The Arrogance of the Warmers

[westwall]

Arrogance of warmers? That itself is arrogant, assumes someone KNOWS the absolute truth. It's just a coincidence 7 billion people put out record levels of CO2 in the last ten -twenty years?

And? CO2 levels were much higher 200 years ago and NOTHING HAPPENED.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? Come on Walleyes, this is the second time you have made this nonsense statement. Stand and deliver, boy, or be branded a lying flap yap.

 

[Old Rocks]

Access : Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era : Nature

Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era
Rosemarie E. Came1, John M. Eiler1, Ján Veizer2, Karem Azmy3, Uwe Brand4 & Christopher R. Weidman5

Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA
Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario KIN 6N5, Canada
Department of Earth Sciences, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s, Newfoundland A1B 3X5, Canada
Department of Earth Sciences, Brock University, St Catharines, Ontario L2S 3A1, Canada
Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Waquoit, Massachusetts 02536, USA
Correspondence to: Rosemarie E. Came1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to R.E.C. (Email: [email protected]).


Top of pageAbstractAtmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations seem to have been several times modern levels during much of the Palaeozoic era (543–248 million years ago), but decreased during the Carboniferous period to concentrations similar to that of today1, 2, 3. Given that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it has been proposed that surface temperatures were significantly higher during the earlier portions of the Palaeozoic era1. A reconstruction of tropical sea surface temperatures based on the δ18O of carbonate fossils indicates, however, that the magnitude of temperature variability throughout this period was small4, suggesting that global climate may be independent of variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Here we present estimates of sea surface temperatures that were obtained from fossil brachiopod and mollusc shells using the ‘carbonate clumped isotope’ method5—an approach that, unlike the δ18O method, does not require independent estimates of the isotopic composition of the Palaeozoic ocean. Our results indicate that tropical sea surface temperatures were significantly higher than today during the Early Silurian period (443–423 Myr ago), when carbon dioxide concentrations are thought to have been relatively high, and were broadly similar to today during the Late Carboniferous period (314–300 Myr ago), when carbon dioxide concentrations are thought to have been similar to the present-day value. Our results are consistent with the proposal that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations drive or amplify increased global temperatures1, 6.

 

[The Infidel]

Really? Come on Walleyes, this is the second time you have made this nonsense statement. Stand and deliver, boy, or be branded a lying flap yap.

And we are supposed to believe the bullshit sources you've supplied in the past.

Those can be disproven as well.... there are sources on BOTH sides of the debate. What makes yours correct and ours wrong?

Besides, what caused the end of the other ice ages? Why did the earth warm and cool in the past.
As far as I can see the Fred Flinstones' car was powered by his feet.... what caused the earth to warm back then?

STFU old crocks.... b/c as far as I am concerned you "warmers" are full of HOT air!

 

[The Infidel]

Access : Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era : Nature

Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era
Rosemarie E. Came1, John M. Eiler1, Ján Veizer2, Karem Azmy3, Uwe Brand4 & Christopher R. Weidman5

Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA
Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario KIN 6N5, Canada
Department of Earth Sciences, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s, Newfoundland A1B 3X5, Canada
Department of Earth Sciences, Brock University, St Catharines, Ontario L2S 3A1, Canada
Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Waquoit, Massachusetts 02536, USA
Correspondence to: Rosemarie E. Came1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to R.E.C. (Email: [email protected]).


Top of pageAbstractAtmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations seem to have been several times modern levels during much of the Palaeozoic era (543–248 million years ago), but decreased during the Carboniferous period to concentrations similar to that of today1, 2, 3. Given that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it has been proposed that surface temperatures were significantly higher during the earlier portions of the Palaeozoic era1. A reconstruction of tropical sea surface temperatures based on the δ18O of carbonate fossils indicates, however, that the magnitude of temperature variability throughout this period was small4, suggesting that global climate may be independent of variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Here we present estimates of sea surface temperatures that were obtained from fossil brachiopod and mollusc shells using the ‘carbonate clumped isotope’ method5—an approach that, unlike the δ18O method, does not require independent estimates of the isotopic composition of the Palaeozoic ocean. Our results indicate that tropical sea surface temperatures were significantly higher than today during the Early Silurian period (443–423 Myr ago), when carbon dioxide concentrations are thought to have been relatively high, and were broadly similar to today during the Late Carboniferous period (314–300 Myr ago), when carbon dioxide concentrations are thought to have been similar to the present-day value. Our results are consistent with the proposal that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations drive or amplify increased global temperatures1, 6.

And this can be proven how?????


Oh, because you say so.....Oh, OK.

 

[Cuyo]

Really? Come on Walleyes, this is the second time you have made this nonsense statement. Stand and deliver, boy, or be branded a lying flap yap.

And we are supposed to believe the bullshit sources you've supplied in the past.

Those can be disproven as well.... there are sources on BOTH sides of the debate. What makes yours correct and ours wrong?

Besides, what caused the end of the other ice ages? Why did the earth warm and cool in the past.
As far as I can see the Fred Flinstones' car was powered by his feet.... what caused the earth to warm back then?

STFU old crocks.... b/c as far as I am concerned you "warmers" are full of HOT air!

'as far as I am concerned the entire world except stubborn American Republicans are full of HOT air.'

 

[westwall]

Arrogance of warmers? That itself is arrogant, assumes someone KNOWS the absolute truth. It's just a coincidence 7 billion people put out record levels of CO2 in the last ten -twenty years?

Completely unproven that it is not produced from other sources besides mankind. Warmists have NO absolute proof of anything. You can say that CO2 increased, but you cannot link it irrefutably to strictly anthropogenic sources.

Other than that, you do have a cool avatar.

Lordy, lordy, Fritz, you once again demonstrate your total ignorance of science. Yes, it is proven that we are the source of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. We know how much coal that we have produced and burned. Same for petroleum and natural gas. One ton of coal when burned creates over 3 tons of CO2.

Yes, definate proof of where the added CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans come from. And you are either powerfully ignorant or a liar to state that we do not.

No, it's not. It is just as likely that the CO2 now being observed is the result of the warming from the MWP which occurred 800 years ago. Amazingly enough correlating with observations from the Vostock Ice cores. Of course as a scientist I realise that correlation does NOT equal causation so I am not so bold as to say it is the truth. Unlike you arrogant warmers.

 

[The Infidel]

'as far as I am concerned the entire world except stubborn American Republicans are full of HOT air.'

Well that leaves me out in the cold.....

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah, the arrogance of these damned warmers. How dare they present scientific evidence about a scientific subject. The damned arrogance.

 

[The Infidel]

Ah, the arrogance of these damned warmers. How dare they present scientific evidence about a scientific subject. The damned arrogance.

NASA Debunks Part of Global Warming Myth, Will Media Report It? | NewsBusters.org

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-440049/Greenhouse-effect-myth-say-scientists.html

 

[Old Rocks]

Completely unproven that it is not produced from other sources besides mankind. Warmists have NO absolute proof of anything. You can say that CO2 increased, but you cannot link it irrefutably to strictly anthropogenic sources.

Other than that, you do have a cool avatar.

Lordy, lordy, Fritz, you once again demonstrate your total ignorance of science. Yes, it is proven that we are the source of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. We know how much coal that we have produced and burned. Same for petroleum and natural gas. One ton of coal when burned creates over 3 tons of CO2.

Yes, definate proof of where the added CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans come from. And you are either powerfully ignorant or a liar to state that we do not.

No, it's not. It is just as likely that the CO2 now being observed is the result of the warming from the MWP which occurred 800 years ago. Amazingly enough corelating with observations from the Vostock Ice cores. Of course as a scientist I realise that correlation does NOT equal causation so I am not so bold as to ay it is the truth. Unlike you arrogant warmers.

Walleyes, you wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit you in the ass.

Ice cores, carbon dioxide concentration, and climate

 

[code1211]

Ah, the arrogance of these damned warmers. How dare they present scientific evidence about a scientific subject. The damned arrogance.

And how do the warmers feel about the CO2 rising since 2002 while the most respected gatherers of climate data all record global cooling?

Are they collecting scientific evidence or something you define differently?

 

[The Infidel]

Ah, the arrogance of these damned warmers. How dare they present scientific evidence about a scientific subject. The damned arrogance.

And how do the warmers feel about the CO2 rising since 2002 while the most respected gatherers of climate data all record global cooling?

Are they collecting scientific evidence or something you define differently?

Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists | Mail Online

Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels.
But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.
The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940

 

[westwall]

Lordy, lordy, Fritz, you once again demonstrate your total ignorance of science. Yes, it is proven that we are the source of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. We know how much coal that we have produced and burned. Same for petroleum and natural gas. One ton of coal when burned creates over 3 tons of CO2.

Yes, definate proof of where the added CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans come from. And you are either powerfully ignorant or a liar to state that we do not.

No, it's not. It is just as likely that the CO2 now being observed is the result of the warming from the MWP which occurred 800 years ago. Amazingly enough corelating with observations from the Vostock Ice cores. Of course as a scientist I realise that correlation does NOT equal causation so I am not so bold as to ay it is the truth. Unlike you arrogant warmers.

Walleyes, you wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit you in the ass.

Ice cores, carbon dioxide concentration, and climate

How about posting that study that showed CO2 levels rising to a very high level and for the next 1000 years there were two cycles of heating and cooling while the CO2 levels remained elevated, thus showing no correlation at all between CO2 levels and temperatures. C'mon olfraud repost it, I dare you!

 

[flacaltenn]

Frank, the essence of what you are saying above is intellectually nihilistic: "We can't possibly know anything and the universe is one big unknowable mystery, so there's no reason we should take action on overwhelming evidence and scientific arguments, because it could be wrong just like Einstein might be wrong."

Can you see any problems with that line of reasoning?

Only when trillions of dollars of "global emergency remedy" are at stake..

 

[The Infidel]

Frank, the essence of what you are saying above is intellectually nihilistic: "We can't possibly know anything and the universe is one big unknowable mystery, so there's no reason we should take action on overwhelming evidence and scientific arguments, because it could be wrong just like Einstein might be wrong."

Can you see any problems with that line of reasoning?

Only when trillions of dollars of "global emergency remedy" are at stake..

It all comes down to the almighty dollar!



Can any of you "warmers" say Solyndra..... or do you plead the 5th?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Do you believe that the Climate prediction center, Noaa, Nws, Nasa, Ncar should all be defunded?

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah, the arrogance of these damned warmers. How dare they present scientific evidence about a scientific subject. The damned arrogance.

And how do the warmers feel about the CO2 rising since 2002 while the most respected gatherers of climate data all record global cooling?

Are they collecting scientific evidence or something you define differently?

Better to ask how one feels about people that continually lie. Cooling since 2002? 2001 through 2010 the warmest decade on record. 2005, 2010 tied with 1998 as the warmest years on record. That's cooling?

 

[Old Rocks]

No, it's not. It is just as likely that the CO2 now being observed is the result of the warming from the MWP which occurred 800 years ago. Amazingly enough corelating with observations from the Vostock Ice cores. Of course as a scientist I realise that correlation does NOT equal causation so I am not so bold as to ay it is the truth. Unlike you arrogant warmers.

Walleyes, you wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit you in the ass.

Ice cores, carbon dioxide concentration, and climate

How about posting that study that showed CO2 levels rising to a very high level and for the next 1000 years there were two cycles of heating and cooling while the CO2 levels remained elevated, thus showing no correlation at all between CO2 levels and temperatures. C'mon olfraud repost it, I dare you!

Very stupid of you, Walleyes. For if you look at the graph, the variation in CO2 is about 282 to 272 ppm. And the 282 was during the MWP, while the 272 was during the Little Ice Age. Yes, I will post that site and it's graphs again.

Ice cores, carbon dioxide concentration, and climate

 

[Old Rocks]

Frank, the essence of what you are saying above is intellectually nihilistic: "We can't possibly know anything and the universe is one big unknowable mystery, so there's no reason we should take action on overwhelming evidence and scientific arguments, because it could be wrong just like Einstein might be wrong."

Can you see any problems with that line of reasoning?

Only when trillions of dollars of "global emergency remedy" are at stake..

Back up your flap yap.

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change - HM Treasury