- Joined
- 9 July 2006
- Posts
- 5,994
- Reactions
- 1,652
Ice Cores Reveal Green Arctic
Analyses of sediment cores show that Arctic summers 3.6 million years ago were a good 8 degrees C warmer than they are today, and supported Douglas Fir and hemlock. Sophie Bushwick reports.
The Arctic wasn't always covered in ice. Samples of sediment layers beneath a frozen lake show this region used to be a lot warmer””and may thaw out again in the future. The work is in the journal Science. [Julie Brigham-Grette et al, Pliocene Warmth, Polar Amplification, and Stepped Pleistocene Cooling Recorded in NE Arctic Russia]
El'gygytgyn, a Russian lake 100 kilometers north of the Arctic Circle, contains layers of sediment that date back to the lake's formation 3.6 million years ago. Analyses of sediment cores have revealed that back then summers reached about 15 to 16 degrees Celsius, a good 8 degrees warmer than modern Arctic summers. These warm temperatures, which supported plants like Douglas fir and hemlock, lasted until about 2.2 million years ago.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=ice-cores-reveal-green-arctic-13-05-10
I assume you are referring to:
97% of published papers (that are subject to peer group review) with a position on global warming agree that global warming is happening and we are the cause.
http://www.theconsensusproject.com/
Pretty good argument imo.
... global warming is happening and we are the cause. ...
... the evangelistic believers in the Carbon Armageddon.
Of course born again Apocalysts will refuse to be convinced and will turn up the volume on their shrill end times prophesies, but scientifically, the Cook MoFo has shot himself in the foo.... head.
.But in one fell swoop, he pole-axed his entire credibility and esteem with his latest survey (the 97%) by the process being so transparently and ludicrously faulted and biased... and the conclusion (ie the 97%)so woefully and amateurishly manipulated, so easily exposed as a con
If one uses proper scientific method and attempts to falsify, the argument disintegrates and vapourizes into a mushroom cloud, raining toxic fallout on the whole Orwellian alarmist movement; a watershed for proper science and a knock-out blow to the evangelistic believers in the Carbon Armageddon.
I see you are using your favourite argumentative fallacy again..
Yes of course. If you bash/deride/demonise the scientific community as loudly and voraciously as possible then nothing they say can possibly be taken seriously. Can it Wayne ?
On this topic your totally full of it mate. one stinking cesspit of bile.
And I'll talk nicely if you (Wayne..) stop trashing the entire scientific community that currently recognizes the significance and gravity of human produced climate change.
Secondly, part of scientific method is the process of falsification... childs play in this particular instance (Cook's 'survey'). The whole thing nuked in the time it takes to make a cup of coffee. I apologise if that sublimates one of the central tenets of your religion, but 'that's science'.
Matt Ridley has joined the real climate debate
The climate sceptic's interpretation of my study as final endorsement of his position means we can move on.
It isn't often, as a climate scientist, that you find your research being enthusiastically endorsed by climate sceptic Matt Ridley in the Times. We published a paper in the journal Nature Geoscience on Sunday giving a new best estimate of 1.3C for the warming expected due to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the time when carbon dioxide levels reach double what they were before the industrial revolution (known as Transient Climate Response, or TCR).
Ridley is excited about this, because he feels it means that until his teenage children reach retirement age, they won't have to worry about global warming. And he is worried that government policies are misguided because they place their faith in climate models, like one of the Met Office models that puts the warming instead at 2.5C, almost twice our estimate.
But no one places their faith in any single climate model, and no one has done so for 20 years. Climate scientists are all well aware the Met's model (HadGEM2) is at the top end of the current range. The Met Office's advice to government is based on the range of results from current climate models, not just their own.
The relevant comparison is not with the 2.5C response of one model, but with the average of climate models used by the UN's climate science panel in its upcoming major report, which is 1.8C. Now 1.3C is 30% less than 1.8C, but this is hardly a game changer: at face value, our new findings mean that the changes we had previously expected between now and 2050 might take until 2065 to materialise instead. Then again, they might not: 1.8C is within our range of uncertainty; and natural variability will affect what happens in the 2050s anyway.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?