Past climate change and continental ice melt linked to varying CO2 levels

Scientists at the Universities of Southampton and Cardiff have discovered that a globally warm period in Earth's geological past featured highly variable levels of CO2.

Previous studies have found that the Miocene climatic optimum, a period that extends from about 15 to 17 million years ago, was associated with big changes in both temperature and the amount of continental on the planet.

Now a new study, published in Paleoceanography, has found that these changes in temperature and ice volume were matched by equally dramatic shifts in atmospheric CO2.

Using more detailed records than has previously been available, scientists have shown that CO2 levels in this period reached around 500 ppm (parts per million), the same level that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) projects for the end of the century.

Lead author Rosanna Greenop, from Ocean and Earth Science at the University of Southampton, says: "The drivers of short term, orbital-scale temperature and ice volume change during warm periods of the Earth's history have never been analysed before. Here we are able to show that in the same way as the more recent ice ages are linked with cycles of CO2, it also plays an important role in cyclical climate changes during warm periods."

Researchers also showed that at low levels of CO2, ice volume varied strongly, but at higher levels, there was little or no additional change in volume. The authors of the study hypothesis that there must be a portion of the East Antarctic that varies in volume at the lower end of the CO2 range. However, the absence of additional ice melt at higher CO2 levels suggests that there is also a portion of the ice sheet that remains stable at the maximum CO2 levels.

Evidence suggests that the northern Hemisphere and West Antarctic ice sheets did not exist during the warm Miocene climatic optimum.

"While we recognise that the Miocene climatic optimum is not a perfect analogue for our own warm future, the geological past does represent an actual reality that the Earth system experienced," says the University of Southampton's Dr Gavin Foster, co-author of the study. "As such the findings of this study have large implications for the stability of the in the future. They indicate that portions of the East Antarctic ice sheet can act in a dynamic fashion, growing and shrinking in response to climate forcing."

Co-author Caroline Lear, of Cardiff University, adds: "We tend to think of the Antarctic ice sheet as a sluggish ice sheet, but these records show that in past warm climates it has been surprisingly sensitive to natural variations in carbon dioxide levels."


Explore further

West Antarctic ice sheet formed earlier than thought

Journal information: Paleoceanography

Citation: Past climate change and continental ice melt linked to varying CO2 levels (2014, October 14) retrieved 23 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-10-climate-continental-ice-linked-varying.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 14, 2014
So, looks like this has happened before, and it was pretty bad from our point of view. The Miocene had much higher water than we do now; most cities near the sea will be inundated.

Looks like the IPCC predictions have been confirmed, as has climate sensitivity to CO₂. Gee, whadda ya know?

Oct 15, 2014
Hard to swallow. Too convenient that 500 ppm is projected at end of year and gee that's what they got in there study. There is never only one variable.

Oct 15, 2014
"Researchers also showed that at low levels of CO2, ice volume varied strongly, but at higher levels, there was little or no additional change in volume. The authors of the study hypothesis that there must be a portion of the East Antarctic ice sheet that varies in volume at the lower end of the CO2 range. However, the absence of additional ice melt at higher CO2 levels suggests that there is also a portion of the ice sheet that remains stable at the maximum CO2 levels."

All of a sudden much of the Antarctic ice is independent of CO2 levels.

It appears that they are making this stuff up to suit current conditions. Again, current conditions predict the outcome of the research better than the research predicts the conditions.

Oct 15, 2014
They always seem to come up with something new and it always confirms what they've been saying all along, isn't that convenient? And yet we're all still here and the Polar Bears haven't gone extinct, amazing.

Oct 15, 2014
Weather may easily be thought to be climate by the uninformed but weather is a damn good predictor of the conclusions reached by future "Peer Reviewed" climate science papers.

Oct 15, 2014
Here is a great example of that.

http://www.abc.ne.../5812290

Oct 15, 2014
Why do the Deniers assume scientists have the same ethics as their own profession?

Oct 15, 2014
Gkam why do you assume that government funded researchers have any ethics at all?????????????

Oct 15, 2014
Because for a year, I was one. We studied the safety systems of GE BWR's, developed techniques to protect American Industry from the effects of nuclear weapons, and did special studies for NASA on graphite fibers.

Are you going to challenge our credibility, our honesty, our processes?

Oct 15, 2014
166, I learned a lot in that year, and have one story nobody here knows about how close we came to nuclear war in the late 1970's, and who saved us from it.

Oct 15, 2014
Geek,
In order to deny something, that something must exist.. your "elthical" GloBULLsters are pseudo scientist, Academic Alarmist Alchemist's.
And your response reinforces the fallacy of the fictional scientists.

Oct 15, 2014
Why did you use the apostrophe? Do you not know the rules?

Oct 15, 2014
So, looks like this has happened before, and it was pretty bad from our point of view. The Miocene had much higher water than we do now; most cities near the sea will be inundated.

Looks like the IPCC predictions have been confirmed, as has climate sensitivity to CO₂. Gee, whadda ya know?


How does it prove it if they never stated which part the carbon played in this role. The article implies that the CO2 merely signals that this occurred, but it doesn't state that the CO2 caused it. That is a very different distinction.

Perhaps you alarmists can stop inferring things and start actually asking these people what exactly they meant with their vague description here.

Oct 15, 2014
I want to know if Joe is going to admit to his kids and grand kids how he opposed our effort to save the Earth?

Oct 15, 2014
Because for a year, I was one. We studied the safety systems of GE BWR's, developed techniques to protect American Industry from the effects of nuclear weapons, and did special studies for NASA on graphite fibers.

Are you going to challenge our credibility, our honesty, our processes?


Appeal to authority. You having been a holder of a title does not negate that you have no evidence to support your claims.

Oct 15, 2014
Gkam, as with any generalization, nothing is 100% true. But the connection between government sponsored crony capitalism and renewable energy/climate Armageddon cannot be denied by reasonable people.

I do not deny that we will run out of fossil fuels in the not too distant future and need to research fusion, nuclear and renewables. I just debate the fact that C02 is an immediate problem that requires the abandonment of fossil fuels.

I also debate the proposal that the developed nations need to pay reparations to the less developed nations for their CO2 emissions. This reeks of political corruption of the scientific process.

Since of the governmental solutions are enabled by the limiting of individual freedoms, I have a real problem with the research that is funded by the grants that they provide. In reality, everyone including climate scientists will provide marketable science in order to feed their families or pay for their education.

Oct 15, 2014
Gosh, Joe, I am really sorry that you did not get to do interesting things, like some of us. But it is true, much to your discomfort. Did you see China Syndrome? We were trying to reduce the drastic hydraulic shock in the Suppression Pool from turbine trips and scrams, shown by the shaking in the movie. We were working long days until Three Mile Island II, a B&W PWR, melted down, and we took a break to watch the stream of lies.

Want to hear about the graphite fiber materials? I have an FOIA request in for it.

Oct 15, 2014
Gosh, Joe, I am really sorry that you did not get to do interesting things, like some of us. But it is true, much to your discomfort. Did you see China Syndrome? We were trying to reduce the drastic hydraulic shock in the Suppression Pool from turbine trips and scrams, shown by the shaking in the movie. We were working long days until Three Mile Island II, a B&W PWR, melted down, and we took a break to watch the stream of lies.

Want to hear about the graphite fiber materials? I have an FOIA request in for it.


So I should be impressed for some reason? You seem to think I have never done anything amazing in my life, or that I even care what you claimed to have done.

This is why alarmists are so ridiculous, you think people care about what you say.

Oct 15, 2014
"Gkam, as with any generalization, nothing is 100% true. But the connection between government sponsored crony capitalism and renewable energy/climate Armageddon cannot be denied by reasonable people."
------------------------------------------------------

Now you are being ridiculous. 97% of all scientists are lying? Or are you just wrong?

KDK
Oct 15, 2014
C'mon folks, the link has long been known, with CO2 variations FOLLOWING temp variations! What masquerades for science these these days is amazing!

Oct 15, 2014
"So I should be impressed for some reason? You seem to think I have never done anything amazing in my life, or that I even care what you claimed to have done."

Just ignore credibility from experience, if it gets in your way.

Look up what is going in Fukushima. Do it. Those were GE Mark I BWR's.

Oct 15, 2014
"So I should be impressed for some reason? You seem to think I have never done anything amazing in my life, or that I even care what you claimed to have done."

Just ignore credibility from experience, if it gets in your way.

Look up what is going in Fukushima. Do it. Those were GE Mark I BWR's.


You can't even answer the first question I posed, what makes you think I'm going to believe anything else you say?

Also, 97% of scientists work through grants and research journal funds. So that 97% is more likely to just keep writing about the same stuff their advisory board tells them to write about.

Oct 15, 2014
"Now you are being ridiculous. 97% of all scientists are lying? Or are you just wrong?"

The very fact that you are repeating this little bit of propaganda confirms that you are part of the bought and paid for government controlled science machine.

Oct 15, 2014
Sorry, Joe but those folk are not in business, or finance, or religion, or politics or any of the fields we invented and can change the rules of at will. They work in science, which must be reproducible, (ask the cold fusion folk), quantifiable, repeatable, and predictable.

Stop projecting your case on the rest of us, please.

You allege: "part of the bought and paid for government controlled science machine.", but I retired as a consultant to electric utilities, investor-owned utilities.

What was it you did?

Oct 15, 2014
Sorry, Joe but those folk are not in business, or finance, or religion, or politics or any of the fields we invented and can change the rules of at will. They work in science, which must be reproducible, (ask the cold fusion folk), quantifiable, repeatable, and predictable.

Stop projecting your case on the rest of us, please.

You allege: "part of the bought and paid for government controlled science machine.", but I retired as a consultant to electric utilities, investor-owned utilities.

What was it you did?


Yeah the results have to be reproducible, which none of the alarmists have produced yet.

The results from all of the modelling were proven incorrect. The predictions were all proven incorrect and merely altered when it was revealed. That is not science, it's corruption and propaganda, and those idiots should be ashamed of themselves.

Oct 15, 2014
Please show me which models are incorrect.

Then, look outside.


Oct 15, 2014
That's two years old, and out of date. The discrepancy was studied and found to be due to diffusion of the top layers before packing. The gases diffuse up, because below is frozen.

Oct 15, 2014
Please show me which models are incorrect.

Then, look outside.


You need to do some more Reasoning

http://reason.com...e-models

I live in Arizona, and pretty much have a focussed portion of global climate migration in my back yard. Now, is there any proof that you would like to provide or an answer to my first question?

Oct 15, 2014
You had a question?

I think the answer was summarized in the last sentence of the story.


Oct 15, 2014
That's two years old, and out of date. The discrepancy was studied and found to be due to diffusion of the top layers before packing. The gases diffuse up, because below is frozen.


Where is the proof that what you say is happening? You alarmists make all of these claims, but seem to forget that you need EVIDENCE for EMPIRICISM to work properly, and it can't just be "I told you so" evidence, or because I think I'm someone important. It has to be empirical. Which means some other person can go out and do the same exact experiment and get the same results.

Oct 15, 2014
BTW, see this?

http://newsdaily....project/


Complete and utter rubbish. They haven't even had the math proven for it yet, so they have no idea if it's even possible.

Oct 15, 2014
One sane voice in this section before I read it. How many socks do the energy companies have here?

Oct 15, 2014
One sane voice in this section before I read it. How many socks do the energy companies have here?


Which implies that; whoever is against which ever position you proclaim to be superior, to be weasels working for energy companies. I've been a supporter of thorium based MSR technology for a long time. Does that make me a diabolical villain now?

Oct 15, 2014
Gkam why do you assume that government funded researchers have any ethics at all?
@mr166
1- because it is a world collaboration of highly competitive scientists who cannot agree on what food is ok to eat, but somehow they all come together in a conspiracy in science?
2- http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
...alarmists... start actually asking these people what exactly they meant with their vague description here
@JoeBlue
Or, perhaps you could ask for assistance removing your cranium from your oversize anal orifice as it is apparently stuck and cannot find the links in front of him?
You can't even answer the first question I posed
and you never bothered to go to the linked story which contains a linked study: http://www.nature...597.html
Now, how about you select the fallacies within the study linked and show us why we shouldn't believe it?
see other link above as well

Oct 15, 2014
Which implies that; whoever is against which ever position you proclaim to be superior, to be weasels working for energy companies
@joeblow
i won't imply anything
I will say outright that there are paid morons here trying to sow obfuscation and undermine the science
i can PROVE IT as well, with a study (those pesky things you ignored above)
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

read also this article: http://phys.org/n...ate.html

http://theconsens...ect.com/

a diabolical villain
around here, there is the SCIENCE and there is everyone else
read the science before you pop off
there is plenty of evidence for AGW and against the denier camp
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt


Oct 15, 2014
You alarmists make all of these claims, but seem to forget that you need EVIDENCE for EMPIRICISM to work properly, and it can't just be "I told you so" evidence, or because I think I'm someone important.
@joeblob
you mean stuff like this: http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
which links global warming to extreme weather events and cold snaps which affected people?

By the way... if there is anything in the links and studies I gave so far you wish to refute, by all means, please refute them, but i will also state that i don't read blogs or stupid stuff without references
bring the SAME LEVEL of empirical evidence to the table refuting the AGW studies

that means peer reviewed articles in a reputable journal with an impact in climate physics etc

got it?
great
glad you joined in

http://iopscience...2/024024


Oct 15, 2014
So, looks like this has happened before, and it was pretty bad from our point of view. The Miocene had much higher water than we do now; most cities near the sea will be inundated.

Looks like the IPCC predictions have been confirmed, as has climate sensitivity to CO₂. Gee, whadda ya know?
How does it prove it if they never stated which part the carbon played in this role.
They never stated it because everyone knows: http://www.desmog...ie-chart

24/13,950. It gets worse: http://www.desmog...-warming

25/23,086. It's almost a thousand to one.

That's what they mean when they say "scientific consensus."

contd

Oct 15, 2014
http://www.abc.ne.../5812290
@mr166
that is not a study
it is a news article. unless you are trying to prove someone said something specific, it is just a perspective and no better than speculation
But the connection between government sponsored crony capitalism and renewable energy/climate Armageddon cannot be denied by reasonable people
conjecture based upon conspiracy
perhaps you would provide the study this came from?
there IS a study proving that there is BIG $$ in undermining science: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
your argument is invalid based upon your irrational beliefs: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
I just debate the fact that C02 is an immediate problem
because you don't understand the science

and just because YOU don't understand it, doesn't mean it is any less true

Oct 15, 2014
The article implies that the CO2 merely signals that this occurred, but it doesn't state that the CO2 caused it. That is a very different distinction.
So you read the original article in Paleoceanography? How about a link to it?

Perhaps you alarmists can stop inferring things and start actually asking these people what exactly they meant with their vague description here.
Perhaps someday deniers will stop making things up and accept the truth.

Oct 15, 2014
One sane voice in this section before I read it. How many socks do the energy companies have here?


Which implies that; whoever is against which ever position you proclaim to be superior, to be weasels working for energy companies. I've been a supporter of thorium based MSR technology for a long time. Does that make me a diabolical villain now?


Maybe just another illiterate. Google Hanlons' Razor.

Oct 15, 2014
political corruption of the scientific process
&
Since of the governmental solutions are enabled by the limiting of individual freedoms, I have a real problem with the research that is funded by the grants that they provide
@mr166
more evidence of your hysteria and conspiracy beliefs: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
you do realise that the climate science being published is a WORLD wide effort?
between such different people and cultures that would not be able to agree on a breakfast meal menu without certain mediators?
and you claim that this is conducive to a worldwide conspiracy? really?
repeating this little bit of propaganda
ya can't call it propaganda when it is empirically shown to be a fact by a study
which means that the only one pushing propaganda now is YOU, mr166
http://iopscience...2/024024

Sorry... i meant to say "pushing a blatant lie bought by big$$", not propaganda

Oct 15, 2014
CO2 lags temperature. http://sciencebit...ich-2012
Actually, what happens is that CO₂ lags at the end of a glaciation until the temperature gets high enough to allow zooplankton to start generating CO₂... then CO₂ starts to lead the further temperature increase.

13K worth of increase, actually. This is another of those annoying brute physical facts deniers like to deny.

(K in this context is degrees Kelvin; they're the same as degrees Celsius, but their zero is at absolute zero. It is customary to denote them as "Kelvins," not "degrees Kelvin." Thus no ° symbol.)

Oct 15, 2014
You say we deny it, but there is no proof. You showed me one link of a paper which is based on a computer simulation. Where is the actual proof?

Oct 15, 2014
Personally what I find stupidest about deniers is that they deny animals (zooplankton) exhale CO₂ and that they don't bloom in warmer conditions when it's been cold for a couple million years. Have they forgotten that plants inhale CO₂ and exhale O₂, and that animals inhale O₂ and exhale CO₂? Basic Biology 101.

You say we deny it, but there is no proof. You showed me one link of a paper which is based on a computer simulation. Where is the actual proof?
The burden of proof is on you; you're denying that zooplankton exhale CO₂.

Meanwhile, Joe the Stupid, you haven't provided a link to the original article in a scholarly journal and are trying to pretend you did. That's lying.

Oct 15, 2014
The main problem with deniers isn't their politics; the main problem is they deny reality.

Just like creationists. Just like physics and free energy cranks. Just like Darwin deniers. Just like YECCs. Just like racists. Just like Holocaust deniers. Just like Libertardians.

Oct 15, 2014
One sane voice in this section before I read it. How many socks do the energy companies have here?


Which implies that; whoever is against which ever position you proclaim to be superior, to be weasels working for energy companies. I've been a supporter of thorium based MSR technology for a long time. Does that make me a diabolical villain now?


Maybe just another illiterate. Google Hanlons' Razor.


Literate enough to know that energy doesn't pile up exponentially in any system anywhere in the universe. I can even do the math that proves this as well.

Oct 15, 2014
Personally what I find stupidest about deniers is that they deny animals (zooplankton) exhale CO₂ and that they don't bloom in warmer conditions when it's been cold for a couple million years. Have they forgotten that plants inhale CO₂ and exhale O₂, and that animals inhale O₂ and exhale CO₂? Basic Biology 101.

You say we deny it, but there is no proof. You showed me one link of a paper which is based on a computer simulation. Where is the actual proof?
The burden of proof is on you; you're denying that zooplankton exhale CO₂.

Meanwhile, Joe the Stupid, you haven't provided a link to the original article in a scholarly journal and are trying to pretend you did. That's lying.


So you figured that if you started creating fabrications and distortions that are obvious to any person that reads the chain of quotes above us, you would do what exactly? I assume you're a devout believer of something, because I still haven't seen any proof of anything.

Oct 15, 2014
C'mon folks, the link has long been known, with CO2 variations FOLLOWING temp variations! What masquerades for science these these days is amazing!


CO2 follows and leads.
Before human industrialisation it followed.
As man has injected CO2 into the atmosphere unnaturally ... now it leads.

Anything else you need to know just ask.
What masquerades for intelligence these days is amazing.

Oct 15, 2014
The main problem with deniers isn't their politics; the main problem is they deny reality.

Just like creationists. Just like physics and free energy cranks. Just like Darwin deniers. Just like YECCs. Just like racists. Just like Holocaust deniers. Just like Libertardians.


See all of that, that is politicized hatred that being pushed. It's not science, it's compliance and force. Anyone that disagrees or asks for evidence is immediately labelled and ridiculed.

Oct 15, 2014
C'mon folks, the link has long been known, with CO2 variations FOLLOWING temp variations! What masquerades for science these these days is amazing!


CO2 follows and leads.
Before human industrialisation it followed.
As man has injected CO2 into the atmosphere unnaturally ... now it leads.

Anything else you need to know just ask.
What masquerades for intelligence these days is amazing.


Where is your evidence? Where are the experiments and studies done that actually proven this? Not from a discredited agency like the IPCC either.


Oct 15, 2014
Personally what I find stupidest about deniers is that they deny animals (zooplankton) exhale CO₂ and that they don't bloom in warmer conditions when it's been cold for a couple million years. Have they forgotten that plants inhale CO₂ and exhale O₂, and that animals inhale O₂ and exhale CO₂? Basic Biology 101.

You say we deny it, but there is no proof. You showed me one link of a paper which is based on a computer simulation. Where is the actual proof?
The burden of proof is on you; you're denying that zooplankton exhale CO₂.

Meanwhile, Joe the Stupid, you haven't provided a link to the original article in a scholarly journal and are trying to pretend you did. That's lying.


So you figured that if you started creating fabrications and distortions
I quoted science from the scholarly literature. If you claim they're fabrications and distortions, you're lying.

Oct 15, 2014
The main problem with deniers isn't their politics; the main problem is they deny reality.

Just like creationists. Just like physics and free energy cranks. Just like Darwin deniers. Just like YECCs. Just like racists. Just like Holocaust deniers. Just like Libertardians.
See all of that, that is politicized hatred that being pushed. It's not science, it's compliance and force. Anyone that disagrees or asks for evidence is immediately labelled and ridiculed.
No, all of it is observations.

You still haven't quoted or even linked the original scholarly paper, nor will you. You know it will show you're wrong. You haven't read it because you prefer not to know the truth.

The force of truth always wins, eventually, except for a few cranks.

Oct 15, 2014

So you figured that if you started creating fabrications and distortions I quoted science from the scholarly literature. If you claim they're fabrications and distortions, you're lying.


So you are trying to tell me that a quantification of a consensus is proof that temperatures are rising at a geometric rate thanks to human activity involving CARBON.

That's not science man, that called democracy. Science isn't a democracy, either you have substantiated evidence that is reproducible or you don't. You are either right, or you are wrong. There is no inbetween grey region with the hard sciences.

If you want that sort of science you're looking in the wrong direction, that's over on the fiction isle we call psychology. :-)


Oct 15, 2014
So you figured that if you started creating fabrications and distortions I quoted science from the scholarly literature. If you claim they're fabrications and distortions, you're lying.
You should pay better attention to your quotes. I said the second half, not the first.

Getting a little hot under the collar, sport?

So you are trying to tell me that a quantification of a consensus is proof that temperatures are rising at a geometric rate thanks to human activity involving CARBON.
No, I'm telling you that rising temperatures are a fact, rising CO₂ is a fact, and CO₂ absorption of heat is a fact. And that you are denying these facts.

Oct 15, 2014
Just have Joe look up the ten hottest years in history and get back to us.

Why do they never do it?

Oct 15, 2014
Joeblue has reasonable arguments, except for the scientists lying part, and chooses to not "believe" in AGW.

But anthropogenic climate change is reality, not wishful thinking or self-delusion. It is not on faith that the oceans acidify. It is not with "belief" that tropical diseases are now in Alaskan birds.

I do not "believe" it, I earned my Master of Science in the field in 1982 and have watched it happen.

Oct 15, 2014
You say we deny it, but there is no proof. You showed me one link of a paper which is based on a computer simulation. Where is the actual proof?
@joeblow
are you stupid?
you are delusional... tell you what
you link that paper back here
THEN you specifically reference that part in the paper that is "no proof"

you tell me what you are specifically talking about because all you have above is a bunch of denial and not a single bit of empirical evidence proving anything other than you are incapable of reading scientific studies, linking information, quoting on PO (even with the idiot button on the post) and denying what is right in front of you

we don't even know who the heck you are talking to! you are babbling in a post with no references at all!
you talking to Schneib?
Me?
a sky-fairy?
the big oil companies?
who?

Oct 15, 2014
See all of that, that is politicized hatred that being pushed. It's not science, it's compliance and force. Anyone that disagrees or asks for evidence is immediately labelled and ridiculed
@joeblooper
But you have also given NO PROOF WHATSOEVER refuting the studies I linked
in fact, i have linked a FEW studies, and you are still here arguing about no proof... and what about the overwhelming preponderance of scientific papers already published out there supporting the SCIENCE behind AGW?
you argue here that there is no proof... but i also noticed that you have refused to address the proof that has been given...

this is denial as well as redirection, and a tactic for the conspiracy theorist as well as the blatantly stupid http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Where is your proof that the studies I linked above are WRONG?
I will repeat this as long as you stupidly ignore the empirical evidence

Oct 16, 2014
Now you are being ridiculous. 97% of all scientists are lying? Or are you just wrong?

Nope, 3% of the scientists are able to think for themselves. Just like the rest of society.
there IS a study proving that there is BIG $$ in undermining science: http://www.drexel.shx
your argument is invalid based upon your irrational beliefs

Yep, and gov'ts provide the biggest $$$$ undermining science. There is a long, long history of politics driving the funding of gov'tal grants, if you can't see that you aren't paying attention. There's no conspiracy, it's what occurs every day in Congress and the alphabet agencies, FDA, DARPA, NSF, etc, etc, and how the funds are allocated. There are people involved in those decisions, all with their own views and beliefs determining where the $$$ goes.
i have linked a FEW studies,

Link 10,000, it's still not "PROOF" as much as you'd like to believe. Until all factors are included in the science and models they are meaningless.

Oct 16, 2014
Nope, 3% of the scientists are able to think for themselves. Just like the rest of society
@cd
this is called conspiratorial thinking and only proves that you are unable to process logical thought or empirical proof: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
this is also why you support known pseudoscience in lieu of actual proven science, btw

that number reflects the overwhelming WORLD scientists working independently towards providing empirical evidence for something and coming to the same conclusion
the scientific method works if you use it... maybe you should look into it one day? http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
and gov'ts provide the biggest $$$$ undermining science
Interesting
I give you empirical evidence that there is big money wrapped up in fighting against AGW and you assume it is gov't money?
any PROOF of that?
the proof in the study was in big oil, koch and others hiding funds, moron
or can't you read?

Oct 16, 2014
if you can't see that you aren't paying attention
@cd
really?
your argument is that everyone else has blinders on?
so... your argument against AGW is simply the same one used to support your eu pseudoscience? IOW - ya got no evidence

Link 10,000, it's still not "PROOF" as much as you'd like to believe. Until all factors are included in the science and models they are meaningless
and you wonder why you are stuck believing in pseudoscience?
this is the reason
empirical evidence supporting a conclusion is considered "proof" by many people
there is overwhelming empirical evidence of AGW and its causes
there is NO refute that AGW exists
only pseudoscience conjecture from conspiratorial leaning people like you and eu
or from people paid to sow obfuscation and undermine science with political comments like above

show me the science refuting AGW then cd
refute the studies posted above

Oct 16, 2014
Until all factors are included in the science and models they are meaningless.
@cd
this is like saying that, given a picture of a human leg, you will never be able to ascertain that the picture is of a human or that the picture of the leg is from a human

there is no logic in your conjecture
Surely you understand that a model can help one comprehend the situation (after all, even your idiot eu site uses models)
or is this another of your assertions from ignorance and lack of scientific acumen proving once and again your inability to comprehend legitimate science and differentiate between empirical scientific evidence, reality and the delusions of your faith?

POST a peer reviewed scientific study published in a reputable journal impacting climate science refuting any of the above studies that I have provided, cd
PROVE that all the factors are not considered by empirical evidence and peer reviewed studies


Oct 16, 2014
C'mon folks, the link has long been known, with CO2 variations FOLLOWING temp variations! What masquerades for science these these days is amazing!


CO2 follows and leads.
Before human industrialisation it followed.
As man has injected CO2 into the atmosphere unnaturally ... now it leads.

Anything else you need to know just ask.
What masquerades for intelligence these days is amazing.


Where is your evidence? Where are the experiments and studies done that actually proven this? Not from a discredited agency like the IPCC either.


Amazing???
F**ing everywhere!
Try Googling and NOT going to one side of the argument .... which id the likes of "What's up with the Fairies"

Oh and an education in physics helps as well - you know like the experts that have proved with >95% confidence that AGW is happening.

The day an ignoramus knows a complex subject such as climate science better than the worlds experts .... then mindless stupidity rules.

Oct 16, 2014
If I need more proof that climate is changing, I can just take a tour uphill in Lapland and see how the trees have invaded what was previously alpine tundra.

Oct 16, 2014
Canty baby:
The "proof" as you put it is as close as we're going to get in time to do something about it.
Want to wait for >95% to turn to 100%?
It'll never happen my friend .... before it's too late.

This is a major flaw in deniers logic. They say consensus is not science, is not proof.

This denies a basic reality not only of the universe but also of the human condition, that there will ALWAYS be naysayers. In anything.

What is fickle is human perception, coloured by many things, not least ideology.... look at you and other deniers on here. Take away their ideological/peer-group pressure and the science is the ONLY informer of the problem.
Of course they will never realise that... all part of the psychological disfunction they have.
Hence the likes of Mr Watts and other US weathermen (TV meteorologists). Their peer-group is the TV station and NOT meteorologists. Hence, surprise surprise, they tend to be deniers. Not so the profession at large. I am a (retired) one.

Oct 16, 2014
The funding for those who are trying to prove that CO2 is not a major contributor to warming is in the 10s or low hundreds of millions.

World wide government grants for research trying to link any warming to mankind is in the 10s of BILLIONS.

Who needs a conspiracy among scientists when there is such a huge carrot leading them all in the same direction?

Oct 16, 2014
The Global Scamming support story of the day!

Oct 16, 2014
Interesting.... Not one mention of methane gas. Scientists used to include methane in their reports and now they only use c02. C02 is not the only culprit, this is why the computer models do not work.

This is far from settled science, I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. …

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. "There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. … ." … Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.

Oct 16, 2014
Norman Rogers in the May 14 issue of the American Thinker began his article citing President Eisenhower's farewell address warning that a "scientific-technological elite" dependent on government money would exert undue influence on government policy". Scientific advice to policy makers has become heavily influenced by political agendas and rewards to organizations and scientists that provide the necessary scientific support for political objectives. In the case of climate change, the influence can be traced back to the White House and Al Gore.

Climate change is the primary example of how science can be perverted by money and politics. Today there is an international climate establishment that is supported annually by billions of dollars to advance a war on fossil energy, promote an agenda of fear, and undermine capitalism's market driven system. Anyone who does not subscribe to the climate orthodoxy is subjected intimidation and not to subtle threats to their careers.

Oct 16, 2014
Some climate advocates have called so called skeptics war criminals who should be jailed, the equivalent of holocaust deniers, flat earthers, and industry pawns.

The crime of these skeptics is to challenge the asserted consensus that human activities involving fossil energy and economic development are threatening the planet. Advocates point to computer model results that project dramatic increases in global temperatures that will lead to extreme climate events—more intense hurricanes, extended droughts, and sea level rises that threaten coastal cities for example.

To increase their power and influence, the climate establishment has adopted the mantra that the "science is settled" and 97% of scientists agree that human activities are the primary cause of climate change over the past 50 plus years.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not claim that the science is settled.

Oct 16, 2014
Somebody tell gramkeel to look up the ten hottest years in history and get back to us.

He seems to think scientists are like businessmen, or finance folk, or religious folk, or salesmen, or politicians, the fields we invented and in which we lie. Fudging is nortmal in those fields, but is death in science.

What happened to the teaching of science in this nation? Were we all dumbed down by Reagan and the two Bushes?

Oct 16, 2014
The funding for those who are trying to prove that CO2 is not a major contributor to warming is in the 10s or low hundreds of millions.

World wide government grants for research trying to link any warming to mankind is in the 10s of BILLIONS.

Who needs a conspiracy among scientists when there is such a huge carrot leading them all in the same direction?

Err, I think you forgot the likes of the Koch's and others in the oil business.
How much do you reckon their wealth is eh?
FFS

Oct 16, 2014
Interesting.... Not one mention of methane gas. Scientists used to include methane in their reports and now they only use c02. C02 is not the only culprit, this is why the computer models do not work.

This is far from settled science, I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. …

Bollocks.
Of course methane is included, as are all GHG's
FFS

http://www.climat...INAL.pdf

Look at Fig SPM.5
That table is modeled in GCM's

Oct 16, 2014
World wide government grants for research trying to link any warming to mankind is in the 10s of BILLIONS @mr166
i bet someone $500 you, joe or cd would say that... thanks for the easy money

did you also forget the big oil/business combined is a multi-trillion dollar industry? i guess so! that alone outclasses any THREE gov't 's, and with a worldwide economy, it crosses all borders and undermines ALL gov't 's

now... how does that transfer to worldwide conspiracy? cultures cannot agree on simple things like food, and you are saying that there is a worldwide conspiracy? and you've no evidence of this to boot?
and you can't see the lack of logic in that statement?
and to top this all off... you have never ONCE given ANY empirical evidence of:
1- the conspiracy (i have given you evidence of the conspiracy AGAINST science)
2- ANY science against AGW
3- ANY evidence against ANY study i have posted/linked

and you STILL can't see how irrational you are being?

Oct 16, 2014
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks
@gramkeel1987
are you illiterate?
there is no such thing as consensus science... are you assuming that there is a grand worldwide voting registration where scientists all get together and vote for what sounds cool at the moment?
The "consensus" in this case is the fact that a worldwide gathering of climate scientists have individually researched various reasons for AGW or if it si even real and there is a global preponderance of information supporting the conclusion that:
1- AGW is real
2- GHG's and CO2 are major players in the heat retention
3- we might be able to fix the problem IF we get idiot conspiracy theorist's that ignore science and the overwhelming evidence and cry about consensus to pull their heads out of their butts and quit fighting against the empirical evidence and actually think of a way to HELP instead of undermine the SCIENCE

Oct 16, 2014
Some climate advocates have called so called skeptics war criminals who should be jailed, the equivalent of holocaust deniers, flat earthers, and industry pawns
@gramkeel1987
some DO get frustrated that there are people who ignore empirical evidence for the sake of a faith or unfounded belief in conspiracy, yes
but there is plenty of empirical evidence that industry, big oil and business are funding anti-science campaigns to undermine real science in order to insure that their vested interest in making sh*t loads of money is not disturbed
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
the climate establishment has adopted the mantra
so you think ignoring the science and sticking your head up where the sun don't shine is a better attitude?
you are NOT a skeptic
you have given NO empirical evidence refuting ANY studies
you are simply denying the SCIENCE
which makes you...??? what?

Oct 16, 2014
the mantra that the "science is settled" and 97% of scientists agree that human activities are the primary cause of climate change over the past 50 plus years
@gramkeel1987
by the way
it is not so much a "mantra" as it is trying to get people like you to look at the evidence

why are you ignoring the FACTS?
are you being paid? are you just afraid of the consequences? does it imply that you are guilty in some manner?
get over it
it is a FACT that 97% of the science proves AGW
http://iopscience.../article
there are articles about the overwhelming evidence
http://blogs.scie...sagrees/
sites that contain links to relevant studies, etc proving the overwhelming evidence
http://theconsens...ect.com/

and you STILL ignore it?

tell you what
IF you are so sure
why is there NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE proving AGW false?

Oct 16, 2014
Cap'n, actually in terms of papers published, it's more like 99.998% vs. 0.102%. 25/23,086 is the exact number.

Oct 16, 2014
Capt. stop displaying your ridiculous hatred of big oil. They also donate to many "green" agendas. I know, 97% of climate scientists agree that big oil is the only reason that they are doubted.

Oct 16, 2014
donate to many "green" agendas
@mr166
it is not a hatred of big oil
it CAN be considered a hatred of intentional stupidity and the willful choice to ignore empirical evidence, though
I never said that they did not invest in many "green" agenda's, either
but lets look at some real important numbers!
how much do they invest in GREEN vs their investment in denying SCIENCE?

the investment in green does not mean that they are "good people" nor that they don't still have a vested interest in making sh*t loads of cash
that is how business is done: make money
I understand that

but their "green" investment is more for PR and tax savings than for trying to come up with legitimate solutions to the problems of AGW

if it WERE about legit solutions, they would not hide their funds like in the linked study
NOR would they fight against legitimate science
most deniers here ignore reality as a direct result of hidden investments

think about that for a spell

Oct 16, 2014
Capt. stop displaying your ridiculous hatred of big oil. They also donate to many "green" agendas.
This is called "greenwashing." They're screwing up far more things than they're helping. And it's not ALL oil companies; it's a particular segment that is doing this, spearheaded by the Koch brothers, along with a lot of other really corrosive and corrupt agenda items like guns, god, gays, hacking the vote, denying poors the vote, and racism.

I know, 97% of climate scientists agree that big oil is the only reason that they are doubted.
And they're right, as shown by the financial records they keep trying to hide up their butts, and keep getting caught by. Oversight, oversight, oversight, or mess, mess, mess, and corruption, corruption, corruption.

Oct 16, 2014
Yup Da Schneib, the oil companies have added absolutely nothing nothing to our standard of living. Returning to a pre-oil society is in everyone's best interest. Farms were much more organic and sustainable when animals were the main source of power. The fact that we are now feeding 10x more people on 10x less acreage is not relevant. The fact that major cities had to dispose of millions of tonnes of fly feeding disease producing horse manure each year is of no concern.

Get your head out of the green sand that it is stuck in and thank big oil for the easy life that it has given to you for just a very small percentage of your income.

Oct 16, 2014
Yup Da Schneib, the oil companies have added absolutely nothing nothing to our standard of living.
Straw man fallacy detected.

Get your head out of the green sand that it is stuck in and thank big oil for the easy life that it has given to you for just a very small percentage of your income.
Unfortunately that's not the complete cost. You forgot the political unrest and wars in the Middle East, and the political corruption in the West, and the nasty gasses people who live near refineries have to breathe, and the carbon they're putting into the atmosphere, and the earthquakes and groundwater contamination from fracking, and the contamination of half the food supply in the Gulf of Mexico, and the list goes on. These are the *real* costs, added to the money out of my pocket. Finally, the fact is they're wasting a major chemical resource by burning it and creating pollution. We're gonna need that oil later, and not for burning.

You left out 90% of the story.

Oct 16, 2014
To blame wars on oil is ludicrous. Like/admit it or not, history proves that war is part of Man's DNA and the so called reasons for war never make any sense.

I agree that oil is too precious to burn and that is why I am against wasting it on things like ethanol and carbon sequestration. That being said, we cannot afford to abandon it at this time. The technology is just not "Ripe" yet and "large scale" investments in technologies that are not cost or energy efficient will not ripen them any faster.

Oct 16, 2014
So how come we have all these wars over the place with the most oil?

You're lying, MR. And it's painfully obvious. Let's start with the deposing of the Iranian government in the 1960s for oil, which led to the religious rebellion and deposing of the Shah. Looks like a war caused by oil to me. Just sayin'.

Oct 16, 2014
Yea right, the first known instance of war was in the 1960s.

Oct 16, 2014
Straw man fallacy detected again.

Lying detected again.

Oct 16, 2014
Like how the watermelons come out and start forcing axiomatic reasoning after their dialectics fail to work.


Oct 16, 2014
LOL

Apparently you not only don't "believe in" science, you don't "believe in" logic either!

Classic. Like meeting a real hippie. Or a real McCarthyist.

Oct 17, 2014
Oh, and BTW, isn't "watermelons" a snide reference to black people?

First, I'm not black, and second, that's overt racism. I believe racism is not allowed here. You might want to read the rules about that.

Oct 18, 2014
If you were concerned with racism you would stop singling out black people via references to fruit. Yet, here you are making those same references.

In the Philippines, watermelons are a traditional snack and a large part of the diet.

LOL

Apparently you not only don't "believe in" science, you don't "believe in" logic either!

Classic. Like meeting a real hippie. Or a real McCarthyist.


Sure, you just made as many assumptions about me as I think were possible with examining one post.

Oct 18, 2014
Da_S has all the hallmarks for being a Paid Progressive Government Troll.

All talking points from the DNC --- check.
Calling someone a racist --- check.
Able to lie --- check
Getting all other PPGT's to uprate him --- check.
Using tactics of PPGTs as approved by the DNC --- check.

Oct 19, 2014
"Researchers also showed that at low levels of CO2, ice volume varied strongly, but at higher levels, there was little or no additional change in volume."

What they didn't indicate (and I couldn't find) was whether of not the ice volume during high CO2 was at a overall low, and whether the atmosphere had reached an equilibrium of stable high temps.

Research has indicated that during normal long term warming-cooling cycles, the warming appears to eventually result in an increase of atmospheric CO2. That CO2 then sustains the warm temps for the long term, until it eventually becomes unstable, and a cooling ensues.

The research findings above, while interesting, would have little bearing on the present-day climate situation, as the current unparalleled rise in temperature-reinforcing CO2 is now is preceding the warming. We really have no historic precedent to accurately compare and predict by. Hence, the uncertainty we argue about.


Oct 19, 2014
Hence, the uncertainty we argue about.

Uncertainty - that's why we collect evidence.
Argument - stupid.

We should be DISCUSSING the evidence! The arguing is always about conspiracy, agenda, funding opportunists, bizarre "religious" motivation, and an entire branch of the scientific community suddenly losing their ethics to all of the aforementioned.

Our most respected intellectual endeavors are being poisoned by the politically corrupt motives of those that don't give a damn. Mistrust is an easy sell to the gullible. It's an American phenomenon.

Oct 20, 2014
We really have no historic precedent to accurately compare and predict by.
This is wrong. We have 13K of warming at the last glaciation/interglacial twelve thousand years ago that is unexplained unless CO₂ causes it.

Oct 20, 2014
If you were concerned with racism you would stop singling out black people via references to fruit. Yet, here you are making those same references.
I wasn't the one using "watermelon" as an insult. That was you.

Please don't do that here.

Oct 21, 2014
This is wrong. We have 13K of warming at the last glaciation/interglacial twelve thousand years ago that is unexplained unless CO₂ causes it.

What I have read is that under the historic norms of temp cycles, when warming has caused the release of extra CO2, the CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas and maintains the heat for a time. What is happening now is that WE are creating the extra CO2, and the temperature is accelerating at a higher rate than any previous rise.

What humans are now causing has no historic precedent.

Oct 21, 2014
We certainly don't know that. For example, look up the Siberian Traps. Paleontologists believe that an eruption underneath a coal bed caused massive global warming and led to the largest mass extinction in the history of the planet, the Permian Extinction, also called The Great Dying. There is controversy over whether it was the eruption alone, but we know it erupted, we know there was a large coal deposit there, and we know that the equatorial ocean of the time warmed to 40°C (105°F). Read about it here: http://en.wikiped...ric_life

Oct 21, 2014
@Da Schneib
The Siberian Traps eruption was certainly one hell of a cataclysm, but hardly a similar precedent. Those eruptions lasted at least a million years and spewed out a tremendous amount of sulfate aerosols, along with a shitload of dust and smoke. That quickly resulted in a substantial cooling of the planet, rapid growth of ice-caps, and and accompanying drop in global sea level.

Following that (a million years later, +/- a few years), the volcanic gases that had built up during the eruption, CO2 in particular, would have taken over and cause a massive greenhouse effect that flipped the climate into a tremendous warming period. Worse yet, it appears a microbe called Methanosarcina then began growing like crazy in the ecological disaster, discharging huge quantities of methane into Earth's atmosphere.

I don't think that is much of a precedent for the current uniquely man-made problem we're creating. At least I hope not.

Oct 21, 2014
The point of my initial comment is that we are causing the rise in greenhouse gas (CO2) well before it would ever have been released in a natural long-term warming cycle.

Oct 21, 2014
The Siberian Traps eruption was certainly one hell of a cataclysm, but hardly a similar precedent.
The temperature is unquestionable, obtained by δ¹⁸O fractionation measurement.

Don't make stuff up. You'll just get caught lying and look stupid.

Note please that I don't support false arguments in favor of AGCC. Just because I chide deniers for false arguments doesn't mean I support them on my side, either.

Oct 21, 2014
In case anyone wonders, AGCC = Anthropogenic Global Climate Change.

Oct 21, 2014
I'm freaking amazed! Ten comments in a row without a moron trying to play!

A new first, and probably the last time. It was OK for a minute though...

Oct 21, 2014
I'm freaking amazed! Ten comments in a row without a moron trying to play!

A new first, and probably the last time. It was OK for a minute though...

Then you chimed in...

Oct 22, 2014
Don't make stuff up. You'll just get caught lying and look stupid.

I'm sorry but I fail to understand what you are implying. I know what the Siberian Traps, Deccan Traps and quite a few extinction events were about. Everything I wrote above is information that has been uncovered concerning the Siberian event. Human beings were not around. The event was cataclysmic and totally unrelated to either natural cycles, or human interaction.

If you ever read any of my comments, you would know that I post only facts, which I make sure I correctly understand, and have no need to argue about. I might clarify what I thought someone misunderstood, but only to rephrase what I may have not stated clearly enough. I have little interest in useless bantering.

If you figure out how to better explain what the objection to my initial comment was, go ahead. I personally wouldn't, as there are certainly more useful things to do in life.

I hope you didn't hijack the real Da Schneib's account.

Oct 22, 2014
Sorry Da Schneib.

Somehow I missed your comment with the coal-bed info and the Wikipedia reference. I already knew a lot about the Siberian Traps from research I articles I have read before. There is a lot more detail that has been uncovered about what happened during the lengthy Siberian event. Wikipedia failed to include much information.

I use Wikipedia as a general reference, then go to more detailed research if I am interested, or determine the entry is simply ill-informed. I must say that some of the particle and quantum physics entries in Wikipedia have been quite accurate and well written. Others are not so good.

What I wrote is genuine research on the event, it's lengthy effect, and overall contribution to the Permian Extinction.

Oct 22, 2014
Sorry Da Schneib
Accepted. Forgiven. Everybody misses a comment now and again. 5 stars for honesty.

Oct 22, 2014
Human beings were not around. The event was cataclysmic and totally unrelated to either natural cycles, or human interaction.
Worth mentioning that my point was the CO₂ caused catastrophic global warming, it doesn't matter whether it was volcanoes burning coal, humans burning coal, or the Milankovic cycles and their effect on animals in the ocean (at the glacial/interglacial transition). But this is for lurkers; you obviously already got this, Mando.

Oct 22, 2014
Adding on to the Wikipedia article, it's worth noting that this article here on physorg: http://phys.org/n...ate.html
talks about a newly discovered microbe that exhales methane, and this microbe (Methanoflorens) is similar to the Methosarcina microbe mentioned in the article as a potential source of (additional?) warming in the Great Dying.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more