Major climate change report draft leaked online: IPCC

Dec 14, 2012

A major report on climate change being compiled by the United Nation's climate science panel was on Friday leaked online in what appeared to be an attempt by a climate sceptic to discredit the panel.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the full draft of its Fifth Assessment Report, which is not set for official publication until next September, had been published online by one of 800 experts contributing to the report.

The climate body did not identify the culprit, but a climate sceptic named Alec Rawls announced in a blog posting that he had posted the report in what appeared to be a bid to discredit it.

The IPCC is a favoured target for sceptics, who stirred a scandal in the run up to a UN climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009 by pointing out flaws in the panel's landmark Fourth Assessment Report.

Perhaps anticipating a similar attack, the IPCC warned Friday that "the unauthorised and premature posting of the drafts (of the Fifth Assessment Report), which are works in progress, may lead to confusion because the text will necessarily change."

The body pointed out that the report had been reviewed in October and November by the 800 experts and 26 governments, who together had submitted 31,422 comments that needed to be considered.

It also stressed that the authors would still be accepting peer-reviewed published literature contributions until mid-March.

"The text that has been posted is thus not the final report," it said.

The Fourth Assessment Report, which was published in 2007, marked a turning point in the history of climate change.

It declared there was scientific consensus that Earth was warming as a result of carbon from fossil fuels and that signs of climate change were already visible.

It built momentum for global action against emissions from burning coal, gas and oil, and helped earn the IPCC a share in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize along with US climate campaigner and ex-US vice president Al Gore.

The Fifth Assessment Report will meanwhile be issued in three volumes starting from next September, but it is the first volume on the physics of climate change that will be most closely scutinised.

Scientists associated with the drafting of the report said Friday the leaking of the draft was an abuse of confidentiality and an assault on peer review, a process whereby scientific evidence is weighed and discussed without external pressure.

They said that the document was in any case only at a preliminary stage and would be vetted several times, including by policymakers, before it is approved.

"It's a pity, but it's not the end of the world," said French expert Jean Jouzel, who is vice president of the IPCC group drafting the first volume.

"It won't stop the way that we work. These are only provisional documents and far from being the final version. We have more than 31,000 comments to take into account" before publication, Jouzel told AFP.

Some scientists also attacked what they said was deliberate selection of data in a long and complex document in order to serve the sceptics' view.

Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics (LSE), said the leak was "cherry-picking quotes out of context."

In his posting, Rawls for instance charged that the draft report proved the importance of solar influence on climate change but that the authors were trying to downplay that fact—something he said resulted in "an un-scientific absurdity."

Ward disagreed.

"In fact, the draft report concludes that there are strong arguments against the cosmic ray theory, while there is compelling evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are driving the unequivocal rise in global average temperature," he said.

Explore further: US delays decision on Keystone pipeline project

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

UN to get report on climate panel August 30

Aug 20, 2010

A UN-requested review of the world's top panel of climate scientists, accused of flaws in a key assessment on global warming, will be unveiled on August 30, the investigating committee said on Friday.

Netherlands adds to UN climate report controversy

Feb 05, 2010

The Netherlands has asked the UN climate change panel to explain an inaccurate claim in a landmark 2007 report that more than half the country was below sea level, the Dutch government said Friday.

Recommended for you

US delays decision on Keystone pipeline project

Apr 18, 2014

The United States announced Friday a fresh delay on a final decision regarding a controversial Canada to US oil pipeline, saying more time was needed to carry out a review.

New research on Earth's carbon budget

Apr 18, 2014

(Phys.org) —Results from a research project involving scientists from the Desert Research Institute have generated new findings surrounding some of the unknowns of changes in climate and the degree to which ...

User comments : 50

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

deatopmg
2.1 / 5 (26) Dec 14, 2012
A major inclusion in this draft report is that solar changes have major, but not yet understood, impact on climate and is at least as important as anthropogenic CO2.

Time will tell if this revelation will be kept in the final version because it is a major blow to the religious dogma that only anthropogenic CO2 affects climate, and only in a "bad" way.
antigoracle
2.2 / 5 (26) Dec 14, 2012
"the text will necessarily change"

Of course, it needs to be sensationalized to invoke anxiety and panic amongst the masses.

But, not just the text. Numbers must be "scientifically" adjusted and graphs exaggerated too.

How quickly you go from Expert to Sceptic when you attempt to reveal the truth about the IPCC and their global warming LIES.
evolution3
3.2 / 5 (26) Dec 14, 2012
The climate denialists would do anything to crawl further up the ass of the oil lobby...
Yarking_Dawg
4.3 / 5 (20) Dec 14, 2012
A major inclusion in this draft report is that solar changes have major, but not yet understood, impact on climate and is at least as important as anthropogenic CO2.

Time will tell if this revelation will be kept in the final version because it is a major blow to the religious dogma that only anthropogenic CO2 affects climate, and only in a "bad" way.


In the actual draft of the report, part of which I am reviewing, that comment is preceded by "Skeptics claim..." and followed by "But the vast preponderance of evidence indicates exactly the opposite. The past 20 years should have seen a decline in temperatures if this hypothesis is properly applied."

In my opinion, that is worse than cherry picking quotes out of context. It is flat out lying.
gregor1
1.4 / 5 (18) Dec 14, 2012
Thanks for that Yarking What about this
Professor of Environmental Studies Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado:
Pielke Jr.: Of course IPCC AR5 is a draft but the scientific literature it is reporting is available for all to see, and AR5 has it presented accurately
IPCC AR5 draft shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods and is now consistent with scientific literature
IPCC AR5 Draft: "we have high confidence that natural variability dominates any AGW influence in observed/historical TC records"
Draft IPCC Ch2 bottom line on extremes: "generally low confidence that there have been discernable changes over the observed record"
on lack of trends in extremes, exceptions are trends seen in temperature extremes and regional precipitation (but not floods)
On XTCs "unlike in AR4, it is assessed here..there is low confidence of regional changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones"
to be continued
gregor1
1.8 / 5 (21) Dec 14, 2012
continued from above

Bottom line IPCC trop cyclones same as SREX: "low confidence that any reported long term increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust"
More IPCC draft Ch2 on trop cyclones: "current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency"
IPCC on trop cyclones "AR4 assessment needs to be somewhat revised with respect to the confidence levels associated with observed trends"
IPCC draft Ch2 on drought: "The current assessment does not support the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts"
More IPCC Ch2: "low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale"
More IPCC draft report: Ch2: "there is currently no clear and widespread evidence for observed changes in flooding" excpt timing of snowmelt

So what happens now to those whose views on extremes run counter to IPCC? Are they now the new "deniers"? Somehow I doubt it ;-)
gregor1
1.8 / 5 (24) Dec 14, 2012
And here is an interesting graph that shows no warming since 1998
http://wattsupwit...-a-poll/
axemaster
4 / 5 (17) Dec 14, 2012
"The most interesting aspect of this little event is it reveals how deeply in denial the climate deniers are," says Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia – one of the lead authors of the chapter in question. "If they can look at a short section of a report and walk away believing it says the opposite of what it actually says, and if this spin can be uncritically echoed by very influential blogs, imagine how wildly they are misinterpreting the scientific evidence."

Couldn't have said it better myself...
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (24) Dec 14, 2012
It's apparently, way more than just one short section as Dr. Roger Pielke Jr points out. Take this graph for instance. No warming since 1998. Who'd av thunk it!
http://wattsupwit...-a-poll/
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (24) Dec 14, 2012
What is there to hide, or do they need more time to spin?
VendicarD
3.8 / 5 (17) Dec 14, 2012
Not according to the people who wrote the draft.

"A major inclusion in this draft report is that solar changes have major, but not yet understood, impact on climate and is at least as important as anthropogenic CO2." - Deat

The Denialists are so desperate for material that they can't even manage to follow the rebuttal that they are receiving from the very authors they are quoting.

"Author x says A,B,F " - Deniliast
"No I said A, B, C" - Author x
"No you didn't you said A,B,F" - Denialist
"F doesn't appear in the text" - Author x
"But you implied it." - Denialist
"No I didn't, you simply don't comprehend what I have said." - Author x

"You are a Comi, Pinko, Gayboy, Liar." - Denialist
"I am a happily married scientist who supports democracy." - Author x

"You are a card carrying member of the Communist, alien Conspiracy." - Denialist
"Your body odor is disturbing me. Go take a bath." - Author x.

VendicarD
3.8 / 5 (17) Dec 14, 2012
My guess is that they are hiding their laughter at fools like you who don't have enough brains to know what a first draft is.

"What is there to hide, or do they need more time to spin?" - RyggTard

Why do you think they are hiding their laughter at you?
VendicarD
4 / 5 (16) Dec 14, 2012
Looks to me like the temperatures are tracking inside each of the scenario's provided. From Far to AR4

"Take this graph for instance." - GregorTard

You do know how to read a graph, don't you Tard Boy?

Apparently not.
VendicarD
3.9 / 5 (18) Dec 14, 2012
The data for that graph is the exact same data used for this graph.

http://www.woodfo...98/trend

"And here is an interesting graph that shows no warming since 1998" - GregorTard

As you can see from the higher resolution of the data provided, the rise in global temperature since 1998 has been rougly 0.06'C

You poor Tard you....
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (19) Dec 14, 2012
I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

Never.

"In my opinion, that is worse than cherry picking quotes out of context. It is flat out lying." - Yarking Dawg

Lying is a way of life for them.

Just look at Mitt Ronmey and George Bush, and every reported on Faux news.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (15) Dec 14, 2012
It is the only way that your kind will be brought to worship at the Altar of Lucifer.

"Of course, it needs to be sensationalized to invoke anxiety and panic amongst the masses." - AssMaster

Oh, wait. I didn't intend to say that.

How do I delete that text?

Damn, i just posted it.

Neinsense99
3.2 / 5 (22) Dec 14, 2012
"And here is an interesting graph that shows no warming since 1998"
That distortion has been repeated and exposed for years, but people like you keep using it. Clearly, in some quarters, there has been been no learning since 1998.
gregor1
1.6 / 5 (21) Dec 15, 2012
You didn't read the link Vendi. The data is just Hadcrut 4 its the Giss data as well
Observed global annual temperature change, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as black squares (NASA (updated from Hansen et al., 2010; data available at http://data.giss....stemp/); NOAA (updated from Smith et al., 2008; data available at http://www.ncdc.n...l#grid); and the UK Hadley Centre (Morice et al., 2012; data available at http://www.metoff...dcrut4/)
The Alchemist
2 / 5 (12) Dec 15, 2012
The crux is they have put us between two false hypothesis: That the Earth is warming or that it is not. How can they both be wrong?
Simple model: Imagine a metal basin full of water and some ice. What is the temperature of the water? 0 degrees C. Now imagine we put a candle (representing fossil fuels) a distance away so that its heat is tranferred with only a moderate hot spot. What is the temperature of the water? 0 degrees C. Though simplified, this is what's happening to the Earth. Their is no significant "warming," it's a lie built right into the title. There is significant melting.
For more info: facebook.com/#!/groups/454689344557455/
BikeToAustralia
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2012
Your opinions of others will not change the climate. Nor will our theories of what is going on make a difference. Our actions from this point on might change the course of this snowball effect.
ForFreeMinds
1.6 / 5 (19) Dec 15, 2012
The climate denialists would do anything to crawl further up the ass of the oil lobby...


The scientists getting grants from governments looking for more power to control use of energy, would do anything to crawl up the ass of the political lobby to ensure their funding and living standard continues.
axemaster
3.9 / 5 (14) Dec 15, 2012
The scientists getting grants from governments looking for more power to control use of energy, would do anything to crawl up the ass of the political lobby to ensure their funding and living standard continues.


You do realize that funding doesn't go into scientists paychecks, right? And that most funding doesn't come from political sources?

Scientists who want money don't practice science. They go to Wall Street.
schwarz
3.8 / 5 (13) Dec 15, 2012
Ah, the old 1998 trope. So easily debunked:

http://www.skepti...tsv3.gif

The earth is warming. Sane people are responding.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (18) Dec 15, 2012
Scientists who want money don't practice science. They go to Wall Street.

Scientists like Mann and Anderson (Harvard) run their own research groups and most assuredly have tenure, above average salaries, prestige and power.
Why are their motives pure?
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2012
And here is an interesting graph that shows no warming since 1998
http://wattsupwit...-a-poll/

Yawn ... looking at the wider ( longer timescale ) - common-sense of course reveals the following ......

http://forum.slow...3744414;
3432682
2 / 5 (12) Dec 15, 2012
The "interesting graph" shows the temperature predictions of the four previous IPCC reports against the actual, subsequent temperature history. It is clear that the IPCC projections of rapid temperature increase are far outside and above the actual temperatures, which are fairly flat since 1998. It was encouraging that the IPCC draft report 5 recognizes temperature reality, and the problems with IPCC previous predictions.

The amount of name calling tells me who is winning the debate.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2012
Scientists associated with the drafting of the report said Friday the leaking of the draft was an abuse of confidentiality and an assault on peer review, a process whereby scientific evidence is weighed and discussed without external pressure.

Whereas, internal pressure is not only assumed, but by labeling those who ask questions as being "denialists" is an assault on the scientific process.
"In fact, the draft report concludes that there are strong arguments against the cosmic ray theory, while there is compelling evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are driving the unequivocal rise in global average temperature," he said.

Obviously, the "cosmic ray theory" is the only other alternative consideration.
The Alchemist
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 15, 2012
Here, let's try it this way. A Gedanken experiment. Imagine ever increasing amounts of heat are released in terrestrial parts of the world, in good equilibrium. How much heat will cause an effect, and what will the effect be?
I know the objection is you want facts, but lets face it, the "facts" have been fought over like chickens after meal for over 40 years. We have to be able to arrive at the conclusion, and whatever your opinion, you must realize the reality: You're soaking in it.
Respectfully submitted.
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2012
@ Runnig There is no doubt the world has been warming over the last 200 yrs or more but we are coming out of the little ice age so that's to be expected. The last 16 years is significant because it appears to falsify the hypothesis "That human co2 emissions are driving catastrophic global warming."During this time frame one third of all the CO2 ever produced by man has been emitted and temperature has gone nowhere. Remember for a hypothesis to be valid it has to be falsifiable other wise it is just complete nonsense.
In refusing to admit to this it is the scientific method you are attacking. Unfalsifiable hypothesis' are the stuff of religion.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 15, 2012
There is no doubt the world has been warming over the last 200 yrs or more but we are coming out of the little ice age so that's to be expected.
But it's not to be expected. That's the point. We're in an interglacial warm period but not a warming period. And we're in that interglacial because 12,000 years ago, when we came out of the last glaciation, the precession cycle was opposite its present condition — the northern hemisphere was closest to the sun during summer and furthest during winter. The SH currently receives nearly 8% more summer insolation than the north. We should be cooling. To be fair you quote the LIA - this was no global ice age and as is noted in Wiki "At most there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period."
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2012
The last 16 years is significant because it appears to falsify the hypothesis "That human co2 emissions are driving catastrophic global warming."During this time frame one third of all the CO2 ever produced by man has been emitted and temperature has gone nowhere.
The 16 years you speak of does in no way invalidate AGW theory as my posted graph clearly shows. Taken on long time scales ( as in multi-decadal ) the last 16 yrs is not significant and is entirely predictable in terms of natural climate cycles. ENSO in particular. Model simulations show these lengthy pauses in (atmospheric) warming as indeed does the record. Additionally and very importantly the atmosphere is not in isolation - a more important heat sink is the oceans and it is here that your missing heat is. I would welcome some evidence from you that SST's and ocean depth temps are not increasing. Bearing in mind also that at constant volume water holds 75x as much heat capacity per unit rise in temp as air.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 15, 2012
Remember for a hypothesis to be valid it has to be falsifiable other wise it is just complete nonsense. In refusing to admit to this it is the scientific method you are attacking. Unfalsifiable hypothesis' are the stuff of religion.
Of course AGW theory is falsifiable IF a credible candidate is found to fit the evidence of recent warming- but it has not, of that there is a consensus and I am the view that all things being equal a group of experts will know better than the layman - and by the way I worked for the UKMO for 32 years. You appear to have an issue with the scientific method as is evidenced by this thread and I will not be drawn into that circular argument. AGW theory is no more "the stuff of religion" than any other field of science. Religion being held by someone not requiring evidence or critical thinking.
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (17) Dec 15, 2012
So what caused the Medieval warm period which was Global?
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2012
It appears the Little Ice Age was global. Remember it takes only one piece of evidence to falsify an hypothesis.
http://exploratio...ers-say/
It's interesting that you acknowledge natural climate cycles may be responsible for the recent pause. This suggests that CO2 is merely one of many forcings that effect climate. Might I propose a new hypothesis "That natural cycles are responsible for the observed warming of the 20th century." The other thing that may explain things is the apparent decline in cloud cover during the late 20th cent. which has been calculated to have caused a forcing 12.5 times that of CO2

http://hockeyscht...-in.html
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (15) Dec 15, 2012
As to the heat hiding in the deep ocean that is apparent once again only in the models and Knox & Douglass disproved in this paper. . Scroll halfway down this linkhttp://hockeyscht...q=clouds
gregor1
1.6 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2012
Here's a couple more papers documenting decline in cloud cover in Greece
http://hockeyscht...lar.html
and Spain
http://hockeyscht...lar.html
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2012
Reading back over this and your comments on the scientific method. It appears that your hypothesis is " That human CO2 emissions are the main driver of observed temperature rises except when they aren't." I think we can agree that is nonsense. Isn't it time we applied Ockam's razor to this?
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (15) Dec 15, 2012
@cantdrive85 Whereas, internal pressure is not only assumed, but by labeling those who ask questions as being "denialists" is an assault on the scientific process.
Asking questions is one thing. Putting your illiteracy on public display is another.
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2012
With regard to the article above perhaps the IPCC are embarassed because 2 of the chapters contradict each other.
'Chapter 7 authors admit strong evidence ("many empirical relationships") for enhanced solar forcing. But authors in Chapter 8 (page 8-4, lines 54-57) contradict their colleagues by persisting in debunked claims that natural forcing is relatively small and unchanging"
http://climatecha...s-impact
lengould100
4.1 / 5 (13) Dec 15, 2012
Personally I'm glad that the raw report has been "leaked", because now we'll have a shot at seeing what the scientists REALLY are saying BEFORE the politicians get to argue about editing it to suit their religions. The denialists seem to have shot their foot in their mouth again LOL.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Dec 16, 2012
""In recent weeks, questions have been raised in Congress and among public interest groups about the use of one or more secondary email accounts and aliases by you and potentially other officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)," they wrote in a letter addressed to Jackson. "Given your reported use of at least one alias email account in your conduct of agency business, we write to ask that you describe fully the nature and extent of this practice.""
http://www.weekly...623.html
What does the EPA have to hide?
IronhorseA
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 16, 2012
From wikipedia:

"The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative[2][3][4][5] opinion magazine[6] published 48 times per year. Its founding publisher, News Corporation, debuted the title September 18, 1995. Currently edited by founder William Kristol and Fred Barnes, the Standard has been described as a "redoubt of neoconservatism" and as "the neo-con bible".[7][8] Since it was founded in 1995, the Weekly Standard has never been profitable, and has remained in business through subsidies from wealthy conservative benefactors such as former owner Rupert Murdoch.[9]"

I think the part about it not being profitable says it all. D~
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2012
As to the heat hiding in the deep ocean that is apparent once again only in the models and Knox & Douglass disproved in this paper. . Scroll halfway down this linkhttp://hockeyscht...q=clouds

"A warming climate is unequivocal, with the global top of
the atmosphere radiative imbalance currently on the order
of 1 W m22, very likely due to anthropogenic greenhouse
gases (Solomon et al. 2007). Over the past few decades,
roughly 80% of the energy resulting from this imbalance
has gone into heating the oceans (Levitus et al. 2005),
which have a large heat capacity compared with the land
or the atmosphere."
The paper referenced at the blog has significant problems. See...
http://www.skepti...hp?n=515
Here is the most robust assessment of OHC .....
http://www.nature...9043.pdf
Unfortunately no free access.
Also to debunk the "clouds" myth. http://tallbloke...._grl.pdf
VendicarD
5 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2012
Pielke isn't a scientist.

"Dr. Roger Pielke" - GregorTard

Pielke earned a B.A. in mathematics (1990), a M.A. in public policy (1992), and a Ph.D. in political science, all from the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Pielke isn't a scientist.
gregor1
1 / 5 (11) Dec 17, 2012
"we know of no mechanism by which vast amounts of "missing" heat can be hidden, transferred, or absorbed within the earth's system. The only reasonable conclusion-call it a null hypothesis-is that heat is no longer accumulating in the climate system and there is no longer a radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic forcing. This not only demonstrates that the IPCC models are failing to accurately predict global warming, but also presents a serious challenge to the integrity of the AGW hypothesis."
http://wattsupwit...an-heat/
VendicarD
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2012
the Weekly Standard is a NeoCon rag, that exists to further the ideological and business interests of the Corrupt Rupert Murdoch.

"What does the EPA have to hide?" - RyggTard

As we have seen with the ongoing criminal wiretap cases, Rupert Murdoch has much to hide.

VendicarD
5 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2012
Not a scientist.

"we know of no mechanism by which vast amounts of "missing" heat can be hidden, transferred, or absorbed within the earth's system." - William DiPuccio

William DiPuccio was a weather forecaster for the U.S. Navy

So much for retard Fantasy.

Here is reality...

http://www.change...700m.jpg

http://www.change...000m.jpg

Odd how reality always seems to contradict GregorTard's corporate propaganda sources.
VendicarD
5 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2012
"Chapter 7 authors admit strong evidence ("many empirical relationships") for enhanced solar forcing." - GregorTard

This would be the section that is prefixed as "Skeptical", and which it is explained later is an opinion that has no supporting evidence.

Poor Gregor. His Tardness just can't comprehend how Tard it is.
VendicarD
5 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2012
From GregorTard's reference...

"A new paper published in the International Journal of Climatology examines solar radiation at the Earth surface in Greece from 1993-2011 and finds a significant increase after 1990 of 0.33% per year. This upward trend in solar radiation would equate to about 14.1 Wm-2 over the past 18 years, dwarfing the alleged effect of CO2 at the Earth surface during that same period [0.13 Wm-2] by a factor of more than 108 times."

Which is an effect large enough to invalidate the research itself.

VendicarD
5 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2012
GregorTard has repeatedly been shown that the relatively small "Medeival warm period" was primarily due to a reduction in Volcanism, and other natural factors.

The following graphic shows that it pails in comparison to current global temperatures.

http://ossfoundat...od/image

"So what caused the Medieval warm period which was Global?"

The evidence currently available indicates that NH mean temperatures during medieval times (950–1100) were indeed warm in a 2-kyr context and even warmer in relation to the less sparse but still limited evidence of widespread average cool conditions in the 17th century (Osborn & Briffa 2006). However, the evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that hemispheric mean temperatures were as warm, or the extent of warm regions as expansive, as those in the 20th century as a whole, during any period in medieval times (Jones et al., 2001; Bradley et al., 2003a,b; Osborn & Briffa 2006)

More news stories

China says massive area of its soil polluted

A huge area of China's soil covering more than twice the size of Spain is estimated to be polluted, the government said Thursday, announcing findings of a survey previously kept secret.

UN weather agency warns of 'El Nino' this year

The UN weather agency Tuesday warned there was a good chance of an "El Nino" climate phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean this year, bringing droughts and heavy rainfall to the rest of the world.

Making graphene in your kitchen

Graphene has been touted as a wonder material—the world's thinnest substance, but super-strong. Now scientists say it is so easy to make you could produce some in your kitchen.

Low tolerance for pain? The reason may be in your genes

Researchers may have identified key genes linked to why some people have a higher tolerance for pain than others, according to a study released today that will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology's 66th Annual ...

How to keep your fitness goals on track

(HealthDay)—The New Year's resolutions many made to get fit have stalled by now. And one expert thinks that's because many people set their goals too high.