Evidence from warm past confirms recent IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity

February 4, 2015
A composite image of the Western hemisphere of the Earth. Credit: NASA

New evidence showing the level of atmospheric CO2 millions of years ago supports recent climate change predications from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

A multinational research team, led by scientists at the University of Southampton, has analysed new records showing the CO2 content of the Earth's atmosphere between 2.3 to 3.3 million years ago, over the Pliocene.

During the Pliocene, the Earth was around 2ºC warmer than it is today and atmospheric CO2 levels were around 350-400 parts per million (ppm), similar to the levels reached in recent years.

By studying the relationship between CO2 levels and during a warmer period in Earth's history, the scientists have been able to estimate how the climate will respond to increasing levels of carbon dioxide, a parameter known as 'climate sensitivity'.

The findings, which have been published in Nature, also show how climate sensitivity can vary over the long term.

"Today the Earth is still adjusting to the recent rapid rise of CO2 caused by human activities, whereas the longer-term Pliocene records document the full response of CO2-related warming," says Southampton's Dr Gavin Foster, co-author of the study.

"Our estimates of climate sensitivity lie well within the range of 1.5 to 4.5ºC increase per CO2 doubling summarised in the latest IPCC report. This suggests that the research community has a sound understanding of what the climate will be like as we move toward a Pliocene-like warmer future caused by human greenhouse gas emissions."

Lead author of the study, Dr Miguel Martínez-Botí, also from Southampton said: "Our new records also reveal an important change at around 2.8 million years ago, when levels rapidly dropped to values of about 280 ppm, similar to those seen before the industrial revolution. This caused a dramatic global cooling that initiated the ice-age cycles that have dominated Earth's climate ever since."

The research team also assessed whether was different in warmer times, like the Pliocene, than in colder times, like the glacial cycles of the last 800,000 years.

Professor Eelco Rohling of The Australian National University in Canberra says: "We find that climate change in response to CO2 change in the warmer period was around half that of the colder period. We determine that this difference is driven by the growth and retreat of large continental ice sheets that are present in the cold ice-age climates; these ice sheets reflect a lot of sunlight and their growth consequently amplifies the impact of CO2 changes."

Professor Richard Pancost from the University of Bristol Cabot Institute, added: "When we account for the influence of the ice sheets, we confirm that the Earth's climate changed with a similar sensitivity to overall forcing during both warmer and colder climates."

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

More information: Plio-Pleistocene climate sensitivity from a new high-resolution CO2 record, Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature14145

Related Stories

Hot tropical oceans during Pliocene greenhouse warming

June 29, 2014

The impact of the greenhouse gas CO2 on the Earth's temperature is well established by climate models and temperature records over the past 100 years, as well as coupled records of carbon dioxide concentration and temperature ...

Climate chief warns of 'urgency' as CO2 levels rise

April 29, 2013

The UN's climate chief called for urgency Monday as she opened a new round of global talks amid warnings that Earth-warming carbon dioxide levels were approaching a symbolic threshold never seen in human history.

Late Cretaceous Period was likely ice-free

September 24, 2013

For years, scientists have thought that a continental ice sheet formed during the Late Cretaceous Period more than 90 million years ago when the climate was much warmer than it is today. Now, a University of Missouri researcher ...

Recommended for you

Caves in central China show history of natural flood patterns

January 19, 2017

Researchers at the University of Minnesota have found that major flooding and large amounts of precipitation occur on 500-year cycles in central China. These findings shed light on the forecasting of future floods and improve ...

67 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Science Officer
1.9 / 5 (26) Feb 04, 2015
Considering that during most of the last 2.6 million years, the Earth was covered by those massive ice sheets, we can use all the global warming we can get.
blakereik
2 / 5 (24) Feb 04, 2015
Is there more CO2 because it was warmer, or is it warmer because there was more CO2? This is one question that it is harder to figure out the answer to based on the evidence at hand.
fire3000
4.2 / 5 (24) Feb 04, 2015
More evidence supporting the link between CO2 levels in the air and global average temperature. It is about time the silly deniers shut up and support efforts to reduce emissions.
GuitarJimbo
2 / 5 (27) Feb 04, 2015
The charts from the Vostok ice core samples show increases in CO2 lagging increases in temperature during the Pliocene by hundreds of years. It's kind of difficult to make the argument that cause follows effect. Didn't anyone bother to consider that perhaps a third actor is causing both the increase in temperature and the increase in CO2. Like maybe the sun?
bill_walters
2.2 / 5 (24) Feb 04, 2015
I'm in my 2nd week of Globewarmers school. Its darn tough acting as stupid as they want us to be. Next week they teach how to lie, cover up our lies and lie some more. We have to do this with a look as if we are edumacted and smart. The week after that they teach us how to fold our tin-foil hats and when were done we get our graduation pictures taken wearing them.

They said be careful after they dumb-down us, we may start walking into glass doors, but that's not the worst part....they say we will back up and walk right back into it........repeatedly.
PeakSpecies
4.1 / 5 (23) Feb 04, 2015
The vast majority of the 7.24-billion humans now occupying planet Earth are unaware that tens-of-millions of years worth of stored carbon, in the form of fossil fuels, has been dumped into the Earth's atmosphere during the last 200 years by us. It is no wonder most people don't recognize this as a significant event. It could help explain why vast numbers of them are living in a profound state of denial.

When I was born, in 1945, the CO2 level in the atmosphere was approximately 310 ppm. This last year it went over 400 ppm. During the next generation's lifetime it is likely to exceed 500 ppm considering there is little evidence that we have managed to cut back much despite the last 40-years of warnings.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (22) Feb 04, 2015
Is there more CO2 because it was warmer, or is it warmer because there was more CO2? This is one question that it is harder to figure out the answer to based on the evidence at hand.
In the past, CO2 often followed a warming environment, such that it made a warming climate warmer. This is because the oceans tend to absorb CO2 when they cool, and release it when they warm. So, as the climate gets warmer, they release more CO2, leading to more warming, thus releasing more CO2, etc. It's called a feedback loop.

That is not always the case, however. In cases where there is extreme volcanism, such as when the Siberian Traps formed, CO2 can act as a driver; as such, it can lead the warming of the climate. In that case, the CO2 drives climate warming, leading to more CO2 release, warming the climate more, etc - another feedback loop.

In our case, we are adding a lot of CO2 to our atmosphere. As such, it is currently acting as a driver of warming.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (23) Feb 04, 2015
The charts from the Vostok ice core samples show increases in CO2 lagging increases in temperature during the Pliocene by hundreds of years. It's kind of difficult to make the argument that cause follows effect. Didn't anyone bother to consider that perhaps a third actor is causing both the increase in temperature and the increase in CO2. Like maybe the sun?


Well actually, yes this has been looked at. As have a number of other scenarios. If your ineterested in learning a bit about it, start here: http://www.skepti...fect.htm
dgosselin58
1.3 / 5 (23) Feb 04, 2015
I find it quite interesting that CO2 is considered a major player in global temperatures. It is not. If all of you science professionals ought to know, CO2 is a very minor element in the atmosphere, and plays a very minute role in temperature. H2O is the major element in the atmosphere and is the major factor on global temperature. Let us not forget how much the Sun contributes to our climate. If you are reading this article and are a scientist and believe that global warming exists, I suspect you missed the very basic earth science lessons on the water cycle, or some one is paying you to push global warming.
Vietvet
4.8 / 5 (22) Feb 04, 2015
I find it quite interesting that CO2 is considered a major player in global temperatures. It is not. If all of you science professionals ought to know, CO2 is a very minor element in the atmosphere, and plays a very minute role in temperature. H2O is the major element in the atmosphere and is the major factor on global temperature. Let us not forget how much the Sun contributes to our climate. If you are reading this article and are a scientist and believe that global warming exists, I suspect you missed the very basic earth science lessons on the water cycle, or some one is paying you to push global warming.


Thanks for the public display of your ignorance.
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (19) Feb 04, 2015
I find it quite interesting that CO2 is considered a major player in global temperatures. It is not. If all of you science professionals ought to know, CO2 is a very minor element in the atmosphere, and plays a very minute role in temperature. H2O is the major element in the atmosphere and is the major factor on global temperature. Let us not forget how much the Sun contributes to our climate. If you are reading this article and are a scientist and believe that global warming exists, I suspect you missed the very basic earth science lessons on the water cycle, or some one is paying you to push global warming.
Ignorance on public display.

Do you know what the carbon cycle is?
partial recall
1.2 / 5 (17) Feb 04, 2015
I could use some global warming. The high temperatures haven't surpassed 3° F for the last week. That's the coldest I can remember in my 65 years. I'll start worrying when the snow stops accumulating and the ice starts melting. This is Maine not the arctic but it feels like it.
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (16) Feb 04, 2015
I could use some global warming. The high temperatures haven't surpassed 3° F for the last week. That's the coldest I can remember in my 65 years. I'll start worrying when the snow stops accumulating and the ice starts melting. This is Maine not the arctic but it feels like it.


Yea, weather is an interesting phenomena. The Eastern US has really gotten hit over the last couple of days or so. Ever seen that much snow before?
exyoeman
1.6 / 5 (19) Feb 04, 2015
If you don't pay close attention, you can actually miss the Liberal double talk; they're very good at it.

Did you catch it? The world was much warmer than this in the far past, when there were no human-caused carbon emissions, but increased carbon emissions today have to be caused by human beings.
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (19) Feb 04, 2015
If you don't pay close attention, you can actually miss the Liberal double talk; they're very good at it.

Did you catch it? The world was much warmer than this in the far past, when there were no human-caused carbon emissions, but increased carbon emissions today have to be caused by human beings.
Wow, nice fishing expedition. So lets follow your logic here: because there were episodes in the past where there was higher CO2 levels, and when those episodes occurred there were no humans, and given that there is high CO2 levels now and there are humans, that means that somehow humans can't be responsible for CO2 levels now. That about your point?

Red herring. That's what you are actually fishing for.

Who is the liberal BTW? The ones doing the study? The lead author of the study? The peers who reviewed the study? The owners of the magazine the study was published in? The editor of that magazine? The author of the article? His editor? Someone else?

Andrew_Jackson
1.6 / 5 (19) Feb 04, 2015
The only problem with the IPCC's forecasts is that (by their own admission!), they have been consistently overstated! The average temperature is NOT rising, despite increasing CO2 levels! Even the IPCC admits this, and the number of increasingly contrived (and often downright comical!) excuses just keep coming!
jinx_fogle
1.8 / 5 (19) Feb 04, 2015
So did man cause climate change then? If not who did, the dinosaurs? Could it be that climate change is a natural occurrence? Could it possibly be that the world temperature fluctuates from something other than man??? I'm an engineer and I don't see cause and effect here.
hamzatula
3.4 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2015
For those who are interested in the actual science of climate change in the long view of geological and biological history, there is a terrific book called "Deep Future" by Curt Stager. Stager critiques both apocalyptic doomsday perspectives as well as AGW denial arguments, always based on solid scientific analysis. I strongly recommend it.
bradalb0
1.9 / 5 (18) Feb 04, 2015
Yep, there they are again. Those CO2 blinders. When you believe the ONLY controlling factor for the earth's heat balance is CO2, then that's the ONLY thing you look at. Forget about solar variation, albedo, volcanic activity, orbital wobble, etc. Not to mention whether the CO2 level is a cause or a result or unrelated. It's gotta be CO2. It's gotta be CO2. I feel like breaking out into song!
runrig
4.5 / 5 (15) Feb 04, 2015
Considering that during most of the last 2.6 million years, the Earth was covered by those massive ice sheets, we can use all the global warming we can get.

Wow, what an electifyingly acerbic statement, and completely nonsensical..
runrig
4.5 / 5 (16) Feb 04, 2015
The charts from the Vostok ice core samples show increases in CO2 lagging increases in temperature during the Pliocene by hundreds of years. It's kind of difficult to make the argument that cause follows effect. Didn't anyone bother to consider that perhaps a third actor is causing both the increase in temperature and the increase in CO2. Like maybe the sun?

Keep up my friend ... you're waayy behind the loop.
In the past CO2 did lag temps because the Earth's orbital changes drove the temp change and the sinks/sources switched.
Err, the CO2 is coming first now (you know - the A bit in AGW) and is the driver and the temp the feed-back ... which allows more H2O to evap, which drives the temp, which drives further CO2 from oceans, etc.
OK now?
No didn't think so.
And yes, surprise, surprise they "did bother to think". You haven't spotted that the Emperor's naked all on your own you know
runrig
4.1 / 5 (16) Feb 04, 2015
I find it quite interesting that CO2 is considered a major player in global temperatures. It is not....


OK I give up. I believe you, I really do. You obviously know better than the world's experts.
Well silly me. Silly world. Lets banish all learning and study of the world. The omniscient has spoken.
FFS^3
runrig
4.5 / 5 (15) Feb 04, 2015
Yep, there they are again. Those CO2 blinders. When you believe the ONLY controlling factor for the earth's heat balance is CO2, then that's the ONLY thing you look at. Forget about solar variation, albedo, volcanic activity, orbital wobble, etc. Not to mention whether the CO2 level is a cause or a result or unrelated. It's gotta be CO2. It's gotta be CO2. I feel like breaking out into song!

Well, did you just jump in here and make that up as you went along?
No CO2 is not the ONLY driver of climate. Just the one now. For reasons the world's experts now agree on, based on empirical science known of for ~150yrs. Not up for argument.
If you think your "other" likely causes are the reason and the experts have missed it - are they incompetent? (thousands of them in multi-fields) Are you a genius? The Nobel awaits if so.They are frauds then? Sorry, but if you think that you're far beyond where the Fairies live.
mooster75
4.5 / 5 (15) Feb 04, 2015
Yep, there they are again. Those CO2 blinders. When you believe the ONLY controlling factor for the earth's heat balance is CO2, then that's the ONLY thing you look at. Forget about solar variation, albedo, volcanic activity, orbital wobble, etc. Not to mention whether the CO2 level is a cause or a result or unrelated. It's gotta be CO2. It's gotta be CO2. I feel like breaking out into song!

Okay, let's hear your theory. There is no doubt that CO2 in the atmosphere has increased. What other controlling factor have you discovered that has changed?
SamB
1.5 / 5 (15) Feb 04, 2015
Ignorance on public display.



Not to worry Maggnus. We can tolerate you...
GoldenBoys
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 04, 2015
Record Cold Grips Hawaii- Star Advertiser, 2-4-2015
The unusually cold weather over the last two days continued to break records in Hawaii, including a record for this date that goes back over 122 years in Honolulu. The National Weather Service said Monday morning's low temperature of 57 degrees beat the low temperature for this date of 60 degrees of temperatures recorded at the Honolulu Airport.

It also beat a older low temperature record for Honolulu set in 1893 of 58 degrees. On Kauai, the low of 57 degrees at the Lihue Airport beat tied a record of 57 degrees last seen in 1993. It's the second day of record low temperatures. Four low temperatures records were tied or broken Sunday morning.

The low of 54 degrees in Lihue and Kahului Sunday broke records for Kauai and Maui. The previous record of 59 degrees in Lihue was set in 2005. The low in Kahului broke a record of 55 set for this date in 1971.
watergeek
1.8 / 5 (16) Feb 04, 2015
To Maggnus, Runrig and the other ultra-smug climate change alarmists - I won't bother to argue with you as you obvioulsy have an answer (or well-rehearsed talking point/propaganda) for everything. How about you go get tattoos saying "I belive man-made climate change is a threat to humanity and I'm afraid" and I'll go get one saying "I believe man-made climiate change is hysterical nonsense driven by political ideology" and we'll get together in 20 years and see who's more embarassed of their tattoo? Are you up for it? Time for folks like you to put your money where your big fat mouths are.
danny_easterling
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 04, 2015
The fact that man contributes <4% of the co2 to the biosphere makes what man can do trivial. Even if we gave control to the UN and went back to living in caves burning dung to stay warm---climate is still a dynamic system that we do not fully understand. Its hubris of the highest kind to think we can control the climate tinkering with our 4% of the co2.
dadpt
1.5 / 5 (13) Feb 04, 2015
It makes sense that as it get cold plants metabolism slows down. Plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere less plants equals more CO2. So man added how much CO2 3 million years or so ago. What bothers me the believers seem to almost want man to be responsible for it. Like they crave it or something. I'd say they believe therefore they are denial. Kind of hypocritical of them. If you believe you are destroying the planet please stop destroying the planet. Stop using electricity and any modern convenience. Just read an article that said farming was worse for the planet than a desert. So I guess you believers need to stop eating too! Sounds a little suspicious to me. I believe man was put here to figure out how to start everything all over again when the stars start burning out. Everything and everyone will be in trouble then.
marcush
4.5 / 5 (15) Feb 05, 2015
The fact that man contributes <4% of the co2 to the biosphere makes what man can do trivial. Even if we gave control to the UN and went back to living in caves burning dung to stay warm---climate is still a dynamic system that we do not fully understand. Its hubris of the highest kind to think we can control the climate tinkering with our 4% of the co2.


What is hubris of the highest kind is a bunch of arm chair web pundits telling us climate scientists are wrong all the time. 4% not enough in your expert opinion? Have you ever done a physics course in your life? Do you know what forcing means? Start here:

http://en.m.wikip..._forcing

If you read this site you will also have seen from various articles, including this one, that our climate models based on established physics have gotten it pretty much right. Go back to school before offering your opinions on scientific matters.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (14) Feb 05, 2015
...
The unusually cold weather over the last two days continued to break records in Hawaii, including a record for this date that goes back over 122 years in Honolulu. The National Weather Service said Monday morning's low temperature of 57 deg beat the low temperature for this date of 60 degrees of temperatures recorded at the Honolulu Airport.

It also beat a older low temperature record for Honolulu set in 1893 of 58 degrees. On Kauai, the low of 57 degrees at the Lihue Airport beat tied a record of 57 deg last seen in 1993. It's the second day of record low temperatures. Four low temperatures records ....

The low of 54 deg in Lihue and Kahului Sunday broke records .......

Yep, that'll be weather. It's winter in the NH. Shall I find the warm bits for you? The energy in the each hemisphere averages out you know (obviously don't). You'll need Met knowledge for that. Think PJS wiggles. Oh, no you cant, silly me. Yet you opine on here. Google Dunning Kruger.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (14) Feb 05, 2015
To Maggnus, Runrig and the other ultra-smug climate change alarmists - I won't bother to argue with you as you obvioulsy have an answer (or well-rehearsed talking point/propaganda) for everything. How about you go get tattoos saying "I belive man-made climate change is a threat to humanity and I'm afraid" and I'll go get one saying "I believe man-made climiate change is hysterical nonsense driven by political ideology" and we'll get together in 20 years and see who's more embarassed of their tattoo? Are you up for it? Time for folks like you to put your money where your big fat mouths are.


No, I just know what I'm talking about. You know, like you're more of an expert than me at what you do. Oh dear, I've appealed to authority. Heck.
You said it - "I believe" - That's the difference between enlightenment and ignorance from your own mouth. Some people believe in a "imaginary friend" - don't make it true. Not in the real world. But "belief" will do it everytime, eh?
runrig
4.5 / 5 (15) Feb 05, 2015
The fact that man contributes <4% of the co2 to the biosphere makes what man can do trivial. Even if we gave control to the UN and went back to living in caves burning dung to stay warm---climate is still a dynamic system that we do not fully understand. Its hubris of the highest kind to think we can control the climate tinkering with our 4% of the co2.

Bolllocks:
Actually it's 0.04% of the atmosphere and as ~99% of the atmosphere (read not relevant) is transparent to IR (energy that leaves Earth to space). That 0.04% is bloody important.
We (mankind) have raised it by 40% since pre-industrial times.
So it's actually it's the control valve for escaping heat (with H2O/WV as a feedback)
As you Americans say (you must be - they nearly always are) "go figure".
Oops, forgot again. You cant/wont will you? It's "belief what does it cos I don't want you commie librils stealing my tax dollars.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (15) Feb 05, 2015
Golden:
It's winter in the NH. Shall I find the warm bits for you?

You could deny this...
(took 10sec with Google...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

Mind, spect you reckon NOAA arel part of the global socialist scam.
Eddy Courant
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2015
And still NYC and DC were not under water.
alanjohn
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 05, 2015
It strikes me how the alarmist crowd all sooner or later start their juvenile name calling behavior. Nearly each and every one of them will resort to using words like ignorant, idiot or moron OR resort to sarcasm in what they tell themselves are cleverly worded retorts. Many of them also love to make it into a political agenda with anyone disagreeing with them automatically becoming one of several slang words for a Republican or conservative. This seems to be pretty universal behavior on the part of climate change alarmists with them seemingly unaware that their smug comments actually cast more light on their own intellectual levels than they do on those that they are directing their comments at.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 05, 2015
And still NYC and DC were not under water.

Yeah, that's another problem with deniers .... They have a compressed sense of time. Could you please point to any science that said they would be, this century. Even Next?.
I'd get back in your spaceship and zoom off at 95% of the SoL and when you get back they will.
FFS^3
runrig
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 05, 2015
It strikes me how the alarmist crowd all sooner or later start their juvenile name calling behavior. Nearly each and every one of them will resort to using words like ignorant, idiot or moron OR resort to sarcasm in what they tell themselves are cleverly worded retorts. Many of them also love to make it into a political agenda with anyone disagreeing with them automatically becoming one of several slang words for a Republican or conservative. This seems to be pretty universal behavior on the part of climate change alarmists with them seemingly unaware that their smug comments actually cast more light on their own intellectual levels .....


Err, some of us on here are actually not US citizens my friend.
It's perhaps because you in the US see AGW as politics and not science. Seems you will have to address it in the forthcoming elections - voters recently polled by the NYT say they want your representatives to do that very thing - and not ignore it.

Ctd
runrig
4.4 / 5 (14) Feb 05, 2015
Ctd

Common sense usually prevails .... Else we wouldn't have survived as a species. The fact that it takes people who are not ignorant, not idiotic and not morons to achieve that is a comment perhaps your society should address sometime.
Typical diversion tactics. It is you that talk bollocks and we who try to avail you of your invented facts. The world does not work by the ignorant telling the knowledgable they are wrong. Just like telling your Uni lecturer in a class that he is wrong and you know better. Unless you are Isaac Newton. See common sense. The perjoratives are generally deserved because *you* refuse to listen and I must have answered all the climate myths dozens of times over. Often to the same people.
FFS
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2015
For those who are interested in the actual science of climate change in the long view of geological and biological history, there is a terrific book called "Deep Future" by Curt Stager. Stager critiques both apocalyptic doomsday perspectives as well as AGW denial arguments, always based on solid scientific analysis. I strongly recommend it.


A good and entertaining read. I also recommend it.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (13) Feb 05, 2015
I find it quite interesting that CO2 is considered a major player in global temperatures. It is not....


OK I give up. I believe you, I really do. You obviously know better than the world's experts.
Well silly me. Silly world. Lets banish all learning and study of the world. The omniscient has spoken.
FFS^3


No giving up! If you read through the threads, except for the most dense of the stupid, you'll note that almost all of them are now admitting that there is, in fact, warming. They are arguing cause, our contribution, and effects, but on the whole they are all admitting the planet is warming.

That's a big step forward from even a couple of years ago runrig! No more talk of this "giving up" thing!!
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 05, 2015
Ignorance on public display.



Not to worry Maggnus. We can tolerate you...


I'm impressed SamB - you know what tolerate means! You even spelt it right! What a GOOD boy!!!
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (14) Feb 05, 2015
Record Cold Grips Hawaii- Star Advertiser, 2-4-2015 **weather stuff***blah blah more weather blah blah**
.

Weather, pretty amazing right!! Pretty scary though, when you think about it. This means the PJS is meandering even worse, bringing colder air all the way down to Hawaii! That is not a good sign, as it suggests that our affect in the planetary climate system is becoming more pronounced every day.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (14) Feb 05, 2015
To Maggnus, Runrig and the other ultra-smug climate change alarmists - I won't bother to argue with you as you obvioulsy have an answer (or well-rehearsed talking point/propaganda) for everything. .

Watergook, probably another incarnation of crying waterbaby. Ultra smug! I thought I was just smug. Yes, the answers are actually easy to find - why I bet even someone like you could do it! That's because it is science. Science is that stuff that scientists do, and which they try to teach other not scientists to do too! You could learn some of it maybe, if you are not too blinded by your ideology.

Well, if your sister/wife lets you out of the house.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (13) Feb 05, 2015
The fact that man contributes <4% of the co2 to the biosphere makes what man can do trivial. Even if we gave control to the UN and went back to living in caves burning dung to stay warm---climate is still a dynamic system that we do not fully understand. Its hubris of the highest kind to think we can control the climate tinkering with our 4% of the co2.


Wow, whole pile of myths all rolled into one rant! Yes, it is amazing that man can have such an effect on Earth's climate, just by allowing a waste gas to escape into the atmosphere. Do you have any idea how much weight 4% of the atmosphere equals?

Why ever would "we" give control to the UN? Give them control of what? They can't control the weather either dumdum.

Hubris indeed! Hubris is thinking we can dump gigga tonnes of a long lasting, heat trapping, waste gas into our atmosphere without it having some effect. Even more hubris is to stupidly think we shouldn't do something about it.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2015
*snip* Plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere less plants equals more CO2.
Hoq quaint.
So man added how much CO2 3 million years or so ago.
None.
...bothers me {is} the believers seem to almost want man to be responsible for it.
Oh, something else burns fossil fuels? What, do pray tell?
I'd say they believe therefore they are denial. Kind of hypocritical of them. If you believe you are destroying the planet please stop destroying the planet. Stop using electricity and any modern convenience. Just read an article that said farming was worse for the planet than a desert. So I guess you believers need to stop eating too! Sounds a little suspicious to me. I believe man was put here to figure out how to start everything all over again when the stars start burning out. Everything and everyone will be in trouble then.
Well, you go then!!
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2015
It strikes me how the alarmist crowd all sooner or later start their juvenile name calling behavior. Nearly each and every one of them will resort to using words like ignorant, idiot or moron OR resort to sarcasm in what they tell themselves are cleverly worded retorts. Many of them also love to make it into a political agenda with anyone disagreeing with them automatically becoming one of several slang words for a Republican or conservative. This seems to be pretty universal behavior on the part of climate change alarmists with them seemingly unaware that their smug comments actually cast more light on their own intellectual levels than they do on those that they are directing their comments at.

Wow, you sure told us! Do you know what a paragraph is? Can you define snide? How about vacuous? Hint: it's like your opinion.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 05, 2015
I find it quite interesting that CO2 is considered a major player in global temperatures. It is not....


OK I give up. I believe you, I really do. You obviously know better than the world's experts.
Well silly me. Silly world. Lets banish all learning and study of the world. The omniscient has spoken.
FFS^3


No giving up! If you read through the threads, except for the most dense of the stupid, you'll note that almost all of them are now admitting that there is, in fact, warming. They are arguing cause, our contribution, and effects, but on the whole they are all admitting the planet is warming.

That's a big step forward from even a couple of years ago runrig! No more talk of this "giving up" thing!!

OK :-)
mooster75
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2015
No giving up! If you read through the threads, except for the most dense of the stupid, you'll note that almost all of them are now admitting that there is, in fact, warming. They are arguing cause, our contribution, and effects, but on the whole they are all admitting the planet is warming.

That's a big step forward from even a couple of years ago runrig! No more talk of this "giving up" thing!!

Unfortunately, the final argument on their agenda is "it's too late to do anything now".
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2015
If anything, this confirms any warming today is well within natural variation and is the furthest thing from confirming the AGW Cult's dogma of doom and gloom. But then, what is a desperate cult to do, when nature defies them.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2015
And, in the world where real people live, a recent suit in Canada has ended with a win in a defamation suit by a climate scientist. There will be many more I'm thinking. This is what happens when people lie about others in print.

http://www.desmog...corcoran
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2015
And, in the world where real people live, a recent suit in Canada has ended with a win in a defamation suit by a climate scientist. There will be many more I'm thinking. This is what happens when people lie about others in print.

http://www.desmog...corcoran


Magnus: That is a great post. I would like to see a lot more climate scientists take this step. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2015
Unfortunately, the final argument on their agenda is "it's too late to do anything now".
Actually, their final argument is usually "I don't care what the scientists say, I know there is no global warming because I hate Democrats and the UN is trying to take over the world". After that it's just "na nah na nah na nah" with their fingers pressed firmly into their ears.
Humbled1
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2015
During the Pliocene, the Earth was around 2ºC warmer than it is today and atmospheric CO2 levels were around 350-400 parts per million (ppm), similar to the levels reached in recent years.


Was anyone around to evaluate what the Earth's orbit was 2 million years ago, or how brightly the Sun was shining?

Oh, no, they weren't.

So you can't rule out 2 of the biggest alternatives to your pet theory.
Humbled1
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2015
I'm in favor of clean energy. I want solar and wind to become prevalent.

I just don't feel the need to bankrupt the world economy through alarmism.

I'm a democrat, and I've voted for a democrat almost every time, except when opposed to them for some other moral reason.
nevermark
3.7 / 5 (13) Feb 07, 2015
@Humbled1

So you can't rule out 2 of the biggest alternatives to your pet theory.


Except that is exactly what science, with the help of many kinds of natural records of temperature, has done.

I just don't feel the need to bankrupt the world economy through alarmism.


(1) Your need to "feel" is utterly irrelevant to what is happening. Please disregard your "feelings" and "beliefs" and "intuitions" if you want to form an unbiased understanding, and don't project that way of thinking on others by implying other people "feel the need to bankrupt the world".

(2) Nobody is proposing bankrupting the world is a solution to anything. Even people proposing extreme measures are attempting to mitigate economic/biological damage. You are not talking sense.

Not sure what being a democrat has to do with whether the planet is warming. I feel sorry for anyone who buys into either side of team politics. But few people seem to have the genes for being independent.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2015
Natural "records" eh?

You don't even know what a million years is. 3 million years is pre-grand canyon.

Your pre-programmed mind can't comprehend the fact that geologic forces have re-shaped continental interiors since then for reasons totally unrelated to CO2. Inland seas larger than all the great lakes combined, now long gone, super volcano eruptions depositing tens of meters of ash in a single day, mega droughts, the entire evolution migration, and continental extinction of camels and horses.

A few parts per million of CO2 doesn't even matter compared to that. That inland sea? It drained into the Colorado River within a few days when a natural levee burst. There used to be fresh water shellfish in the lake and geologists can dig their remains from it. It altered the entire regional climate from lakes and marsh lands to desert wastelands. The continents moved 50 miles, or about an entire degree of longitude, in that time too...some more.
howhot2
4.1 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2015
For those who are interested in the actual science of climate change in the long view of geological and biological history, there is a terrific book called "Deep Future" by Curt Stager. Stager critiques both apocalyptic doomsday perspectives as well as AGW denial arguments, always based on solid scientific analysis. I strongly recommend it.

It's crap, and seems ignore the human plight that a 500-600ppm CO2 level would inflict on mankind with 4-8C global average temp changes. It seems to be a perfect book for an AGW skeptic that wants to take the *long* view while ignoring the environmental future of his/her off-spring or the condition of the planet for robust life after the fact.

howhot2
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2015
And still NYC and DC were not under water.

Don't worry. It won't take too long. I have my money that by 2050 a lot of walls start going up.

http://coast.noaa.gov/slr/

Deniers are such goobers.
howhot2
4 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2015
The Al Gore loving @antigoricle quiffs
If anything, this confirms any warming today is well within natural variation and is the furthest thing from confirming the AGW Cult's dogma of doom and gloom. But then, what is a desperate cult to do, when nature defies them.
In a pigs eye!
The only thing desperate is the looser who has to now acknowledge that Al Gore and the Hockey-stick was right all along and eat crow! There is nothing cult about being right!

antigoracle
2 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015
Yes, yes howhot. Here is the proof that Global Warming is man-made.
http://www.forbes...is-year/

LOSER!
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2015
This seems like a good place to put this. One of the best reads I've come across regarding the denial of science: http://ngm.nation...um=email
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2015
This seems like a good place to put this. One of the best reads I've come across regarding the denial of science: http://ngm.nation...um=email

Good piece Maggnus

"It's their very detachment, what you might call the cold-bloodedness of science, that makes science the killer app. It's the way science tells us the truth rather than what we'd like the truth to be. Scientists can be as dogmatic as anyone else—but their dogma is always wilting in the hot glare of new research. In science it's not a sin to change your mind when the evidence demands it. For some people, the tribe is more important than the truth; for the best scientists, the truth is more important than the tribe."
Eddy Courant
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015
Runaway natural variability. And I was so looking forward to milder snowless winters.
Melchizedek0001
2 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2015
"Last fall the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which consists of hundreds of scientists operating under the auspices of the United Nations, released its fifth report in the past 25 years. This one repeated louder and clearer than ever the consensus of the world's scientists: The planet's surface temperature has risen by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 130 years, and human actions, including the burning of fossil fuels, are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the warming since the mid-20th centur"

Yeh!"Exteremely likely"- it says all on the "scientific" method of astrologists! Better flipp a coin to predict tomorrow's temp(50 % chanece you are true: "rise" or "decrease"+learn Taylor's theorem! Remember "Noble" Rome's Club predictions of Disaster (population) from 70's?
mbee1
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2015
this paper is from the University of SouthHampton, the same guys who wrote all those emails trying to cover up the lies in the warming claimes and got caught. This paper does not actually do anything the headline says, if you read it it simply shows the climate changed. The claim about CO2 and climate is another unsupported opinion. One thing you should keep in mind is the current climate is not warming and has not for 18 years, the IPCC slowing, The RSS and UAH data show no warming and even the Giss data which is heavily manipulated to force warming shows no warming since 2001 and no significant warming in two decades. November 2014 snow and ice, 5th highest ever recorded in the Northern hemisphere, half the world, Arctic ice growing since 2013, Antarctic ice growing for years, 5 percent has year. The world is not warming just like it did not from 1940 to 1980 and is still colder than in 1000 AD when the CO2 was half todays levels.
mbee1
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2015
The UN is using the IPCC reports to try and steal your money to in their own word, "redress the wrongs" done to the third world by you and your ancestors living in something more than a mud hut. Yes, to the UN, you are evil because you want to live in something more than a mud hut. want to warm and cool yourself and refuse to give your young daughter to the lords and masters. They want your money, forever, with a large cut for themselves and the rest to go to the elite in the third world who can always use more money. Mann hockey stick was and is a fraud, The IPCC report is an opinion, a political document dressed up with a bunch of wise men signing on board for their cut of the pie. The actual science shows the world is not actually currently warming and that CO2 has zero to do with any warming that has occurred or will occur.

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

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.