Anti-Green Philosophy

[lynnvinc]

It’s great that people are so interested in the MWP, since it’s part of our climate change history and can reveal important aspects of climate change.

Here are some points about it that help shed some light (from skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm ):

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was in fact warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming. Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the Globe. This has been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions. Further evidence (Figure 1) suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today’s warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

Overall, our conclusions are:
a) Globally temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2000 years, and
b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Moberg_Hockey_Stick.gif
Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction by Moberg et al. (2005) shown in blue, Instrumental Temperatures from NASA shown in Red.

---

The more interesting question to me is why do people use this MWP as part of their anti-green arsenal? What do they hope to gain? Do they actually want us to go into a much warmer phase than the MWP just to see what will happen?

They say curiosity killed the cat. Plus we know from much warmer periods than the MWP in the past (e.g., 55 mya & 251 mya) that a large portion of life could die out if we go well above the MWP — and kill many cats…and people.

I guess another important Q would be where do motivated people find all their cop-outs to let them off the hook for taking personal responsibility for AGW? And who is behind those websites & books, and what are their motives for their anti-green philosophy?

 

[lynnvinc]

Now here are some other musings about weather patterns over the past 3000 years by an anthropologist I know – unsubstantiated, but interesting and plausible:

It could be that the medieval warm period and the little ice age have something to tell us about climate change. Anyway, I am hopeful that my idiotic and ill-informed comments will trigger some interest. Anyway, here is a scenario.

After 1000 BCE, there was the Iron Age which was characterized by the proliferation and intensive use of steel tipped iron tools. One thousand years later, folks had pretty much cut down and burned all of the trees in the Mediterranean basin and elsewhere as well Everyone was planting grapes and warm weather crops and it was getting nice and warm, even in England. Folks burned more and more trees until about 1250 when the bubonic plague struck (the Americas were depopulated by epidemics about 400 years later.)

There were some rather large volcanoes and things suddenly began to get cooler. The Little Ice Age was there. In the meantime, as earth’s population diminished, the demand for iron and steel and agricultural products decreased and reforestation took place. The amount of carbon in the atmosphere decreased until the 1700’s when the British adapted Indian steel production methods to industrialization. Now, there was more and more deforestation followed by the increased consumption of fossil fuels. Consequently the earth began to get warmer and wine production and many other things began their march to the North.

Well, I probably don’t have it quite right, but it does look like we could find out some interesting things about heating and cooling and their effects upon the plants and animals.

I might run this by some climate science friends to see if it is plausible.

If it is, then maybe we humans were having impact on the climate well before now…but if we were it was totally unwittingly, unlike today when we know and have been told we are the cause.

I also read that early agricultural and subsistence practices at the beginning of the Holocene (12,000 yrs ago) may have had an impact on making the Holocene a nice warm interglacial period that help agriculture and human civilization to arise.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

MORE EVIDENCE MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD WAS GLOBAL AND WARMER

Date: 16/12/12 CO2 Science Magazine

What was learned
The ten researchers report that “three intervals were identified by their diatom assemblages and correspond within dating uncertainties to the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and the 20th century warming trend.” During the MWP, they further indicate that “the duration of the summer was longer while the spring and autumn were shorter than the 20th century.” And they unequivocally declare that “the period between ca. AD 1150 and 1200 was the warmest interval of the past 1000 years.”

What it means
In view of the fact that, prior to the time of their study, there was no record of mean annual temperatures from NE China covering the past 1000 years with the same resolution as their diatom record, Wang et al.’s work demonstrates – for yet another part of the planet (see our Medieval Warm Period Project) – that late-20th-century warmth, even with the help of an extra 100 ppm of CO2, was less than that of the MWP, which makes it extremely difficult to believe that earth’s current level of warmth largely owes its existence to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, as the world’s climate alarmists continue to claim it does.

thegwpf.org/evidence-medieval-warm-period-global-warmer/

---

see this graph below from the vostok ice-core. do you see a natural pattern of global climate change occurring. i do.
http://www.grida.no/images/series/vg-climate/large/2.jpg

 

[lynnvinc]

MORE EVIDENCE MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD WAS GLOBAL AND WARMER

Date: 16/12/12 CO2 Science Magazine

What was learned
The ten researchers report that “three intervals were identified by their diatom assemblages and correspond within dating uncertainties to the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and the 20th century warming trend.” During the MWP, they further indicate that “the duration of the summer was longer while the spring and autumn were shorter than the 20th century.” And they unequivocally declare that “the period between ca. AD 1150 and 1200 was the warmest interval of the past 1000 years.”

What it means
In view of the fact that, prior to the time of their study, there was no record of mean annual temperatures from NE China covering the past 1000 years with the same resolution as their diatom record, Wang et al.’s work demonstrates – for yet another part of the planet (see our Medieval Warm Period Project) – that late-20th-century warmth, even with the help of an extra 100 ppm of CO2, was less than that of the MWP, which makes it extremely difficult to believe that earth’s current level of warmth largely owes its existence to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, as the world’s climate alarmists continue to claim it does.

thegwpf.org/evidence-medieval-warm-period-global-warmer/

---

see this graph below from the vostok ice-core. do you see a natural pattern of global climate change occurring. i do.

So what are you implying? That people should cease and desist from mitigating global warming? I’m not sure what you underlying meaning and message is.

Mainly bec I don’t think a warmer or cooler MWP has much to do with the situation today, tho it can help us understand climate change in general.

The MWP was most certainly not the warmest period in Earth’s history. There were much warmer periods when a large portion of life on earth was killed out: the PETM 55 mya, and the end-Permian extinction 251 mya.

Also it is a lot hotter on Venus, which is in a state of extreme greenhouse effect and runaway warming.

These are all interesting facts, and ones that help us understand things, but what is your message?

 

[Paddy_Walker]

So what are you implying? That people should cease and desist from mitigating global warming? I’m not sure what you underlying meaning and message is.

Mainly bec I don’t think a warmer or cooler MWP has much to do with the situation today, tho it can help us understand climate change in general.

The MWP was most certainly not the warmest period in Earth’s history. There were much warmer periods when a large portion of life on earth was killed out: the PETM 55 mya, and the end-Permian extinction 251 mya.

Also it is a lot hotter on Venus, which is in a state of extreme greenhouse effect and runaway warming.

These are all interesting facts, and ones that help us understand things, but what is your message?

Cretaceous thermal optimum

During the later portion of the Cretaceous, from 65 to 100 million years ago, average global temperatures reached their highest level during the last ~200 million years. This is likely the result of a favorable configuration of the continents during this period that allowed for improved circulation in the oceans and discouraged the formation of large scale ice sheet. Perhaps the visible anecdotal evidence of high temperatures during this period was the occurrence of deciduous forests extending all the way to the poles. - wiki

note the bolded; the continents were in a different configuration. also note the omission; deciduous forests all the way to the poles. there were in fact palm trees and crocodiles living in the arctic circle. crocodiles need year-round constant temperatures of over 30 degrees C to survive.

the poles have 6 months of darkness during their winter. no sun at all for 6 months. during an arctic sunless winter temperatures can fall to below -50 degrees C.

lets imagine that the temperature only fell to -30 degrees at the poles during winter. so the global warming during this period would need first of all an increase of 30 degrees C just to bring the polar winter to freezing point 0 degrees C.

then global warming would need to increase temperatures again by more than 30 degrees C to keep the crocodiles alive at the pole during winter.

all in all there would have had to be at least a 60 degree C rise in global temperatures to allow crocodiles to live in the arctic circle.

now a 60 degree C rise in temperatures at the pole also means at the very least a 60 degree rise in temperatures at the equator.

so if the tropics frequently reach 40 degrees C then an increase of 60 degrees C raises the ground surface temperature of the equator to boiling point, literally, 100 degrees C, or more.

now during this great global warming event what happened?
well, every dinosaur over 55 lbs went extinct. our crocodiles survived and birds and mammals took over the earth.

you are wasting your time worrying about a 0.25 or 0.5 degree C rise in global temperatures, which in all likelihood is the plateau of a second medieval warm type period.

if you look at the graphs i posted previously you may notice that our current interglacial is the longest of the five recorded interglacials and you may also notice that the global cooling after all previous interglacials was pretty much an immediate and almost instant drop in temperatures of about 3 degrees C followed by a steep drop of another 8 degrees C. followed by 100,000 years of an ice-age.

now, why am i not alarmed by any of that?

 

[lynnvinc]

…now during this great global warming event what happened?
well, every dinosaur over 55 lbs went extinct. our crocodiles survived and birds and mammals took over the earth.

So your message is if we humans go extinct, there will be some other life form to take over. I heard there were microbes in Venus’s atmosphere.

I know a person in the northernmost part of Canada, who informed me the soil there is very poor. It will not support much agriculture when the great warming occurs, so that means most people will have to die out – even if we do not trigger runaway warming, but only climate hysteresis.

Well, we have to die anyway. But we don’t have to kill. And there is the matter of our eternal lives. I suppose some like it very hot.

you are wasting your time worrying about a 0.25 or 0.5 degree C rise in global temperatures, which in all likelihood is the plateau of a second medieval warm type period.

Plateau or launching pad?

I heard it is a .7C increase since 1900, with more in the pipes even if we halt all GHG emissions right now, some projecting a 2.4C increase. See:
Ramanathan, V., and Y. Feng. 2008. “On Avoiding Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference with the Climate System: Formidable Challenges Ahead.” PNAS 105(38): 14245-14250 at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2567151/
Now some say we have to warm by 3C to tip the system into climate hysteresis, when nature takes over and emits more and more GHGs, and the melting ice & snow reduce albedo (reflectiveness), aborbing more heat, and the system goes into a great warming as happened 55 mya and 251 mya, killing off most life on earth.

But other scientists think 2C is enough to trigger hysteresis, and others think we could trigger runaway warming as on Venus. From top NASA climate scientists, James Hansen (columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf):
There may have been times in the Earth’s history when CO2 was as high as 4000 ppm without causing a runaway greenhouse effect. But the solar irradiance was less at that time.

What is different about the human-made forcing is the rapidity at which we are increasing it, on the time scale of a century or a few centuries. It does not provide enough time for negative feedbacks, such as changes in the weathering rate, to be a major factor.
There is also a danger that humans could cause the release of methane hydrates, perhaps more rapidly than in some of the cases in the geologic record.

In my opinion, if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale (a.k.a. oil shale), I think it is a dead certainty.

if you look at the graphs i posted previously you may notice that our current interglacial is the longest of the five recorded interglacials and you may also notice that the global cooling after all previous interglacials was pretty much an immediate and almost instant drop in temperatures of about 3 degrees C followed by a steep drop of another 8 degrees C. followed by 100,000 years of an ice-age.

now, why am i not alarmed by any of that?

It seems we are using our interglacial as a lauching pad into climate hysteresis. Hansen thinks there will never again be an ice age due to these factors outlined above.

However, no one has to be alarmed. We’re not going to all die out in a few decades within our lifetimes.

But it would be nice if people could just turn out lights not in use and do sensible things to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions that save them money and reduce a host of other harmful problems – which could reduce our GHG emissions by 60 to 75% – then they would make a lot of people happy – for instance, the people who love their children and wish their progeny well.

If people want to be the grinch who burns up our progeny’s subsistence base, there’s not much others can do about it. It’s a free country. But just remember the same things that contribute to AGW, such as driving inefficient ICE cars profligately, also contribute to local pollution that harms people and contributes to miscarriages and birth defects, etc. right now.

---

Now getting back to the anti-green philosophy – which is not anti-science. It is pro-“production science” and technology, and has no problem with any science that supports the notion that we can progress materially on into the future. Anti-green (Enlightenment-rooted) philosophy – which is the religion of the anti-greens – is indeed premised on the idea that science & tech will establish a heaven on earth for us.

However, it is very much against “impact science” – science that tells us about the downsides of modern tech and lifestyles. Impact science is like heresy to production science, and there is this need to go on witchhunts after scientists who dare to engage in impact (e.g., environmental) science, and debunk their science, and fight science with fake-science.

It seems this production science and technology has become god almighty to the anti-greens, for its providing a wealthy and prodigal lifestyle – the god who provides goodies. And impact science is the heresy against this god almighty – to be roundly refuted, because it speaks of the possibility of a hell on earth by following the anti-green religion, instead of the anti-greens’ heaven on earth.

 

[wxornot]

So your message is if we humans go extinct, there will be some other life form to take over. I heard there were microbes in Venus’s atmosphere.

I know a person in the northernmost part of Canada, who informed me the soil there is very poor. It will not support much agriculture when the great warming occurs, so that means most people will have to die out – even if we do not trigger runaway warming, but only climate hysteresis.

Well, we have to die anyway. But we don’t have to kill. And there is the matter of our eternal lives. I suppose some like it very hot.

Plateau or launching pad?

I heard it is a .7C increase since 1900, with more in the pipes even if we halt all GHG emissions right now, some projecting a 2.4C increase. See:
Ramanathan, V., and Y. Feng. 2008. “On Avoiding Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference with the Climate System: Formidable Challenges Ahead.” PNAS 105(38): 14245-14250 at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2567151/
Now some say we have to warm by 3C to tip the system into climate hysteresis, when nature takes over and emits more and more GHGs, and the melting ice & snow reduce albedo (reflectiveness), aborbing more heat, and the system goes into a great warming as happened 55 mya and 251 mya, killing off most life on earth.

But other scientists think 2C is enough to trigger hysteresis, and others think we could trigger runaway warming as on Venus. From top NASA climate scientists, James Hansen (columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf):
There may have been times in the Earth’s history when CO2 was as high as 4000 ppm without causing a runaway greenhouse effect. But the solar irradiance was less at that time.

What is different about the human-made forcing is the rapidity at which we are increasing it, on the time scale of a century or a few centuries. It does not provide enough time for negative feedbacks, such as changes in the weathering rate, to be a major factor.
There is also a danger that humans could cause the release of methane hydrates, perhaps more rapidly than in some of the cases in the geologic record.

In my opinion, if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale (a.k.a. oil shale), I think it is a dead certainty.

It seems we are using our interglacial as a lauching pad into climate hysteresis. Hansen thinks there will never again be an ice age due to these factors outlined above.

However, no one has to be alarmed. We’re not going to all die out in a few decades within our lifetimes.

But it would be nice if people could just turn out lights not in use and do sensible things to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions that save them money and reduce a host of other harmful problems – which could reduce our GHG emissions by 60 to 75% – then they would make a lot of people happy – for instance, the people who love their children and wish their progeny well.

If people want to be the grinch who burns up our progeny’s subsistence base, there’s not much others can do about it. It’s a free country. But just remember the same things that contribute to AGW, such as driving inefficient ICE cars profligately, also contribute to local pollution that harms people and contributes to miscarriages and birth defects, etc. right now.

---

Now getting back to the anti-green philosophy – which is not anti-science. It is pro-“production science” and technology, and has no problem with any science that supports the notion that we can progress materially on into the future. Anti-green (Enlightenment-rooted) philosophy – which is the religion of the anti-greens – is indeed premised on the idea that science & tech will establish a heaven on earth for us.

However, it is anti-“impact science” – science that tells us about the downsides of modern tech and lifestyles. Impact science is like heresy to production science, and there is this need to go on witchhunts after scientists who dare to engage in impact (e.g., environmental) science, and debunk their science, and fight science with fake-science.

It seems this production science and technology has become god almighty to the anti-greens, for its providing a wealthy and prodigal lifestyle – the god who provides goodies. And impact science is the heresy against this god almighty – to be roundly refuted, because it speaks of the possibility of a hell on earth by following the anti-green religion, instead of the anti-greens’ heaven on earth.

Us AGW true skeptics are able to defend out position. The scientists that believe in AGW are those who’s pockets it lines.

 

[lynnvinc]

Us AGW true skeptics are able to defend out position. The scientists that believe in AGW are those who’s pockets it lines.

You are so right about getting our pockets lined – very nicely I might add. We’ve saved $1000s over the years by mitigating climate change. $2300 just from our low-flow showerhead that cost us $6. Wow, that’s a better return than the stock market.

And our SunFrost frig – paid for itself with 16 years in energy savings and much less food spoilage, and is going on to save us $100s.

And our Chevy Volt – I figure it will save us the cost difference between it and the car hubby wanted (a Ford Taurus) within 6.5 years, then go on to save and save each year.

And insulation and other energy efficient and conservation measures – $1000s in savings.

Go green and get (save) the green!

It’s just too bad there aren’t enough greedy people out there – then all the environmental problems would be solved

The anti-greens are losers in many ways. I feel very sorry for them. Let us pray for them

 

[Paddy_Walker]

i for one don’t understand how there was a 60 degree C increase in global temperatures between 65 and 100 million years ago if solar irradiance was less then than it is now.

crocodiles in the arctic circle have yet to be explained, not to mention how palm trees grew in the arctic circle for 6 months without sunlight.

now, current atmospheric co2 levels are 396ppm, and between 65 and 100 million years ago atmospheric co2 was double that at 792ppm. and apparently 792 ppm gave us a global temperature rise of 60 degrees C.

so that means in 240 years from now the temperature will have increased by 60 degrees C, and water will boil on the equator.

…that means that in 50 years from now the global temperature will have risen by 12.5 degrees C, definitely…

no i don’t believe that. but if you are going to tie co2 levels to temperature then you have to believe it.

 

[Farsight001]

i for one don’t understand how there was a 60 degree C increase in global temperatures between 65 and 100 million years ago if solar irradiance was less then than it is now.

Where’d you get 60 degrees from?

crocodiles in the arctic circle have yet to be explained, not to mention how palm trees grew in the arctic circle for 6 months without sunlight.

They’ve been perfectly explained over 50 years ago. Tectonic plates move. The arctic circle used to be a tropical environment near the equator.

now, current atmospheric co2 levels are 396ppm, and between 65 and 100 million years ago atmospheric co2 was double that at 792ppm. and apparently 792 ppm gave us a global temperature rise of 60 degrees C.

Where are you getting this from? This doesn’t sound right.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Where’d you get 60 degrees from?

They’ve been perfectly explained over 50 years ago. Tectonic plates move. The arctic circle used to be a tropical environment near the equator.

Where are you getting this from? This doesn’t sound right.

60 degrees because crocodiles cannot survive below 30 degrees C or so. the arctic winter is dark for 6 months and temperatures frequently go to -50 degrees C.

so to bring the winter temperature of the arctic to 30 degrees C you need to raise the temperature by at least 60 degrees C.

the crocodiles and palm trees did actually live inside the arctic circle, according to the scientists. tectonic plate movements did not bring their fossils there. they lived and died in the arctic circle.

syr.edu/news/articles/2011/co2-study-07-11.html

you are right, it doesn’t sound right. but we are told that it is right. who are we to question it…

i used a mean measurement for co2 levels 65 million years ago. the levels measured for back then range from 3 times the amount to levels the same as we have today. the mean being twice todays level. [see link below]

ucd.ie/plantpalaeo/palaeoatmospheres.html

 

[Farsight001]

60 degrees because crocodiles cannot survive below 30 degrees C or so. the arctic winter is dark for 6 months and temperatures frequently go to -50 degrees C.

Wow. No wonder climate deniers deny. As I explained above, the arctic circle used to be around the equator. It was once a tropical environment. It’s not that the global temperature changed. It’s that the location of the land has changed.

the crocodiles and palm trees did actually live inside the arctic circle, according to the scientists. tectonic plate movements did not bring their fossils there. they lived and died in the arctic circle.

That is completely and utterly false in every single way. No scientists believe that they actually lived in the arctic circle. Whoever told you that lied to you.

i used a mean measurement for co2 levels 65 million years ago. the levels measured for back then range from 3 times the amount to levels the same as we have today. the mean being twice todays level. [see link below]

ucd.ie/plantpalaeo/palaeoatmospheres.html

Don’t know what you’re reading, but nowhere in the provided link does it say past CO2 levels were that high. Those are projected levels, not past levels.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Wow. No wonder climate deniers deny. As I explained above, the arctic circle used to be around the equator. It was once a tropical environment. It’s not that the global temperature changed. It’s that the location of the land has changed.

That is completely and utterly false in every single way. No scientists believe that they actually lived in the arctic circle. Whoever told you that lied to you.

Don’t know what you’re reading, but nowhere in the provided link does it say past CO2 levels were that high. Those are projected levels, not past levels.

maybe there is wax in my ears, or eyes, but did you read and understand the links.

syr.edu/news/articles/2011/co2-study-07-11.html

“The early Eocene Epoch (50 million years ago) was about as warm as the Earth has been over the past 65 million years, since the extinction of the dinosaurs,” Ivany says. **“There were crocodiles above the Arctic Circle and palm trees in Alaska. **The questions we are trying to answer are how much warmer was it at different latitudes and how can that information be used to project future temperatures based on what we know about CO2 levels?”

**report writen by:
**
Keating-Bitonti [who] recently completed a master’s degree in geology at the University of Wisconsin and will be continuing her studies at Stanford University as a Ph.D. student in the Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, School of Earth Sciences.

they are not projected co2 levels they are in fact found co2 leves in the fossil record.

ucd.ie/plantpalaeo/palaeoatmospheres.html

“However, available estimates for atmospheric CO2 concentration for the Eocene and entire Tertiary period (last 65 million years) are highly contradictory, with reports of both highly elevated (three times present levels) and similar to modern ambient CO2 levels.”

please read carefully the links i have provided, they are from geologists and paleontologists working in the field.

they are not imaginary nor are they projections.

they are factual findings by qualified scientists…

 

[Farsight001]

maybe there is wax in my ears, or eyes, but did you read and understand the links.

Yes, I understand them just fine. They are stating truth, but leaving out pertinent information from the heading (that the land itself has moved) to increase shock value. The land has still moved. It’s done to catch your attention to inspire you to read the details, where you will see exactly HOW they were there (because the land moved). Stop reading the first paragraph and stopping there. That’s like reading the first chapter of the bible and declaring “I know how it ends!”

they are not projected co2 levels they are in fact found co2 leves in the fossil record.

ucd.ie/plantpalaeo/palaeoatmospheres.html

“However, available estimates for atmospheric CO2 concentration for the Eocene and entire Tertiary period (last 65 million years) are highly contradictory, with reports of both highly elevated (three times present levels) and similar to modern ambient CO2 levels.”

Your OWN QUOTE destroys your claim. Read it more carefully. It shows the need to, once again, study in greater detail so you can get the full story, which you, once again, have clearly not done.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Yes, I understand them just fine. They are stating truth, but leaving out pertinent information from the heading (that the land itself has moved) to increase shock value. The land has still moved. It’s done to catch your attention to inspire you to read the details, where you will see exactly HOW they were there (because the land moved). Stop reading the first paragraph and stopping there. That’s like reading the first chapter of the bible and declaring “I know how it ends!”

i feel like i’m in the twilight zone when i read your replies. look here is a map from 50 million years ago, the time we are talking about. alaska was even further north back then than it is today.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Graphics-Geol/platetec/050my94.gif

Your OWN QUOTE destroys your claim. Read it more carefully. It shows the need to, once again, study in greater detail so you can get the full story, which you, once again, have clearly not done.

not at all. they said they studied atmospheric co2 levels from 65 million years ago and found the results so contradictory that they are proposing and advising decoupling co2 levels from temperature changes.
co2 levels during the hottest period of recent earths history 50 million years ago when palm trees and crocodiles lived in the arctic circle were the same as todays levels of co2. they were also at the same time 3 times higher than today.

their results, they said, were too contradictory to support co2 as responsible for warming of the climate 50 million years ago.

 

[Farsight001]

i feel like i’m in the twilight zone when i read your replies. look here is a map from 50 million years ago, the time we are talking about. alaska was even further north back then than it is today.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Graphics-Geol/platetec/050my94.gif

So as proof that, 65 million years ago, the Arctic circle was were it is now, you’re going to provide an image of the earth from 15 million years AFTER that? And come to think of it, why in the world are you claiming that those palm trees and crocodiles were living there 50 million years ago, and not 150 million years ago?

not at all. they said they studied atmospheric co2 levels from 65 million years ago and found the results so contradictory that they are proposing and advising decoupling co2 levels from temperature changes.
co2 levels during the hottest period of recent earths history 50 million years ago when palm trees and crocodiles lived in the arctic circle were the same as todays levels of co2. they were also at the same time 3 times higher than today.

their results, they said, were too contradictory to support co2 as responsible for warming of the climate 50 million years ago.

Are you even reading past the first paragraph?!

 

[Paddy_Walker]

So as proof that, 65 million years ago, the Arctic circle was were it is now, you’re going to provide an image of the earth from 15 million years AFTER that? And come to think of it, why in the world are you claiming that those palm trees and crocodiles were living there 50 million years ago, and not 150 million years ago?

ha, ha, you’re a funny guy, far.

north america was even further north earlier than that. the farthest north it was was 190 million years ago. from 190 million years to the present it has stayed where it is only drifting very slightly south to where it is today.

the crocodiles and palm trees were dated, thats how they know how old they are.

while the crocodiles and palms were alive and for over a hundred million years before that alaska was and still is inside the arctic circle.

Are you even reading past the first paragraph?!

yes, i am. theres only two paragraphs. don’t you know.

i shall repeat what it said:

“These varying estimates for Tertiary CO2 concentrations have led to arguments for both coupling and uncoupling of CO2 concentration and global climate on geological time scales.”

why?

because:

a. “The early Eocene Epoch (50 million years ago) was about as warm as the Earth has been over the past 65 million years, since the extinction of the dinosaurs,” Ivany says. “There were crocodiles above the Arctic Circle and palm trees in Alaska. The questions we are trying to answer are how much warmer was it at different latitudes and how can that information be used to project future temperatures based on what we know about CO2 levels?”

and

b. The Eocene period in Earth history (~55 to 34 million years ago (m.y.a.)) was one such time interval, with average global temperatures 4 to 12°C higher than present. However, available estimates for atmospheric CO2 concentration for the Eocene and entire Tertiary period (last 65 million years) are highly contradictory, with reports of both highly elevated (three times present levels) and similar to modern ambient CO2 levels.

 

[lynnvinc]

maybe there is wax in my ears, or eyes, but did you read and understand the links.

syr.edu/news/articles/2011/co2-study-07-11.html

“The early Eocene Epoch (50 million years ago) was about as warm as the Earth has been over the past 65 million years, since the extinction of the dinosaurs,” Ivany says. “There were crocodiles above the Arctic Circle and palm trees in Alaska. The questions we are trying to answer are how much warmer was it at different latitudes and how can that information be used to project future temperatures based on what we know about CO2 levels?”

**report writen by:
**
Keating-Bitonti [who] recently completed a master’s degree in geology at the University of Wisconsin and will be continuing her studies at Stanford University as a Ph.D. student in the Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, School of Earth Sciences.

they are not projected co2 levels they are in fact found co2 leves in the fossil record.

ucd.ie/plantpalaeo/palaeoatmospheres.html

“However, available estimates for atmospheric CO2 concentration for the Eocene and entire Tertiary period (last 65 million years) are highly contradictory, with reports of both highly elevated (three times present levels) and similar to modern ambient CO2 levels.”

please read carefully the links i have provided, they are from geologists and paleontologists working in the field.

they are not imaginary nor are they projections.

they are factual findings by qualified scientists…

Everyone actually knows all this, esp the climate scientists. As mentioned, there have been very large warmings in the past. Check out paleoclimatology. Check out “end-Permian extinction” (of course, then there was only on supercontinent, Pangea).

Check out the PETM - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petm

It is so good you are insterested in these things. God will grant you wisdom, when you seek it.

Happy Easter to all. Christ has risen from the dead! Alleluia!

Let us follow our earthly shepherd, Pope Francis (who most certainly does NOT buy into anti-green philosophy):

Peace to the whole world, torn apart by violence linked to drug trafficking and by the iniquitous exploitation of natural resources! Peace to this our Earth! Made the risen Jesus bring comfort to the victims of natural disasters and make us responsible guardians of creation. (Urbi et Orbi, 3/31/13)

 

[Farsight001]

ha, ha, you’re a funny guy, far.

north america was even further north earlier than that. the farthest north it was was 190 million years ago. from 190 million years to the present it has stayed where it is only drifting very slightly south to where it is today.

Further proof that you read what you want and ignore what you want (namely, the majority of my posts and scholarly papers). No one mentioned North America. We weren’t discussing North America. We weren’t talking about animals on North America. The paper wasn’t talking about animals on North America. Nor did I ask any sort of question about how the scientists know how old the fossils are. You just brought it up because…well…I don’t think anyone on this planet could figure out why. If you’re not going actually pay attention and read my posts, essentially ignoring me, then I will ignore you in kind. Bye.

 

[lynnvinc]

It seems to me that skepticism re global warming is being used to reject all environmental issues…at least all those that one might be in part responsible for. (It’s always easy to rail against polluting companies, etc, esp if they are not producing products we use, or there are other easy and cheap alternatives.)

I know there are a few environmentalists who doubt AGW, but are very much into mitigating other environmental problems. They do not reject environmental issues out of hand.

We need to look at all the problems, not just AGW, even tho AGW is one of the 9 really huge and harmful problems humanity faces. See stockholmresilience.org/planetary-boundaries

However, there are also many other more limited and local environmental problems that should not be neglected, such as environmental justice issues – in which the poor and minorities are disproportionately harmed by environmental harms – and also local misuse of pesticides that put our neighborhoods and children at risk, etc. Also using up of finite resources.

It just so happens that most of the measures that mitigate climate change also help mitigate many of these other problems, and when people honested consider the harms and projected future harms from AGW, that can be a real motivator to mitigate AGW, and in that way mitigate a host of other environmental problems, and other problems.

However, I think it is wrong to use the “AGW skeptic” excuse to fail to address other environmental problems. Perhaps that is a strategy of the anti-green philosophy adherents … to shirk environmental responsibility altogether…or maybe just engage in lipservice re being vague, unspecified, no-action “good stewards of God’s creation.”

But I do understand that our small environmental actions, such as recycling, seem like such a tiny drop in the bucket, that it is easy just not to do anything at all. However, if we do not start by taking baby steps, we will never be able to take adult steps.