of the twentieth century. These warmer regional episodes were not strongly synchronous. Evidence from other regions (for example, the Southeast United States, southern Europe along the Mediterranean, and parts of South America) indicates that the climate during that time was little different to that of later times, or that warming, if it occurred, was recorded at a later time than has been assumed. Taken together, the available evidence does not support aglobal Medieval Warm Period, although more support for such a phenomenon could be drawn from high-elevation records than from low-elevation records.

The available data exhibit significant decadal to century scale variability throughout the last millennium. A comparison of 30-year averages for various climate indices places recent decades in a longer term perspective.

Science 14 July 2000:

Vol. 289. no. 5477, pp. 270 - 277

DOI: 10.1126/science.289.5477.270

Research Articles

Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years

Thomas J. Crowley

Recent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and climate forcing over the past 1000 years allow the warming of the 20th century to be placed within a historical context and various mechanisms of climate change to be tested. Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism. Removal of the forced response from reconstructed temperature time series yields residuals that show similar variability to those of control runs of coupled models, thereby lending support to the models' value as estimates of low-frequency variability in the climate system. Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the ~1000-year time series results in a residual with a very large late-20th-century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing. The combination of a unique level of temperature increase in the late 20th century and improved constraints on the role of natural variability provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect has already established itself above the level of natural variability in the climate system. A 21st-century global warming projection far exceeds the natural variability of the past 1000 years and is greater than the best estimate of global temperature change for the last interglacial.

Yeah? Big deal. We are talking about the polar bears. They survived that period and they will survive the natural warming period that ended in 1998. It is getting cooler now so they are safe.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Are polar bears endangered?

Scientists predict that, if current warming trends continue in the Arctic, two-thirds of the world's polar bears could disappear by 2050. At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (held in Seattle in 2005), the world's leading polar bear scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, five were declining, five were stable, two were increasing, and seven had insufficient data to make a determination. The group reclassified the polar bear as vulnerable on the IUCN World Conservation Union's "Red List of Threatened Species," noting that the species could become extinct due to sea ice changes. Individual countries with polar bears have reclassified the species as well. Citing to concerns about shrinking sea ice habitat, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced on May 14, 2008, that it is listing the polar bear as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act. Canada and Russia both list the polar bear as "a species of concern." The major threat to the polar bear is shrinking sea ice habitat due to climate change. Other threats include pollution, poaching, and industrial disturbances. Hunting could become a threat if populations are not well managed.

How many polar bears are there?

Scientists estimate that there are between 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/faq/

Funny, during the Medieval Warming period the polar bears did just fine. At that time the global temps were so high that Greenland was really green and the Vikings were able to sail to the New World. (funny thing about that Medieval Warming period, it happened without the help of humans. Go figure.) There was very little Arctic ice and they got through it just fine. Why would this be any different? This is just scare mongering and has no basis in fact.

I like your approach to science, Gary....like it's always open for debate. Next topic, let's debate the accuracy of a rocket propulsion system.

[GaryC 7]

Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period Go Global

”Climate alarmists generally contend that the Little Ice Age was localized to countries bordering the North Atlantic Ocean, because if there had been a global Little Ice Age, there would have had to have been a global Medieval Warm Period to help define it; and if there was a global Medieval Warm Period that was as warm as, or warmer than, the Current Warm Period, there would be no valid reason for claiming that the warmth of the modern era is the result of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, for the air’s CO2 concentration during both the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period was fairly constant and fully 100 ppm less than what it is today, which suggests that since something other than a rise and fall in the air’s CO2 content was responsible for producing both medieval warmth and subsequent Little Ice Age cold, that same something else may well have been - and likely was - responsible for the warming of the past century that brought us out of the Little Ice Age. Hence, we continuously scan the scientific literature for evidence related to this topic; and we here report what we have learned about the subject from studies conducted in Australia and New Zealand. …”

“…In conclusion, we suggest that for climate alarmists who claim the Little Ice Age was a less-than-global phenomenon restricted to lands bordering the North Atlantic Ocean, it must be embarrassing to see research papers, such as this ones above, that document the existence of this multi-century cold spell in lands as far away as New Zealand, and to additionally learn that the Little Ice Age was largely synchronous in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. One would think, therefore, that it would do them good to admit the obvious about this matter; but they can’t. Why? Because it is the Little Ice Age that makes 20th-century global warming look so dramatic, and which allows them to claim it must be unnatural and caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, when in reality it is but the recovery of the planet from perhaps the coldest period of the current interglacial to a level of warmth that has been experienced several times before, such as during the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago and the Roman Warm Period of two thousand years ago, when there was 100 ppm less CO2 in the air than there is currently.”

http://raymondpronk.wordpress.com/2007/08/...riod-go-global/

[GaryC 7]

Are polar bears endangered?

Scientists predict that, if current warming trends continue in the Arctic, two-thirds of the world's polar bears could disappear by 2050. At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (held in Seattle in 2005), the world's leading polar bear scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, five were declining, five were stable, two were increasing, and seven had insufficient data to make a determination. The group reclassified the polar bear as vulnerable on the IUCN World Conservation Union's "Red List of Threatened Species," noting that the species could become extinct due to sea ice changes. Individual countries with polar bears have reclassified the species as well. Citing to concerns about shrinking sea ice habitat, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced on May 14, 2008, that it is listing the polar bear as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act. Canada and Russia both list the polar bear as "a species of concern." The major threat to the polar bear is shrinking sea ice habitat due to climate change. Other threats include pollution, poaching, and industrial disturbances. Hunting could become a threat if populations are not well managed.

How many polar bears are there?

Scientists estimate that there are between 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/faq/

Funny, during the Medieval Warming period the polar bears did just fine. At that time the global temps were so high that Greenland was really green and the Vikings were able to sail to the New World. (funny thing about that Medieval Warming period, it happened without the help of humans. Go figure.) There was very little Arctic ice and they got through it just fine. Why would this be any different? This is just scare mongering and has no basis in fact.

I like your approach to science, Gary....like it's always open for debate. Next topic, let's debate the accuracy of a rocket propulsion system.

Yeah, I like the approach of your side also. No debate, just accept what the nice scientists say.

[HAL 9000 96]

Are polar bears endangered?

Scientists predict that, if current warming trends continue in the Arctic, two-thirds of the world's polar bears could disappear by 2050. At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (held in Seattle in 2005), the world's leading polar bear scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, five were declining, five were stable, two were increasing, and seven had insufficient data to make a determination. The group reclassified the polar bear as vulnerable on the IUCN World Conservation Union's "Red List of Threatened Species," noting that the species could become extinct due to sea ice changes. Individual countries with polar bears have reclassified the species as well. Citing to concerns about shrinking sea ice habitat, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced on May 14, 2008, that it is listing the polar bear as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act. Canada and Russia both list the polar bear as "a species of concern." The major threat to the polar bear is shrinking sea ice habitat due to climate change. Other threats include pollution, poaching, and industrial disturbances. Hunting could become a threat if populations are not well managed.

How many polar bears are there?

Scientists estimate that there are between 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/faq/

Funny, during the Medieval Warming period the polar bears did just fine. At that time the global temps were so high that Greenland was really green and the Vikings were able to sail to the New World. (funny thing about that Medieval Warming period, it happened without the help of humans. Go figure.) There was very little Arctic ice and they got through it just fine. Why would this be any different? This is just scare mongering and has no basis in fact.

I like your approach to science, Gary....like it's always open for debate. Next topic, let's debate the accuracy of a rocket propulsion system.

I just think that Gary needs to better understand what cause and effect really mean. Not to knock on him, but he assumes his viewpoint is a standard without really understanding what a standard is.

Edited May 16, 2008 by maviwaro

[Ban Hammer 13,644]

omg the poor bears. since they are the only bears known to hunt people, maybe if someone is really worried about their existence they can go hug them........

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I find it insulting that scientists think they know more about science than I do just because they studied more and read more books. Elitist dickheads.

[Sister Fracas 5]

I find it insulting that scientists think they know more about science than I do just because they studied more and read more books. Elitist dickheads.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Sister Fracas

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Frances, seriously. What gall these eggheads have. They think knowing more means they know more. What a load of #######!!

[HAL 9000 96]

Tough love Troll. BTW those dillheads know more about computers and network infrastructure than you!!

Edited May 16, 2008 by maviwaro

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Are polar bears endangered?

Scientists predict that, if current warming trends continue in the Arctic, two-thirds of the world's polar bears could disappear by 2050. At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (held in Seattle in 2005), the world's leading polar bear scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, five were declining, five were stable, two were increasing, and seven had insufficient data to make a determination. The group reclassified the polar bear as vulnerable on the IUCN World Conservation Union's "Red List of Threatened Species," noting that the species could become extinct due to sea ice changes. Individual countries with polar bears have reclassified the species as well. Citing to concerns about shrinking sea ice habitat, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced on May 14, 2008, that it is listing the polar bear as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act. Canada and Russia both list the polar bear as "a species of concern." The major threat to the polar bear is shrinking sea ice habitat due to climate change. Other threats include pollution, poaching, and industrial disturbances. Hunting could become a threat if populations are not well managed.

How many polar bears are there?

Scientists estimate that there are between 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/faq/

Funny, during the Medieval Warming period the polar bears did just fine. At that time the global temps were so high that Greenland was really green and the Vikings were able to sail to the New World. (funny thing about that Medieval Warming period, it happened without the help of humans. Go figure.) There was very little Arctic ice and they got through it just fine. Why would this be any different? This is just scare mongering and has no basis in fact.

I like your approach to science, Gary....like it's always open for debate. Next topic, let's debate the accuracy of a rocket propulsion system.

Yeah, I like the approach of your side also. No debate, just accept what the nice scientists say.

It's called letting scientists be the experts in their field instead of laymen. It's the same reason I won't argue with my doctor over his medical opinion or my auto mechanic. If I don't agree with their prognosis, I get a second or third opinion, but eventually I've got to make up my mind who's opinion matters...and if I took my car to 10 different auto mechanics and the majority of them are giving me the same prognosis, my sense of judgment says I should listen to them.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Tough love Troll. BTW those dillheads know more about computers and network infrastructure than you!!

They may know more and their opinions may therefore be more informed than mine. But my opinions are still equally valid!!!

[Sister Fracas 5]

Frances, seriously. What gall these eggheads have. They think knowing more means they know more. What a load of #######!!

It does get on ya nerves... I'm married to an egghead so I know...

Tough love Troll. BTW those dillheads know more about computers and network infrastructure than you!!

They may know more and their opinions may therefore be more informed than mine. But my opinions are still equally valid!!!

opinions don't count when it comes to science...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Frances, seriously. What gall these eggheads have. They think knowing more means they know more. What a load of #######!!

It does get on ya nerves... I'm married to an egghead so I know...

Tough love Troll. BTW those dillheads know more about computers and network infrastructure than you!!

They may know more and their opinions may therefore be more informed than mine. But my opinions are still equally valid!!!

opinions don't count when it comes to science...

elitist!

[HAL 9000 96]

Tough love Troll. BTW those dillheads know more about computers and network infrastructure than you!!

They may know more and their opinions may therefore be more informed than mine. But my opinions are still equally valid!!!

I was just kidding brother Troll.

Frances, seriously. What gall these eggheads have. They think knowing more means they know more. What a load of #######!!

It does get on ya nerves... I'm married to an egghead so I know...

Tough love Troll. BTW those dillheads know more about computers and network infrastructure than you!!

They may know more and their opinions may therefore be more informed than mine. But my opinions are still equally valid!!!

opinions don't count when it comes to science...

Well opinions apparently do when it comes to preconceiving that an entire body of extremely well-documented research is baloney...