http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/06/2010-antarctica-peerreviewed-research-ice-core-data-confirms-medieval-period-warmer-than-present.html

2010 Antarctica Peer-Reviewed Research: Ice Core Data Confirms Medieval Period Warmer Than Present



Read here. Scientists using the latest analysis techniques, conducted a high resolution analysis of the ice core retrieved from Antarctica's Dome C station. The Dome C is located on the eastern half of Antarctica, on the polar plateau with an elevation of 10,607 feet. (The more well-known Vostok polar station is located on the same plateau at a similar elevation, ~ 3,200 meters.)

What did this new high resolution analysis determine?
1.The Medieval Warming period had temperatures that approached 1°C higher than current temperatures, in spite of lower CO2 levels.
2.The Minoan Warming period had temperatures that possibly exceeded current temperatures by 1°C, in spite of lower CO2 levels.
3.The previous interglacial period, approximately 130,000 years ago, had temperatures in excess of 4°C versus current temperatures, in spite of lower CO2 levels.

Clearly, the new ice core data indicates that natural climate variations caused huge temperature variations in the past. Based on this empirical climate science, it would be safe to conclude that current climate changes are predominantly driven by natural forces (see this chart and post also), not human CO2 trace gas emissions. (click on image to enlarge)

This high resolution ice core data ends at the year 1912. The similarly situated Vostok polar station temperature record was used as proxy to assess polar plateau temperature increase/decrease over the last 60 years. As the Vostok temperature data reveals, current temperatures may actually be lower than what the Antarctica plateau experienced during the 1950's. In addition, peer-reviewed studies indicate Antarctica temperature change to be minimal over last two centuries.

Download this newest Dome C ice core research, source here.

bump for dumb-bunny

havent we got it on good authority from the experts on here.

THERE WILL BE NO ICE IN ANTARCTICA BY THE YEAR 2013..


I could have swore we were sworn at for not believing we.. you and I GM

could actually stop it if we really wanted too.

cods wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 7:10am:

havent we got it on good authority from the experts on here. THERE WILL BE NO ICE IN ANTARCTICA BY THE YEAR 2013.. I could have swore we were sworn at for not believing we.. you and I GM could actually stop it if we really wanted too.

Gillard's new catchphrase: "There will be no glaciers under a government I lead unless we tax the sh!t out of you!"

Quote:

Read full story here..... http://www.climatecentral.org/news/so-called-medieval-warm-period-not-so-warm-15064 So-Called Medieval Warm Period Not So Warm After All The so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP), a 400-year span from about 950 to 1220 A.D. when the Vikings colonized Greenland, was relatively balmy by the standards of the past 2,000 years, leading some to argue that the global warming we’re now experiencing isn’t that big a deal. But a new report in the journal Geology argues that the MWP wasn’t all that warm after all — and certainly not as warm as the climate is today.

The following article is more objective but still interesting.....


Quote:

Full story here.... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204349404578100862654023702.html Can Medieval Heat Cool Warming Worries?

The debate continues.....Sorry to burst your tiny bubble Longy!!!

8-) 8-) 8-)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 7:17am:

cods wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 7:10am: havent we got it on good authority from the experts on here. THERE WILL BE NO ICE IN ANTARCTICA BY THE YEAR 2013.. I could have swore we were sworn at for not believing we.. you and I GM could actually stop it if we really wanted too. Gillard's new catchphrase: "There will be no glaciers under a government I lead unless we tax the sh!t out of you!"

Yet Abbott is committed to the same reductions in emissions.....Using consolidated revenue from taxes to pay for it.....What services do you think we can do without to pay for Abbott's failed climate policy???

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 7:59am:

Quote: Read full story here..... http://www.climatecentral.org/news/so-called-medieval-warm-period-not-so-warm-15064 So-Called Medieval Warm Period Not So Warm After All The so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP), a 400-year span from about 950 to 1220 A.D. when the Vikings colonized Greenland, was relatively balmy by the standards of the past 2,000 years, leading some to argue that the global warming we’re now experiencing isn’t that big a deal. But a new report in the journal Geology argues that the MWP wasn’t all that warm after all — and certainly not as warm as the climate is today. The following article is more objective but still interesting..... [quote] Full story here.... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204349404578100862654023702.html Can Medieval Heat Cool Warming Worries?

The debate continues.....Sorry to burst your tiny bubble Longy!!!

8-) 8-) 8-)
[/quote]

both interesting articles but as you observed, the former is a rather biased one. and the p[oin is that the entie ACC hypothesis hinges on todays temperatures being unprecedented. the existence of a warmer MWP utterly destroys that argument.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 4:22pm:

http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/06/2010-antarctica-peerreviewed-research-ice-core-data-confirms-medieval-period-warmer-than-present.html 2010 Antarctica Peer-Reviewed Research: Ice Core Data Confirms Medieval Period Warmer Than Present Read here. Scientists using the latest analysis techniques, conducted a high resolution analysis of the ice core retrieved from Antarctica's Dome C station. The Dome C is located on the eastern half of Antarctica, on the polar plateau with an elevation of 10,607 feet. (The more well-known Vostok polar station is located on the same plateau at a similar elevation, ~ 3,200 meters.) What did this new high resolution analysis determine? 1.The Medieval Warming period had temperatures that approached 1°C higher than current temperatures, in spite of lower CO2 levels. 2.The Minoan Warming period had temperatures that possibly exceeded current temperatures by 1°C, in spite of lower CO2 levels. 3.The previous interglacial period, approximately 130,000 years ago, had temperatures in excess of 4°C versus current temperatures, in spite of lower CO2 levels. Clearly, the new ice core data indicates that natural climate variations caused huge temperature variations in the past. Based on this empirical climate science, it would be safe to conclude that current climate changes are predominantly driven by natural forces (see this chart and post also), not human CO2 trace gas emissions. (click on image to enlarge) This high resolution ice core data ends at the year 1912. The similarly situated Vostok polar station temperature record was used as proxy to assess polar plateau temperature increase/decrease over the last 60 years. As the Vostok temperature data reveals, current temperatures may actually be lower than what the Antarctica plateau experienced during the 1950's. In addition, peer-reviewed studies indicate Antarctica temperature change to be minimal over last two centuries. Download this newest Dome C ice core research, source here.

Mods please remove this article. It adds nothing to the general hysteria surrounding AGW/climate change/polar bears stuck on postage stamp sized blocks of ice/Great Barrier Reef demise.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 4:22pm:

http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/06/2010-antarctica-peerreviewed-research-ice-core-data-confirms-medieval-period-warmer-than-present.html 2010 Antarctica Peer-Reviewed Research: Ice Core Data Confirms Medieval Period Warmer Than Present

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

It may be "peer reviewed" but the conclusions are purely from the Warming skeptics.

Here is what the actually scientist said about the study


Quote:

Unfortunately only one core turned out to yield significant numbers of ikaite crystals, in the Firth of Tay at the far northeast of the Antarctic Peninsula. And even here there weren't many. 'We only found 11 ikaite crystals over 2000 years. The sediments here accumulated quickly, at about 2mm per year, but the crystals are about two metres apart, so the study doesn't give us very high resolution,' Rickaby says. Rickaby says much more study of Antarctic ikaite is needed before we can be sure of the findings. 'Our study only looked at one place, and the results are a long way from being definitive - it's far too early to draw broad conclusions from this,' she says. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-05-technique-medieval-period-antarctica.html#jCp

So its "far too early to draw broad conclusions from this" but that sure hasn't stopped the bloggers going into overdrive.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 4:22pm:

Clearly, the new ice core data indicates that natural climate variations caused huge temperature variations in the past. Based on this empirical climate science, it would be safe to conclude that current climate changes are predominantly driven by natural forces, not human CO2 trace gas emissions.

This is the usual faulty logic by the skeptics (or plain deceptive logic).

Just because the climate changed naturally in the past does not mean that the current warming has to be natural also.

Quite the opposite. The fact that natural forces were able to change the climate in the past gives more weight to the idea that mankinds tinkering with the atmosphere (by increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gasses) can also change the climate.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 9:46am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 4:22pm: http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/06/2010-antarctica-peerreviewed-research-ice-core-data-confirms-medieval-period-warmer-than-present.html 2010 Antarctica Peer-Reviewed Research: Ice Core Data Confirms Medieval Period Warmer Than Present ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D It may be "peer reviewed" but the conclusions are purely from the Warming skeptics. Here is what the actually scientist said about the study Quote: Unfortunately only one core turned out to yield significant numbers of ikaite crystals, in the Firth of Tay at the far northeast of the Antarctic Peninsula. And even here there weren't many. 'We only found 11 ikaite crystals over 2000 years. The sediments here accumulated quickly, at about 2mm per year, but the crystals are about two metres apart, so the study doesn't give us very high resolution,' Rickaby says. Rickaby says much more study of Antarctic ikaite is needed before we can be sure of the findings. 'Our study only looked at one place, and the results are a long way from being definitive - it's far too early to draw broad conclusions from this,' she says. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-05-technique-medieval-period-antarctica.html#jCp So its "far too early to draw broad conclusions from this" but that sure hasn't stopped the bloggers going into overdrive.

These pretty graphs and sources should keep you going a while. Look forward to you reporting back.

http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 9:55am:

These pretty graphs and sources should keep you going a while. Look forward to you reporting back. http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html

Boring. Seem them all before, they are nothing new.

We all know the climate changed in the past, for various reasons (changes in the earths orbit, changes in continental drift and changes in the atmosphere). What we are saying is that this current change in climate is being caused by the current human induced change in the atmosphere.

.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 10:10am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 9:55am: These pretty graphs and sources should keep you going a while. Look forward to you reporting back. http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html Boring. Seem them all before, they are nothing new. We all know the climate changed in the past, for various reasons (changes in the earths orbit, changes in continental drift and changes in the atmosphere). What we are saying is that this current change in climate is being caused by the current human induced change in the atmosphere.

But you cant say that without correlation. The cimate changed in the past without correlation to co2, just like is is now changing and stopping regardless of co2.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 11:17am:

But you cant say that without correlation. The cimate changed in the past without correlation to co2, just like is is now changing and stopping regardless of co2.

As I have already said CO2 isn't the only thing that changes climate but it is one of the things.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 11:38am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 11:17am: But you cant say that without correlation. The cimate changed in the past without correlation to co2, just like is is now changing and stopping regardless of co2. As I have already said CO2 isn't the only thing that changes climate but it is one of the things.

To an almost undetectable measure.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 11:39am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 11:38am: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 11:17am: But you cant say that without correlation. The cimate changed in the past without correlation to co2, just like is is now changing and stopping regardless of co2. As I have already said CO2 isn't the only thing that changes climate but it is one of the things. To an almost undetectable measure.

*In your uneducated and biased opinion*, to an almost undetectable measure.  I think that's what you were meant to say.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 11:39am: The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 11:38am: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 11:17am: But you cant say that without correlation. The cimate changed in the past without correlation to co2, just like is is now changing and stopping regardless of co2. As I have already said CO2 isn't the only thing that changes climate but it is one of the things. To an almost undetectable measure. *In your uneducated and biased opinion*, to an almost undetectable measure.  I think that's what you were meant to say.

I wouldnt put that you were an idiot. I dont do things like that.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 9:46am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 4:22pm: http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/06/2010-antarctica-peerreviewed-research-ice-core-data-confirms-medieval-period-warmer-than-present.html 2010 Antarctica Peer-Reviewed Research: Ice Core Data Confirms Medieval Period Warmer Than Present ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D It may be "peer reviewed" but the conclusions are purely from the Warming skeptics. Here is what the actually scientist said about the study Quote: Unfortunately only one core turned out to yield significant numbers of ikaite crystals, in the Firth of Tay at the far northeast of the Antarctic Peninsula. And even here there weren't many. 'We only found 11 ikaite crystals over 2000 years. The sediments here accumulated quickly, at about 2mm per year, but the crystals are about two metres apart, so the study doesn't give us very high resolution,' Rickaby says. Rickaby says much more study of Antarctic ikaite is needed before we can be sure of the findings. 'Our study only looked at one place, and the results are a long way from being definitive - it's far too early to draw broad conclusions from this,' she says. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-05-technique-medieval-period-antarctica.html#jCp So its "far too early to draw broad conclusions from this" but that sure hasn't stopped the bloggers going into overdrive.

the trouble is that you refer to the wrong report.

and why the sudden desperate need to remove the MWP from history - despite it being accepted for centuries??? it stands in the way of the ACC religion.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 9:54am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 4:22pm: Clearly, the new ice core data indicates that natural climate variations caused huge temperature variations in the past. Based on this empirical climate science, it would be safe to conclude that current climate changes are predominantly driven by natural forces, not human CO2 trace gas emissions. This is the usual faulty logic by the skeptics (or plain deceptive logic). Just because the climate changed naturally in the past does not mean that the current warming has to be natural also. Quite the opposite. The fact that natural forces were able to change the climate in the past gives more weight to the idea that mankinds tinkering with the atmosphere (by increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gasses) can also change the climate.

serious...? you think your post is logical???  Basic logic would infer that if climate change has been natural in the past that it is far more likely to be natural now than man-made. Simple logic. It doesnt mean that it IS natural only that the burden of proof is on those that say othersie

Yoru last sentence is one of the daftest things I ve read on the subjetc since the implication is that man is far more powerful than nature which is dumb as well as provable wrong.

not your best work!

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 10:10am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 9:55am: These pretty graphs and sources should keep you going a while. Look forward to you reporting back. http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html Boring. Seem them all before, they are nothing new. We all know the climate changed in the past, for various reasons (changes in the earths orbit, changes in continental drift and changes in the atmosphere). What we are saying is that this current change in climate is being caused by the current human induced change in the atmosphere.

we know what you asre SAYING.  we'd just like a little proof.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 4:22pm:

http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/06/2010-antarctica-peerreviewed-research-ice-core-data-confirms-medieval-period-warmer-than-present.html 2010 Antarctica Peer-Reviewed Research: Ice Core Data Confirms Medieval Period Warmer Than Present Read here. Scientists using the latest analysis techniques, conducted a high resolution analysis of the ice core retrieved from Antarctica's Dome C station. The Dome C is located on the eastern half of Antarctica, on the polar plateau with an elevation of 10,607 feet. (The more well-known Vostok polar station is located on the same plateau at a similar elevation, ~ 3,200 meters.) What did this new high resolution analysis determine? 1.The Medieval Warming period had temperatures that approached 1°C higher than current temperatures, in spite of lower CO2 levels. 2.The Minoan Warming period had temperatures that possibly exceeded current temperatures by 1°C, in spite of lower CO2 levels. 3.The previous interglacial period, approximately 130,000 years ago, had temperatures in excess of 4°C versus current temperatures, in spite of lower CO2 levels. Clearly, the new ice core data indicates that natural climate variations caused huge temperature variations in the past. Based on this empirical climate science, it would be safe to conclude that current climate changes are predominantly driven by natural forces (see this chart and post also), not human CO2 trace gas emissions. (click on image to enlarge) This high resolution ice core data ends at the year 1912. The similarly situated Vostok polar station temperature record was used as proxy to assess polar plateau temperature increase/decrease over the last 60 years. As the Vostok temperature data reveals, current temperatures may actually be lower than what the Antarctica plateau experienced during the 1950's. In addition, peer-reviewed studies indicate Antarctica temperature change to be minimal over last two centuries. Download this newest Dome C ice core research, source here.

What is the paper actually being referred to here?

Could you please provide a link to it?

All you have is a link to a blog talking  about ice cores at one location in Antarctica.  Nothing to support your statement that the MWP was 4 degrees warmer globally than today.

Why did you say that the MWP was 4 degrees warmer globally than today?  Do you have anything to support that?

And why do you think it is relevant in any way to the impact on global temperatures being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions today.  You still have not explained what you think the connection is.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 11:38am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 11:17am: But you cant say that without correlation. The cimate changed in the past without correlation to co2, just like is is now changing and stopping regardless of co2. As I have already said CO2 isn't the only thing that changes climate but it is one of the things.

really??? then in the church of ACC you are a heretic. CO2 is still the gas driving warming - even tho it isnt warming and CO2 is still rising.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 9:55am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 9:46am: gold_medal wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 4:22pm: http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/06/2010-antarctica-peerreviewed-research-ice-core-data-confirms-medieval-period-warmer-than-present.html 2010 Antarctica Peer-Reviewed Research: Ice Core Data Confirms Medieval Period Warmer Than Present ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D It may be "peer reviewed" but the conclusions are purely from the Warming skeptics. Here is what the actually scientist said about the study Quote: Unfortunately only one core turned out to yield significant numbers of ikaite crystals, in the Firth of Tay at the far northeast of the Antarctic Peninsula. And even here there weren't many. 'We only found 11 ikaite crystals over 2000 years. The sediments here accumulated quickly, at about 2mm per year, but the crystals are about two metres apart, so the study doesn't give us very high resolution,' Rickaby says. Rickaby says much more study of Antarctic ikaite is needed before we can be sure of the findings. 'Our study only looked at one place, and the results are a long way from being definitive - it's far too early to draw broad conclusions from this,' she says. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-05-technique-medieval-period-antarctica.html#jCp So its "far too early to draw broad conclusions from this" but that sure hasn't stopped the bloggers going into overdrive. These pretty graphs and sources should keep you going a while. Look forward to you reporting back. http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html

None of these graphs support Gold Medal's statement that the MWP was 4 degrees warmer globally than today.

If you think I am wrong - please point out for us which is the relevant graph.

And could you also explain why you think it is relevant in any way to the impact on global temperatures being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions today.  What is the connection?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 4:22pm: http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/06/2010-antarctica-peerreviewed-research-ice-core-data-confirms-medieval-period-warmer-than-present.html 2010 Antarctica Peer-Reviewed Research: Ice Core Data Confirms Medieval Period Warmer Than Present Read here. Scientists using the latest analysis techniques, conducted a high resolution analysis of the ice core retrieved from Antarctica's Dome C station. The Dome C is located on the eastern half of Antarctica, on the polar plateau with an elevation of 10,607 feet. (The more well-known Vostok polar station is located on the same plateau at a similar elevation, ~ 3,200 meters.) What did this new high resolution analysis determine? 1.The Medieval Warming period had temperatures that approached 1°C higher than current temperatures, in spite of lower CO2 levels. 2.The Minoan Warming period had temperatures that possibly exceeded current temperatures by 1°C, in spite of lower CO2 levels. 3.The previous interglacial period, approximately 130,000 years ago, had temperatures in excess of 4°C versus current temperatures, in spite of lower CO2 levels. Clearly, the new ice core data indicates that natural climate variations caused huge temperature variations in the past. Based on this empirical climate science, it would be safe to conclude that current climate changes are predominantly driven by natural forces (see this chart and post also), not human CO2 trace gas emissions. (click on image to enlarge) This high resolution ice core data ends at the year 1912. The similarly situated Vostok polar station temperature record was used as proxy to assess polar plateau temperature increase/decrease over the last 60 years. As the Vostok temperature data reveals, current temperatures may actually be lower than what the Antarctica plateau experienced during the 1950's. In addition, peer-reviewed studies indicate Antarctica temperature change to be minimal over last two centuries. Download this newest Dome C ice core research, source here. What is the paper actually being referred to here? Could you please provide a link to it? All you have is a link to a blog talking  about ice cores at one location in Antarctica.  Nothing to support your statement that the MWP was 4 degrees warmer globally than today. Why did you say that the MWP was 4 degrees warmer globally than today?  Do you have anything to support that? And why do you think it is relevant in any way to the impact on global temperatures being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions today.  You still have not explained what you think the connection is.

Proxy data confirms that the MWP was AT LEAST one degree warmer than today while historical records suggest 3-4 degrees based in part on things like the Greenland situation which you refuse to discuss.

but it only has to be equal to or warmer to absolutely dispel the A in ACC. and thats why hysterics like you revert to that most pathetic bit of relgiious practice: historical revisionism.

now follow the link given and go to their hyperlinkds and find the source data.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 9:55am: The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 9:46am: gold_medal wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 4:22pm: http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/06/2010-antarctica-peerreviewed-research-ice-core-data-confirms-medieval-period-warmer-than-present.html 2010 Antarctica Peer-Reviewed Research: Ice Core Data Confirms Medieval Period Warmer Than Present ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D It may be "peer reviewed" but the conclusions are purely from the Warming skeptics. Here is what the actually scientist said about the study Quote: Unfortunately only one core turned out to yield significant numbers of ikaite crystals, in the Firth of Tay at the far northeast of the Antarctic Peninsula. And even here there weren't many. 'We only found 11 ikaite crystals over 2000 years. The sediments here accumulated quickly, at about 2mm per year, but the crystals are about two metres apart, so the study doesn't give us very high resolution,' Rickaby says. Rickaby says much more study of Antarctic ikaite is needed before we can be sure of the findings. 'Our study only looked at one place, and the results are a long way from being definitive - it's far too early to draw broad conclusions from this,' she says. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-05-technique-medieval-period-antarctica.html#jCp So its "far too early to draw broad conclusions from this" but that sure hasn't stopped the bloggers going into overdrive. These pretty graphs and sources should keep you going a while. Look forward to you reporting back. http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html None of these graphs support Gold Medal's statement that the MWP was 4 degrees warmer globally than today. If you think I am wrong - please point out for us which is the relevant graph. And could you also explain why you think it is relevant in any way to the impact on global temperatures being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions today.  What is the connection?

There is no connection, never was a connection. Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause and just like yesterday, today there is no correlation.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

There is no connection, never was a connection. Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause and just like yesterday, today there is no correlation.

Wow!  What iron clad logic!  DO you actually know what the "greenhouse effect" is?


ANd what makes you think  :Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause"?:

Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation

These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html


Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost
Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend1. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification2 and an increase in global temperature of about 5 °C within a few thousand years3. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed4, 5, 6, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy7 to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate–ecosystem–soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10929.html

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 12:47pm: There is no connection, never was a connection. Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause and just like yesterday, today there is no correlation. Wow!  What iron clad logic!  DO you actually know what the "greenhouse effect" is? ANd what makes you think  :Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause"?: Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend1. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification2 and an increase in global temperature of about 5 °C within a few thousand years3. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed4, 5, 6, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy7 to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate–ecosystem–soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10929.html

Yeh thats funny. Can you tell us what the actual co2 level was back then. Should be interesting.

Here is a more plausable explanation


Quote:

The most likely explanation for these changes is a massive discharge of methane hydrate from beneath the sea floor - scientists estimate it to have released over 2000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere from the extent of the shift toward light carbon isotopes in the organic residue (Zachos et al., 2005). This would have more than quadrupled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (methane decays rapidly to CO2 ) and raised global temperature by more than 5 ºC. However, as the deep-sea record shows, the climate did return to normal and the greenhouse world continued.

In other words, the methane decayed quickly, the co2 did not, but yet temps went down to normal levels whil co2 remained high.

Get a temp, co2 and methane graph of your timeline and we will see where we are.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 12:47pm: There is no connection, never was a connection. Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause and just like yesterday, today there is no correlation. Wow!  What iron clad logic!  DO you actually know what the "greenhouse effect" is? ANd what makes you think  :Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause"?: Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend1. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification2 and an increase in global temperature of about 5 °C within a few thousand years3. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed4, 5, 6, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy7 to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate–ecosystem–soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10929.html

So what caused the permafrost to melt in the first place??

And IF heat caused the release of large amounts of Co2 then, why isn't it likely that the recent increases in Co2 are from natural expulsions by the oceans and permafrost this time??

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 1:12pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:01pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 12:47pm: There is no connection, never was a connection. Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause and just like yesterday, today there is no correlation. Wow!  What iron clad logic!  DO you actually know what the "greenhouse effect" is? ANd what makes you think  :Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause"?: Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend1. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification2 and an increase in global temperature of about 5 °C within a few thousand years3. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed4, 5, 6, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy7 to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate–ecosystem–soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10929.html So what caused the permafrost to melt in the first place?? And IF heat caused the release of large amounts of Co2 then, why isn't it likely that the recent increases in Co2 are from natural expulsions by the oceans and permafrost this time??

and THAT is the kind of critical reasoning that MOTR talks about but doesnt use. The kind of thinking that asks 'why' instead of regurgitating ideology or preconceived opinions.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 2:23pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:12pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:01pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 12:47pm: There is no connection, never was a connection. Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause and just like yesterday, today there is no correlation. Wow!  What iron clad logic!  DO you actually know what the "greenhouse effect" is? ANd what makes you think  :Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause"?: Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend1. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification2 and an increase in global temperature of about 5 °C within a few thousand years3. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed4, 5, 6, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy7 to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate–ecosystem–soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10929.html So what caused the permafrost to melt in the first place?? And IF heat caused the release of large amounts of Co2 then, why isn't it likely that the recent increases in Co2 are from natural expulsions by the oceans and permafrost this time?? and THAT is the kind of critical reasoning that MOTR talks about but doesnt use. The kind of thinking that asks 'why' instead of regurgitating ideology or preconceived opinions.

AND WHY isn't it possible then for natural expulsions and permafrot this time too, with human made CO2 tipping it over the edge further?  Come on mr Gold_medal, some critical thinking please. ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 4:40pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 2:23pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:12pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:01pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 12:47pm: There is no connection, never was a connection. Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause and just like yesterday, today there is no correlation. Wow!  What iron clad logic!  DO you actually know what the "greenhouse effect" is? ANd what makes you think  :Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause"?: Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend1. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification2 and an increase in global temperature of about 5 °C within a few thousand years3. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed4, 5, 6, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy7 to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate–ecosystem–soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10929.html So what caused the permafrost to melt in the first place?? And IF heat caused the release of large amounts of Co2 then, why isn't it likely that the recent increases in Co2 are from natural expulsions by the oceans and permafrost this time?? and THAT is the kind of critical reasoning that MOTR talks about but doesnt use. The kind of thinking that asks 'why' instead of regurgitating ideology or preconceived opinions. AND WHY isn't it possible then for natural expulsions and permafrot this time too, with human made CO2 tipping it over the edge further?  Come on mr Gold_medal, some critical thinking please. ;D

the critical thinking is in asking what came first  - warming or increased CO2. what starated the warming this time becuase it sure wasnt CO2.

cods wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 7:10am:

havent we got it on good authority from the experts on here. THERE WILL BE NO ICE IN ANTARCTICA BY THE YEAR 2013..

No, Cods, I think what they actually said was THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 4:46pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 4:40pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 2:23pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:12pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:01pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 12:47pm: There is no connection, never was a connection. Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause and just like yesterday, today there is no correlation. Wow!  What iron clad logic!  DO you actually know what the "greenhouse effect" is? ANd what makes you think  :Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause"?: Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend1. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification2 and an increase in global temperature of about 5 °C within a few thousand years3. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed4, 5, 6, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy7 to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate–ecosystem–soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10929.html So what caused the permafrost to melt in the first place?? And IF heat caused the release of large amounts of Co2 then, why isn't it likely that the recent increases in Co2 are from natural expulsions by the oceans and permafrost this time?? and THAT is the kind of critical reasoning that MOTR talks about but doesnt use. The kind of thinking that asks 'why' instead of regurgitating ideology or preconceived opinions. AND WHY isn't it possible then for natural expulsions and permafrot this time too, with human made CO2 tipping it over the edge further?  Come on mr Gold_medal, some critical thinking please. ;D the critical thinking is in asking what came first  - warming or increased CO2. what starated the warming this time becuase it sure wasnt CO2.

It sure wasn't CO2.  In your opinion, or proven fact? ;D

And how about the critical thinking about the potential continued warming because of CO2?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 4:59pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 4:46pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 4:40pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 2:23pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:12pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:01pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 12:47pm: There is no connection, never was a connection. Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause and just like yesterday, today there is no correlation. Wow!  What iron clad logic!  DO you actually know what the "greenhouse effect" is? ANd what makes you think  :Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause"?: Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend1. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification2 and an increase in global temperature of about 5 °C within a few thousand years3. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed4, 5, 6, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy7 to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate–ecosystem–soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10929.html So what caused the permafrost to melt in the first place?? And IF heat caused the release of large amounts of Co2 then, why isn't it likely that the recent increases in Co2 are from natural expulsions by the oceans and permafrost this time?? and THAT is the kind of critical reasoning that MOTR talks about but doesnt use. The kind of thinking that asks 'why' instead of regurgitating ideology or preconceived opinions. AND WHY isn't it possible then for natural expulsions and permafrot this time too, with human made CO2 tipping it over the edge further?  Come on mr Gold_medal, some critical thinking please. ;D the critical thinking is in asking what came first  - warming or increased CO2. what starated the warming this time becuase it sure wasnt CO2. It sure wasn't CO2.  In your opinion, or proven fact? ;D And how about the critical thinking about the potential continued warming because of CO2?

ice core evidence suggests that CO2 FOLLOWS warming not causing it. thats a problem for the ACC hypothesis

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

Proxy data confirms that the MWP was AT LEAST one degree warmer

What paper is the blog you have linked to referring to?

Why is there no reference?

All you have is a blog that seems to imply that an unnamed paper shows that at one point in Anarctica there may have been 1 degree warmer temperatures at some point in the past thousand years.

THis does not support your claim that the MWP was 4 degrees warmer globally


gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

than today while historical records suggest 3-4 degrees based in part on things like the Greenland situation which you refuse to discuss.

You claimed that the earth was 4 degrees warmer globally during the MWP.  Are you saying that you are basing this statement purely on anecdodal evidence from Greenland?!?!?

Can you show us this anecdotal evidence from Greenland?

All you seem to be telling us is exactly what Mann et al told us in 2009:

The 2009 Mann et al. study found warmth exceeding 1961–1990 levels in Southern Greenland and parts of North America during the Medieval climate anomaly (defined for this purpose as 950 to 1250) with warmth in some regions exceeding temperatures of the 1990–2010 period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

THis does not support your claim that the MWP was 4 degrees warmer globally


gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

but it only has to be equal to or warmer to absolutely dispel the A in ACC.

Why?!?!  That is nonsense.

It is well known that the earth has been warmer than today at other times in history - and it may even have been warmer globally during the MWP - although current research suggests this is unlikely

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.
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1579/0044-7447-29.1.51
How on earth does this " absolutely dispel the A in ACC."?!?!?!


No one has ever claimed that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are the ONLY things that impact upon climate.  What we do know is that NOW - anthropoogenic GHG's are impacting upon climate.

The possibility that the MWP may have been as warm as or warmer than today does not change in any way the simple fact that NOW atmospheric CO2 levels have significantly increased due to anthropogenic emissions, and this is impacting on the amount of downward longwave radiation being redirected to the earth's surface.

You seem to be using the logic:
"During the MWP, people were never run over by busses - therefore being run over by a bus cannot possibly hurt a person."



gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

now follow the link given and go to their hyperlinkds and find the source data.

Your link does not show the source.  It does not even name the paper being referred to.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 5:06pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 4:59pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 4:46pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 4:40pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 2:23pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:12pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:01pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 12:47pm: There is no connection, never was a connection. Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause and just like yesterday, today there is no correlation. Wow!  What iron clad logic!  DO you actually know what the "greenhouse effect" is? ANd what makes you think  :Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause"?: Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend1. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification2 and an increase in global temperature of about 5 °C within a few thousand years3. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed4, 5, 6, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy7 to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate–ecosystem–soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10929.html So what caused the permafrost to melt in the first place?? And IF heat caused the release of large amounts of Co2 then, why isn't it likely that the recent increases in Co2 are from natural expulsions by the oceans and permafrost this time?? and THAT is the kind of critical reasoning that MOTR talks about but doesnt use. The kind of thinking that asks 'why' instead of regurgitating ideology or preconceived opinions. AND WHY isn't it possible then for natural expulsions and permafrot this time too, with human made CO2 tipping it over the edge further?  Come on mr Gold_medal, some critical thinking please. ;D the critical thinking is in asking what came first  - warming or increased CO2. what starated the warming this time becuase it sure wasnt CO2. It sure wasn't CO2.  In your opinion, or proven fact? ;D And how about the critical thinking about the potential continued warming because of CO2? ice core evidence suggests that CO2 FOLLOWS warming not causing it. thats a problem for the ACC hypothesis

I'm not denying the suggestion and have heard the reports that ice melting has caused further releases of co2.  My critic thinking question for your is: is it possible that the contribution of further co2 into the atmosphere contributing to warming? 

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 5:33pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 12:47pm: Proxy data confirms that the MWP was AT LEAST one degree warmer What paper is the blog you have linked to referring to? Why is there no reference? All you have is a blog that seems to imply that an unnamed paper shows that at one point in Anarctica there may have been 1 degree warmer temperatures at some point in the past thousand years. THis does not support your claim that the MWP was 4 degrees warmer globally gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 12:47pm: than today while historical records suggest 3-4 degrees based in part on things like the Greenland situation which you refuse to discuss. You claimed that the earth was 4 degrees warmer globally during the MWP.  Are you saying that you are basing this statement purely on anecdodal evidence from Greenland?!?!? Can you show us this anecdotal evidence from Greenland? All you seem to be telling us is exactly what Mann et al told us in 2009: The 2009 Mann et al. study found warmth exceeding 1961–1990 levels in Southern Greenland and parts of North America during the Medieval climate anomaly (defined for this purpose as 950 to 1250) with warmth in some regions exceeding temperatures of the 1990–2010 period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period THis does not support your claim that the MWP was 4 degrees warmer globally gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 12:47pm: but it only has to be equal to or warmer to absolutely dispel the A in ACC. Why?!?!  That is nonsense. It is well known that the earth has been warmer than today at other times in history - and it may even have been warmer globally during the MWP - although current research suggests this is unlikely 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. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1579/0044-7447-29.1.51 How on earth does this " absolutely dispel the A in ACC."?!?!?! No one has ever claimed that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are the ONLY things that impact upon climate.  What we do know is that NOW - anthropoogenic GHG's are impacting upon climate. The possibility that the MWP may have been as warm as or warmer than today does not change in any way the simple fact that NOW atmospheric CO2 levels have significantly increased due to anthropogenic emissions, and this is impacting on the amount of downward longwave radiation being redirected to the earth's surface. You seem to be using the logic: "During the MWP, people were never run over by busses - therefore being run over by a bus cannot possibly hurt a person." gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 12:47pm: now follow the link given and go to their hyperlinkds and find the source data. Your link does not show the source.  It does not even name the paper being referred to.

Michale Man - totally discredited researcher - claims that Green land mysteriously had hotter temperatures than now but no where else. But he was only forced into this admission  after 11 years of arguing why his maligned and debunked hockey stick had NO MWP or little ice age. And how convenient that this substantial warming occurred just in Greenland? if you believe that then you will believe anything. is any of the current global warming only regional? no. it is GLOBAL - just as it was in the MWP. You don't need evidence to prove that; you need evidence to DISPROVE that since it is the natural and repeated historical; experience - global warming and cooling.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 5:49pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 5:06pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 4:59pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 4:46pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 4:40pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 2:23pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:12pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:01pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 12:47pm: There is no connection, never was a connection. Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause and just like yesterday, today there is no correlation. Wow!  What iron clad logic!  DO you actually know what the "greenhouse effect" is? ANd what makes you think  :Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause"?: Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend1. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification2 and an increase in global temperature of about 5 °C within a few thousand years3. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed4, 5, 6, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy7 to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate–ecosystem–soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10929.html So what caused the permafrost to melt in the first place?? And IF heat caused the release of large amounts of Co2 then, why isn't it likely that the recent increases in Co2 are from natural expulsions by the oceans and permafrost this time?? and THAT is the kind of critical reasoning that MOTR talks about but doesnt use. The kind of thinking that asks 'why' instead of regurgitating ideology or preconceived opinions. AND WHY isn't it possible then for natural expulsions and permafrot this time too, with human made CO2 tipping it over the edge further?  Come on mr Gold_medal, some critical thinking please. ;D the critical thinking is in asking what came first  - warming or increased CO2. what starated the warming this time becuase it sure wasnt CO2. It sure wasn't CO2.  In your opinion, or proven fact? ;D And how about the critical thinking about the potential continued warming because of CO2? ice core evidence suggests that CO2 FOLLOWS warming not causing it. thats a problem for the ACC hypothesis I'm not denying the suggestion and have heard the reports that ice melting has caused further releases of co2.  My critic thinking question for your is: is it possible that the contribution of further co2 into the atmosphere contributing to warming?

yes it is. but it is hardly proof of anything since it is the RESULT of warming and not the cause. And therefore the real question is what caused the original warming since it isnt CO2 and theire humans. Could it be that it is just part of he natural cycle of millions of years? isnt that the natural default position that has to be disproved rather than sceptics proving it is?

I hope you dont do your own house wiring as well Longy ..after all whats a qualified electrician know that you dont .. ;D

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 4:46pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 4:40pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 2:23pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:12pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:01pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 12:47pm: There is no connection, never was a connection. Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause and just like yesterday, today there is no correlation. Wow!  What iron clad logic!  DO you actually know what the "greenhouse effect" is? ANd what makes you think  :Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause"?: Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend1. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification2 and an increase in global temperature of about 5 °C within a few thousand years3. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed4, 5, 6, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy7 to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate–ecosystem–soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10929.html So what caused the permafrost to melt in the first place?? And IF heat caused the release of large amounts of Co2 then, why isn't it likely that the recent increases in Co2 are from natural expulsions by the oceans and permafrost this time?? and THAT is the kind of critical reasoning that MOTR talks about but doesnt use. The kind of thinking that asks 'why' instead of regurgitating ideology or preconceived opinions. AND WHY isn't it possible then for natural expulsions and permafrot this time too, with human made CO2 tipping it over the edge further?  Come on mr Gold_medal, some critical thinking please. ;D the critical thinking is in asking what came first  - warming or increased CO2. what starated the warming this time becuase it sure wasnt CO2.

Actually - it was CO2


Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

See how using supporting references works Gold Medal?

I can support my statements with evidence

Unlike you who just tells silly lies.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:43pm:

Michale Man - totally discredited researcher - claims that Green land mysteriously had hotter temperatures than now but no where else. But he was only forced into this admission  after 11 years of arguing why his maligned and debunked hockey stick had NO MWP or little ice age. And how convenient that this substantial warming occurred just in Greenland? if you believe that then you will believe anything. is any of the current global warming only regional? no. it is GLOBAL - just as it was in the MWP. You don't need evidence to prove that; you need evidence to DISPROVE that since it is the natural and repeated historical; experience - global warming and cooling.

Heh!!

Is this an example of your "critical thinking"?!?!?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 7:07pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 6:43pm: Michale Man - totally discredited researcher - claims that Green land mysteriously had hotter temperatures than now but no where else. But he was only forced into this admission  after 11 years of arguing why his maligned and debunked hockey stick had NO MWP or little ice age. And how convenient that this substantial warming occurred just in Greenland? if you believe that then you will believe anything. is any of the current global warming only regional? no. it is GLOBAL - just as it was in the MWP. You don't need evidence to prove that; you need evidence to DISPROVE that since it is the natural and repeated historical; experience - global warming and cooling. Heh!! Is this an example of your "critical thinking"?!?!?

I think we can all agree by now that Longy and critical thinking dont go together especially when it comes to climate science

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:46pm:

yes it is. but it is hardly proof of anything since it is the RESULT of warming and not the cause. And therefore the real question is what caused the original warming since it isnt CO2 and theire humans. Could it be that it is just part of he natural cycle of millions of years? isnt that the natural default position that has to be disproved rather than sceptics proving it is?

No offence longie, but your questions don't agree with your previous comment that it is possible CO2 is contributing to further warming.   You say it's possible it is contributing, but then say warming in general is normal? It may be normal, but what level of warming is normal, and if CO2 is contirbuting to further warming, isn't it possible it may reach levels that are "not normal"? 

And if you agree that it is possible that contribution of further co2 into the atmosphere is contributing to further warming then wouldn't you agree we need to be reactive to this? If we agree with the proposition that warming came first, but that carbon dioxide release then encourages further warming, and we don't really know the "tipping point", then shouldn't we be doing what we can to stop any additional unnecessary CO2 being released, in an attempt to prevent unnecessary destruction to our own environments? No one is suggesting that the whole purpose of understanding global warming is understanding what came first and let that be that. The understanding of global warming is to understand what is considered the detrimental level, and how to prevent the detrimental level being reached. And if CO2 is contributing, as you admit is possible and I would say is probable, then as human beings looking to sustain our survival and our environment we need to look at implementing measures to try and reduce any additional CO2 being released.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 7:07pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 6:43pm: Michale Man - totally discredited researcher - claims that Green land mysteriously had hotter temperatures than now but no where else. But he was only forced into this admission  after 11 years of arguing why his maligned and debunked hockey stick had NO MWP or little ice age. And how convenient that this substantial warming occurred just in Greenland? if you believe that then you will believe anything. is any of the current global warming only regional? no. it is GLOBAL - just as it was in the MWP. You don't need evidence to prove that; you need evidence to DISPROVE that since it is the natural and repeated historical; experience - global warming and cooling. Heh!! Is this an example of your "critical thinking"?!?!?

actually it is. you should try it some time. the natural climate variation model is the default one and therefore require proof by the ACC crowd to disprove it - not the other way around.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 11:21pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 6:46pm: yes it is. but it is hardly proof of anything since it is the RESULT of warming and not the cause. And therefore the real question is what caused the original warming since it isnt CO2 and theire humans. Could it be that it is just part of he natural cycle of millions of years? isnt that the natural default position that has to be disproved rather than sceptics proving it is? No offence longie, but your questions don't agree with your previous comment that it is possible CO2 is contributing to further warming.   You say it's possible it is contributing, but then say warming in general is normal? It may be normal, but what level of warming is normal, and if CO2 is contirbuting to further warming, isn't it possible it may reach levels that are "not normal"?  And if you agree that it is possible that contribution of further co2 into the atmosphere is contributing to further warming then wouldn't you agree we need to be reactive to this? If we agree with the proposition that warming came first, but that carbon dioxide release then encourages further warming, and we don't really know the "tipping point", then shouldn't we be doing what we can to stop any additional unnecessary CO2 being released, in an attempt to prevent unnecessary destruction to our own environments? No one is suggesting that the whole purpose of understanding global warming is understanding what came first and let that be that. The understanding of global warming is to understand what is considered the detrimental level, and how to prevent the detrimental level being reached. And if CO2 is contributing, as you admit is possible and I would say is probable, then as human beings looking to sustain our survival and our environment we need to look at implementing measures to try and reduce any additional CO2 being released.

its a matter of degree. addition CO2 does make it warmer but the amount is miniscule PLUS there are feedback mechanisms in place/ In fact the whole argument is over-simplified since climate is exceptionally complex. the whole ACC hypothesis pretty much requires a simplistic CO2=temperature assumption which is ludicrously simplistic.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 6:41am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 11:21pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 6:46pm: yes it is. but it is hardly proof of anything since it is the RESULT of warming and not the cause. And therefore the real question is what caused the original warming since it isnt CO2 and theire humans. Could it be that it is just part of he natural cycle of millions of years? isnt that the natural default position that has to be disproved rather than sceptics proving it is? No offence longie, but your questions don't agree with your previous comment that it is possible CO2 is contributing to further warming.   You say it's possible it is contributing, but then say warming in general is normal? It may be normal, but what level of warming is normal, and if CO2 is contirbuting to further warming, isn't it possible it may reach levels that are "not normal"?  And if you agree that it is possible that contribution of further co2 into the atmosphere is contributing to further warming then wouldn't you agree we need to be reactive to this? If we agree with the proposition that warming came first, but that carbon dioxide release then encourages further warming, and we don't really know the "tipping point", then shouldn't we be doing what we can to stop any additional unnecessary CO2 being released, in an attempt to prevent unnecessary destruction to our own environments? No one is suggesting that the whole purpose of understanding global warming is understanding what came first and let that be that. The understanding of global warming is to understand what is considered the detrimental level, and how to prevent the detrimental level being reached. And if CO2 is contributing, as you admit is possible and I would say is probable, then as human beings looking to sustain our survival and our environment we need to look at implementing measures to try and reduce any additional CO2 being released. its a matter of degree. addition CO2 does make it warmer but the amount is miniscule PLUS there are feedback mechanisms in place/ In fact the whole argument is over-simplified since climate is exceptionally complex. the whole ACC hypothesis pretty much requires a simplistic CO2=temperature assumption which is ludicrously simplistic.

How do you know? How do you know when the boiling point is reached?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 9:44am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 6:41am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 11:21pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 6:46pm: yes it is. but it is hardly proof of anything since it is the RESULT of warming and not the cause. And therefore the real question is what caused the original warming since it isnt CO2 and theire humans. Could it be that it is just part of he natural cycle of millions of years? isnt that the natural default position that has to be disproved rather than sceptics proving it is? No offence longie, but your questions don't agree with your previous comment that it is possible CO2 is contributing to further warming.   You say it's possible it is contributing, but then say warming in general is normal? It may be normal, but what level of warming is normal, and if CO2 is contirbuting to further warming, isn't it possible it may reach levels that are "not normal"?  And if you agree that it is possible that contribution of further co2 into the atmosphere is contributing to further warming then wouldn't you agree we need to be reactive to this? If we agree with the proposition that warming came first, but that carbon dioxide release then encourages further warming, and we don't really know the "tipping point", then shouldn't we be doing what we can to stop any additional unnecessary CO2 being released, in an attempt to prevent unnecessary destruction to our own environments? No one is suggesting that the whole purpose of understanding global warming is understanding what came first and let that be that. The understanding of global warming is to understand what is considered the detrimental level, and how to prevent the detrimental level being reached. And if CO2 is contributing, as you admit is possible and I would say is probable, then as human beings looking to sustain our survival and our environment we need to look at implementing measures to try and reduce any additional CO2 being released. its a matter of degree. addition CO2 does make it warmer but the amount is miniscule PLUS there are feedback mechanisms in place/ In fact the whole argument is over-simplified since climate is exceptionally complex. the whole ACC hypothesis pretty much requires a simplistic CO2=temperature assumption which is ludicrously simplistic. How do you know? How do you know when the boiling point is reached?

when temperature exceeds the MWP for starters so a few degrees to go there PLUS you need to find evidence for runaway temperatures which have never happened before and which no accurate model predicts. Remember that so far, all this doom and gloom is unproven in any regards.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 4:40pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 2:23pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:12pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:01pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 12:47pm: There is no connection, never was a connection. Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause and just like yesterday, today there is no correlation. Wow!  What iron clad logic!  DO you actually know what the "greenhouse effect" is? ANd what makes you think  :Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause"?: Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend1. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification2 and an increase in global temperature of about 5 °C within a few thousand years3. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed4, 5, 6, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy7 to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate–ecosystem–soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10929.html So what caused the permafrost to melt in the first place?? And IF heat caused the release of large amounts of Co2 then, why isn't it likely that the recent increases in Co2 are from natural expulsions by the oceans and permafrost this time?? and THAT is the kind of critical reasoning that MOTR talks about but doesnt use. The kind of thinking that asks 'why' instead of regurgitating ideology or preconceived opinions. AND WHY isn't it possible then for natural expulsions and permafrot this time too, with human made CO2 tipping it over the edge further?  Come on mr Gold_medal, some critical thinking please. ;D

It is possible....and quite likely that natural expulsions and permafrost melts are happening...
The point is, human contribution is very small (about 5% of the yearly total), so the chances that's enough of a difference to create a 'tipping point' of no return is equally small. ( and yes I know all the 'build up over time' arguments, so don't bother).

So human activity would be responsible for about 5% of the warming ( 5% of +0.8 C)...the question is.....is it worth the money, damage to our technology base, and inconvenience to the people and the time needed to make sure that the temperatures only increase by 0.795C per century instead of 0.799C per century??

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 12:03pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 4:40pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 2:23pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:12pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:01pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 12:47pm: There is no connection, never was a connection. Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause and just like yesterday, today there is no correlation. Wow!  What iron clad logic!  DO you actually know what the "greenhouse effect" is? ANd what makes you think  :Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause"?: Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend1. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification2 and an increase in global temperature of about 5 °C within a few thousand years3. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed4, 5, 6, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy7 to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate–ecosystem–soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10929.html So what caused the permafrost to melt in the first place?? And IF heat caused the release of large amounts of Co2 then, why isn't it likely that the recent increases in Co2 are from natural expulsions by the oceans and permafrost this time?? and THAT is the kind of critical reasoning that MOTR talks about but doesnt use. The kind of thinking that asks 'why' instead of regurgitating ideology or preconceived opinions. AND WHY isn't it possible then for natural expulsions and permafrot this time too, with human made CO2 tipping it over the edge further?  Come on mr Gold_medal, some critical thinking please. ;D It is possible....and quite likely that natural expulsions and permafrost melts are happening... The point is, human contribution is very small (about 5% of the yearly total), so the chances that's enough of a difference to create a 'tipping point' of no return is equally small. ( and yes I know all the 'build up over time' arguments, so don't bother). So human activity would be responsible for about 5% of the warming ( 5% of +0.8 C)...the question is.....is it worth the money, damage to our technology base, and inconvenience to the people and the time needed to make sure that the temperatures only increase by 0.795C per century instead of 0.799C per century??

Well the argument is quite simple: How are we sure that even the 0.004C you are saying is the difference isn't enough to stop catastrophe? The point is, we can deal in small numbers and claim that it's irrelevant because they happen to be small numbers, but how can we be so sure that even 0.001 is irrelevant when it comes to warming?  And if we aren't sure, and those with far greater understanding than you or I showing through science that it may well be a problem then I for one would rather have the inconvenience you mention and know that human innovation simply means we readjust, as opposed to sitting back and saying "Ah but who cares. too hard".

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 6:36am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 7:07pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 6:43pm: Michale Man - totally discredited researcher - claims that Green land mysteriously had hotter temperatures than now but no where else. But he was only forced into this admission  after 11 years of arguing why his maligned and debunked hockey stick had NO MWP or little ice age. And how convenient that this substantial warming occurred just in Greenland? if you believe that then you will believe anything. is any of the current global warming only regional? no. it is GLOBAL - just as it was in the MWP. You don't need evidence to prove that; you need evidence to DISPROVE that since it is the natural and repeated historical; experience - global warming and cooling. Heh!! Is this an example of your "critical thinking"?!?!? actually it is. you should try it some time. the natural climate variation model is the default one and therefore require proof by the ACC crowd to disprove it - not the other way around.

Who is trying to disprove natural climate variation?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 12:03pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 4:40pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 2:23pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:12pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:01pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 12:47pm: There is no connection, never was a connection. Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause and just like yesterday, today there is no correlation. Wow!  What iron clad logic!  DO you actually know what the "greenhouse effect" is? ANd what makes you think  :Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause"?: Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend1. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification2 and an increase in global temperature of about 5 °C within a few thousand years3. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed4, 5, 6, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy7 to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate–ecosystem–soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10929.html So what caused the permafrost to melt in the first place?? And IF heat caused the release of large amounts of Co2 then, why isn't it likely that the recent increases in Co2 are from natural expulsions by the oceans and permafrost this time?? and THAT is the kind of critical reasoning that MOTR talks about but doesnt use. The kind of thinking that asks 'why' instead of regurgitating ideology or preconceived opinions. AND WHY isn't it possible then for natural expulsions and permafrot this time too, with human made CO2 tipping it over the edge further?  Come on mr Gold_medal, some critical thinking please. ;D It is possible....and quite likely that natural expulsions and permafrost melts are happening... The point is, human contribution is very small (about 5% of the yearly total), so the chances that's enough of a difference to create a 'tipping point' of no return is equally small. ( and yes I know all the 'build up over time' arguments, so don't bother). So human activity would be responsible for about 5% of the warming ( 5% of +0.8 C)...the question is.....is it worth the money, damage to our technology base, and inconvenience to the people and the time needed to make sure that the temperatures only increase by 0.795C per century instead of 0.799C per century?? Well the argument is quite simple: How are we sure that even the 0.004C you are saying is the difference isn't enough to stop catastrophe? The point is, we can deal in small numbers and claim that it's irrelevant because they happen to be small numbers, but how can we be so sure that even 0.001 is irrelevant when it comes to warming?  And if we aren't sure, and those with far greater understanding than you or I showing through science that it may well be a problem then I for one would rather have the inconvenience you mention and know that human innovation simply means we readjust, as opposed to sitting back and saying "Ah but who cares. too hard".

because if that were the case we are screwed no matter what we do. a solar event capable of changing our temperature by 0.004 degrees is not only likely but guaranteed. this 'tipping point' is an okay concept but taken to idiotic extremes because it NEVER considers feedback mechanisms that change the whole equation. A simple one: higher temperatures cause higher evaporation which causes increased cloud cover which... reduces temperature.  cycle complete.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 6:36am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 7:07pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 6:43pm: Michale Man - totally discredited researcher - claims that Green land mysteriously had hotter temperatures than now but no where else. But he was only forced into this admission  after 11 years of arguing why his maligned and debunked hockey stick had NO MWP or little ice age. And how convenient that this substantial warming occurred just in Greenland? if you believe that then you will believe anything. is any of the current global warming only regional? no. it is GLOBAL - just as it was in the MWP. You don't need evidence to prove that; you need evidence to DISPROVE that since it is the natural and repeated historical; experience - global warming and cooling. Heh!! Is this an example of your "critical thinking"?!?!? actually it is. you should try it some time. the natural climate variation model is the default one and therefore require proof by the ACC crowd to disprove it - not the other way around. Who is trying to disprove natural climate variation?

you do. everytime you blame humans for increased temperatures you ignore natural variation. so much so that you virtually discount it and consider that ALL wamring is the result of it. pity about those warming and cooling cycles in the past huh? You hysterics only consider 'natural variation' when asked to account for why  your predictions are wrong by the proverbial country mile.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 12:03pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 4:40pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 2:23pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:12pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 1:01pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 12:47pm: There is no connection, never was a connection. Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause and just like yesterday, today there is no correlation. Wow!  What iron clad logic!  DO you actually know what the "greenhouse effect" is? ANd what makes you think  :Co2 has always been an effect, not a cause"?: Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend1. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification2 and an increase in global temperature of about 5 °C within a few thousand years3. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed4, 5, 6, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy7 to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate–ecosystem–soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10929.html So what caused the permafrost to melt in the first place?? And IF heat caused the release of large amounts of Co2 then, why isn't it likely that the recent increases in Co2 are from natural expulsions by the oceans and permafrost this time?? and THAT is the kind of critical reasoning that MOTR talks about but doesnt use. The kind of thinking that asks 'why' instead of regurgitating ideology or preconceived opinions. AND WHY isn't it possible then for natural expulsions and permafrot this time too, with human made CO2 tipping it over the edge further?  Come on mr Gold_medal, some critical thinking please. ;D It is possible....and quite likely that natural expulsions and permafrost melts are happening... The point is, human contribution is very small (about 5% of the yearly total), so the chances that's enough of a difference to create a 'tipping point' of no return is equally small. ( and yes I know all the 'build up over time' arguments, so don't bother). So human activity would be responsible for about 5% of the warming ( 5% of +0.8 C)...the question is.....is it worth the money, damage to our technology base, and inconvenience to the people and the time needed to make sure that the temperatures only increase by 0.795C per century instead of 0.799C per century?? Well the argument is quite simple: How are we sure that even the 0.004C you are saying is the difference isn't enough to stop catastrophe? The point is, we can deal in small numbers and claim that it's irrelevant because they happen to be small numbers, but how can we be so sure that even 0.001 is irrelevant when it comes to warming?  And if we aren't sure, and those with far greater understanding than you or I showing through science that it may well be a problem then I for one would rather have the inconvenience you mention and know that human innovation simply means we readjust, as opposed to sitting back and saying "Ah but who cares. too hard".

But how sure are we that there will even BE a 'catastrophe'???

After all, that what it all comes down to doesn't it???
We could go through the process of changing over to 'green' energy, and then find that it makes no difference whatsoever....and while we're all sitting around patting ourselves on the back, we could have been making the changes to adapt to a situation that is ,ultimate, completely out of our control...

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 5:14pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 12:24pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 6:36am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 7:07pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 6:43pm: Michale Man - totally discredited researcher - claims that Green land mysteriously had hotter temperatures than now but no where else. But he was only forced into this admission  after 11 years of arguing why his maligned and debunked hockey stick had NO MWP or little ice age. And how convenient that this substantial warming occurred just in Greenland? if you believe that then you will believe anything. is any of the current global warming only regional? no. it is GLOBAL - just as it was in the MWP. You don't need evidence to prove that; you need evidence to DISPROVE that since it is the natural and repeated historical; experience - global warming and cooling. Heh!! Is this an example of your "critical thinking"?!?!? actually it is. you should try it some time. the natural climate variation model is the default one and therefore require proof by the ACC crowd to disprove it - not the other way around. Who is trying to disprove natural climate variation? you do. everytime you blame humans for increased temperatures you ignore natural variation. so much so that you virtually discount it and consider that ALL wamring is the result of it. pity about those warming and cooling cycles in the past huh? You hysterics only consider 'natural variation' when asked to account for why  your predictions are wrong by the proverbial country mile.

Sadly Longy this is just a case of you not being able to let go of an argument that was settled long ago.
You can argue your amateur theories over and over but it isn't going to change a thing and you will have as much influence on the professional scientific debate as you would on the selection of the next Rugby Union side to play the World Cup.
You can pretend that you know more than the worlds most respected climate scientists but the only person that you're fooling is yourself and its now getting pretty sad to witness the whole sorry saga unwind.

adelcrow wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 5:21pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 5:14pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 12:24pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 6:36am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 7:07pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 6:43pm: Michale Man - totally discredited researcher - claims that Green land mysteriously had hotter temperatures than now but no where else. But he was only forced into this admission  after 11 years of arguing why his maligned and debunked hockey stick had NO MWP or little ice age. And how convenient that this substantial warming occurred just in Greenland? if you believe that then you will believe anything. is any of the current global warming only regional? no. it is GLOBAL - just as it was in the MWP. You don't need evidence to prove that; you need evidence to DISPROVE that since it is the natural and repeated historical; experience - global warming and cooling. Heh!! Is this an example of your "critical thinking"?!?!? actually it is. you should try it some time. the natural climate variation model is the default one and therefore require proof by the ACC crowd to disprove it - not the other way around. Who is trying to disprove natural climate variation? you do. everytime you blame humans for increased temperatures you ignore natural variation. so much so that you virtually discount it and consider that ALL wamring is the result of it. pity about those warming and cooling cycles in the past huh? You hysterics only consider 'natural variation' when asked to account for why  your predictions are wrong by the proverbial country mile. Sadly Longy this is just a case of you not being able to let go of an argument that was settled long ago. You can argue your amateur theories over and over but it isn't going to change a thing and you will have as much influence on the professional scientific debate as you would on the selection of the next Rugby Union side to play the World Cup. You can pretend that you know more than the worlds most respected climate scientists but the only person that you're fooling is yourself and its now getting pretty sad to witness the whole sorry saga unwind.

probably the most arrogant ant stupid comment in the entire ACC debate is 'the science is settled'. it most certainly is not or even close. the fact that such debate rages between SCIENTISTS disputess that entirely and makes the ACC proponents look more thana little silly if not downrigt- naive and stupid.

NO science is ever settled.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 5:31pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 5:21pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 5:14pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 12:24pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 6:36am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 7:07pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 6:43pm: Michale Man - totally discredited researcher - claims that Green land mysteriously had hotter temperatures than now but no where else. But he was only forced into this admission  after 11 years of arguing why his maligned and debunked hockey stick had NO MWP or little ice age. And how convenient that this substantial warming occurred just in Greenland? if you believe that then you will believe anything. is any of the current global warming only regional? no. it is GLOBAL - just as it was in the MWP. You don't need evidence to prove that; you need evidence to DISPROVE that since it is the natural and repeated historical; experience - global warming and cooling. Heh!! Is this an example of your "critical thinking"?!?!? actually it is. you should try it some time. the natural climate variation model is the default one and therefore require proof by the ACC crowd to disprove it - not the other way around. Who is trying to disprove natural climate variation? you do. everytime you blame humans for increased temperatures you ignore natural variation. so much so that you virtually discount it and consider that ALL wamring is the result of it. pity about those warming and cooling cycles in the past huh? You hysterics only consider 'natural variation' when asked to account for why  your predictions are wrong by the proverbial country mile. Sadly Longy this is just a case of you not being able to let go of an argument that was settled long ago. You can argue your amateur theories over and over but it isn't going to change a thing and you will have as much influence on the professional scientific debate as you would on the selection of the next Rugby Union side to play the World Cup. You can pretend that you know more than the worlds most respected climate scientists but the only person that you're fooling is yourself and its now getting pretty sad to witness the whole sorry saga unwind. probably the most arrogant ant stupid comment in the entire ACC debate is 'the science is settled'. it most certainly is not or even close. the fact that such debate rages between SCIENTISTS disputess that entirely and makes the ACC proponents look more thana little silly if not downrigt- naive and stupid. NO science is ever settled.

NASA bringing in real scientists to look at sun-climate connection, in scientific fields climate scientists wouldnt dream of ever being smart enough to excel in, tells us the debate is far from over or settled.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 5:41pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 5:31pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 5:21pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 5:14pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 12:24pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 6:36am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 7:07pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 6:43pm: Michale Man - totally discredited researcher - claims that Green land mysteriously had hotter temperatures than now but no where else. But he was only forced into this admission  after 11 years of arguing why his maligned and debunked hockey stick had NO MWP or little ice age. And how convenient that this substantial warming occurred just in Greenland? if you believe that then you will believe anything. is any of the current global warming only regional? no. it is GLOBAL - just as it was in the MWP. You don't need evidence to prove that; you need evidence to DISPROVE that since it is the natural and repeated historical; experience - global warming and cooling. Heh!! Is this an example of your "critical thinking"?!?!? actually it is. you should try it some time. the natural climate variation model is the default one and therefore require proof by the ACC crowd to disprove it - not the other way around. Who is trying to disprove natural climate variation? you do. everytime you blame humans for increased temperatures you ignore natural variation. so much so that you virtually discount it and consider that ALL wamring is the result of it. pity about those warming and cooling cycles in the past huh? You hysterics only consider 'natural variation' when asked to account for why  your predictions are wrong by the proverbial country mile. Sadly Longy this is just a case of you not being able to let go of an argument that was settled long ago. You can argue your amateur theories over and over but it isn't going to change a thing and you will have as much influence on the professional scientific debate as you would on the selection of the next Rugby Union side to play the World Cup. You can pretend that you know more than the worlds most respected climate scientists but the only person that you're fooling is yourself and its now getting pretty sad to witness the whole sorry saga unwind. probably the most arrogant ant stupid comment in the entire ACC debate is 'the science is settled'. it most certainly is not or even close. the fact that such debate rages between SCIENTISTS disputess that entirely and makes the ACC proponents look more thana little silly if not downrigt- naive and stupid. NO science is ever settled. NASA bringing in real scientists to look at sun-climate connection, in scientific fields climate scientists wouldnt dream of ever being smart enough to excel in, tells us the debate is far from over or settled.

when climate predictions are actually moderately accurate then I will consider climate science is out of nappies. at the moment it is literally in its infancy and the nappy metaphor fits their output nicely as well.