Is the IPCC giving us ALL of the information regarding GW?? I get the feeling that such may not be the case.?

Question

The Earth's climate of the past 1000 years has changed significantly.

The Medieval climatic optimum (AD 700-1200) - a time of favorable climate in northern Europe. Harvests were good, fishing was abundant, sea ice remained far to the north, vineyards flourished 300 miles north of their present limits, and famine was rare. This was the period of great Viking expansion from Scandinavia. Viking settlements were based on cereal grains (wheat and barley) and dairy herds (goats, sheep, and cattle).

Iceland began settling in AD 874. Greenland was colonized in AD 985. During the Medieval climatic optimum, sea level stood at least a half meter

higher in southern Florida than today from the first through tenth centuries. Climatic deterioration began in the 1200s; glaciers expanded in Iceland and in

the Alps. Vineyards began declining in Germany and by the 1300s had completely

disappeared in England. Fishing replaced cereal grains as the main source of food

in Iceland, and sea ice expanded southward between Greenland and Iceland.

By 1510, only Inuits remained.

Across the Pacific Islands, during the period AD 1270-1475, sea level fell

by more than a meter and temperatures declined an average 1½C.

Sea levels fell by more than three feet in a thousand years!

(Then)…..El Niño increased in frequency, and precipitation increased.

From Climatic History of the Holocene, by James S. Aber

http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/lec19.htm

Answer 1

If you read their whole report, all thousand plus pages than they do give you a good view of what is going on.  If you just read what Gore and others want, than no.  The History Channel has been running great shows about the history of the earth and how the climate has changed through out the years.

Answer 2

That is why they wanted to "get rid of" it.

Did you know that the hockey stick graph made this event into a non event.  Do you also know that non of the major climate "peer review" journals accepted any criticism of the hockey stick graph?

For more info you can read:

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files...

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.h...

Answer 3

The IPCC is not really concerned with past climate changes. But there is LOTS of information in their reports, which you can google up online. But it is TOUGH reading and it takes a  lot of WORK to read it.

By the way, I read recently how farming has started again in Greenland. Greenland has a native population of something like 50,000 and until now they have lived by fishing and seal hunting and such. Now they are starting to work old farms again (I assume this is all in southern coastal areas), and for that reason are thinking about independence from Denmark.

Answer 4

It gave a lot more information than the cherrypicking in the link you provided.  A couple of examples:

1) There were also extensive droughts (sometimes termed "megadroughts") during the MWP.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

2) Aber cites one paper which apparently concluded the MWP was warmer than today (actually it doesn't even conclude that, as I discuss below).  Almost all studies have concluded otherwise:

http://globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2...

The study cited by Aber ("Robinson et al. 2007") plots "Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea", not global temperatures.

Not only that, but the paper was published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (j**s).  Huh?!?

http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson....

Contrary to its name, the j**s is actually politically motivated and has little if anything to do with medicine (or climate science, obviously).

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...

Therefore Aber's conclusion that the MWP was warmer than today is incorrect, and based on cherrypicking and misinformation.

I think the IPCC does a tad better than that.

Answer 5

No, they are not.  Global warming appears to be a hoax.   When the UN said in 2006 that global warming was a fact, they relied on a report from NASA.  But they removed 2 paragraphs, according to the NASA scientist who wrote the report.  The paragraphs were, (1) that there was no evidence that greenhouse gases had anything to do with the climatic changes we are seeing, and, (2) that there was no evidence that human activities had anything to do with greenhouse gas levels.  The UN even had to revise its estimate of how much the sea level was going to rise in the next 100 years downward.

Actually, the average annual temperature of the earth right now is well below the average for the last 10,000 years.