Paper: ‘Summer temperatures were about 10°C warmer than today, even though the concentration of atmospheric CO2 was similar’

From AAAS: From Russia with Lovely Data

Climate and the atmospheric concentration of CO2 are closely linked. Brigham-Grette et al. (p. 1421, published online 9 May) present data from Lake El’gygytgyn, in northeast Arctic Russia, that shows how climate varied between 3.6 and 2.2 million years ago, an important interval in the global cooling trend that accelerated rapidly at the end of the Miocene. Summer temperatures were about 10°C warmer than today, even though the concentration of atmospheric CO2 was similar.

Pliocene Warmth, Polar Amplification, and Stepped Pleistocene Cooling Recorded in NE Arctic Russia

Brigham-Grette et al.

Understanding the evolution of Arctic polar climate from the protracted warmth of the middle Pliocene into the earliest glacial cycles in the Northern Hemisphere has been hindered by the lack of continuous, highly resolved Arctic time series. Evidence from Lake El’gygytgyn, in northeast (NE) Arctic Russia, shows that 3.6 to 3.4 million years ago, summer temperatures were ~8°C warmer than today, when the partial pressure of CO2 was ~400 parts per million. Multiproxy evidence suggests extreme warmth and polar amplification during the middle Pliocene, sudden stepped cooling events during the Pliocene-Pleistocene transition, and warmer than present Arctic summers until ~2.2 million years ago, after the onset of Northern Hemispheric glaciation. Our data are consistent with sea-level records and other proxies indicating that Arctic cooling was insufficient to support large-scale ice sheets until the early Pleistocene.

About these ads

56 thoughts on “Paper: ‘Summer temperatures were about 10°C warmer than today, even though the concentration of atmospheric CO2 was similar’

  1. Just to help keep time frame(s) and terminology straight, the lastest edition of the Global Stratigraphic Nomenclature committee has designated the following boundaries (some) for the Cenozoic epochs:

    Miocene 23.03 ma – 5.332 ma
    Pliocene 5.332 ma – 2.588 ma
    Pleistocene 2.588 ma – 0.011700 ma

    If this portion of the Russian platform did not develop into a full-blown glacial episode until 2.2 ma, it would be strong evidence that the Pleistocene had some significant variation WITHIN the hemispheres.

  2. summer temperatures were ~8°C warmer than today, when the partial pressure of CO2 was ~400 parts per million. Multiproxy evidence suggests extreme warmth and polar amplification during the middle Pliocene.

    This is the future that we are headed for.

    Welcome to MIS-31 (X2)
    Welcome to the Anthropocene

  3. Forest fires happen from time to time. If you build your house in the middle of a forest or immediately adjacent to a forest, the chances of your house burning down increases. This is not difficult to fathom.

  4. summer temperatures were ~8°C warmer than today, when the partial pressure of CO2 was ~400 parts per million. Multiproxy evidence suggests extreme warmth and polar amplification during the middle Pliocene.

    Sure, if you carve out the isthmus of Panama and reconnect the tropical Atlantic / Pacific, maybe.

  5. There has never been any correlation in the geological record between CO2 and temperature. We have had ice ages when CO2 levels were several times todays and we have had hot temperatures when they were about the same as today. Can’t say anything about when CO2 was less than pre-industrial levels because we were at a record all time CO2 low for planet earth. But the misanthropes would want us to deplete the atmosphere of CO2 so as to more rapidly extirpate humans.

  6. Very easy answer to why and how temperatures could be warmer but That plant loving gas C02 is the same.
    Axis of the planet was different. Earth has not always had the same axis.

  7. Reason why I say axis of earth was different now then now.
    One impact from a large meteorite, commit or asteroid in the right placement can change our seasons as we know them on earth in a split second.
    Even earth quakes can change the rotation speed of the earth.

  8. jai mitchell says:

    June 21, 2013 at 12:33 pm

    Do stop your wailing and gnashing of teeth, you dimbo.

  9. jai mitchell says:

    “summer temperatures were ~8°C warmer than today, when the partial pressure of CO2 was ~400 parts per million. Multiproxy evidence suggests extreme warmth and polar amplification during the middle Pliocene. This is the future that we are headed for.”

    Why would you say that when the evidence shows CO2 had nothing to do with the warmer temperatures? It doesn’t really matter to you what the evidence shows. A sheet of ice could swallow Minnesota and you would say, “Just wait until all that hidden heat in the deep oceans finally makes it way to the surface, and you’ll all be sorry!” Isn’t that what you would say?

  10. jai mitchell says:

    “summer temperatures were ~8°C warmer than today, when the partial pressure of CO2 was ~400 parts per million. Multiproxy evidence suggests extreme warmth and polar amplification during the middle Pliocene. This is the future that we are headed for.”
    ****************************

    How many times does geologic history have to be explained to you?

    Ice sheet glaciation began on Antarctica at the Eocene/Oligocene boundary despite higher CO2 levels than now not because of the One True Gas but because deep sea channels opened between the that continent & Australia & South America, forming the Southern Ocean.

    Ice sheet glaciation began on North America & Europe at the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary despite CO2 levels similar to today’s not because of lower levels of the laudable but made laughable Magic Gas then, but because the Isthmus of Panama closed off the previous oceanic circulation pattern.

    Far from the prime driver of climate change, CO2 levels result from cooler or warmer climate, which is largely under the control of water movements, solid, liquid & gas, forced by the sun & orbital mechanics. You continue to confuse cause & effect.

  11. jai mitchell

    You need to take off the headphones and listen to reason.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  12. Chris @NJSnowFan says:
    June 21, 2013 at 1:17 pm

    “Axis of the planet was different. Earth has not always had the same axis.”

    Exactly!, the earths axis can and does change, most likely this is what causes a lot of the long term changes that have occurred on earth, glaciation and interglacial periods can be caused by changes in the earths axis. It’s actually one of the major players in climate change my opinion.

    “One impact from a large meteorite, comet or asteroid in the right placement can change our seasons”

    I wouldn’t think asteroid strikes would change the axis of the planet by very much in relation to the potential devastation they could cause anyway, but we share our solar system with other large bodies that are constantly interacting with the earth and frequently perturbing its orbit and there is a natural precession of the solar system as a whole at play, these factors can change earths orbit and axis even at an incredibly small rate that are only noticeable over long periods of time.
    The good news is; we can build very accurate models by observing the planets and other large bodies to understand where and when these interactions will occur.

  13. Mark Hladic

    Helpful, thanx. So the period after 11700 yrs ago is called wot? The Holocene? Or Anthropocene – or maybe Peccatacene?

  14. We can return to the warmunists their own question – with interest. Concerning the last half of the 20th century with rising temps and CO2 they ask smugly “what else but CO2″ can be causing the warming?

    Well, how about 3 million yrs ago? 8 deg C warmer than now with identical CO2.

    What else can be causing the warming?

    It clearly is not CO2.

  15. jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 12:33 pm
    This is the future that we are headed for.
    Welcome to MIS-31 (X2)
    Welcome to the Anthropocene

    Thanks for the good laugh jai.
    Don’t worry, even if we made the Panama channel, it does not cancel the effect of the Panama isthmus, build up around 3 million years ago and which caused the change of the climate.
    It is not the magic gas that did it.

  16. Kudos to those who can respond to jai mitchell without violating good taste or the site guidelines. Bravo!

  17. Mark Hladik says:
    June 21, 2013 at 12:24 pm

    If this portion of the Russian platform did not develop into a full-blown glacial episode until 2.2 ma, it would be strong evidence that the Pleistocene had some significant variation WITHIN the hemispheres.
    ###

    I think you are a bit confused. Full blown glaciation of the Norther Hemisphere did not develop until the mid Gelasian. Redefining the base of the Pleistocene to coincide with the base of the Gelasian moved off of the start of full blown glaciation. This is where the base of the Pleistocene used to be defined, which makes little sense. The old definition was like defining the start of a race as the point at which some cares reach maximum speed, as apposed to when the cars start to accelerate.

  18. jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 12:33 pm

    summer temperatures were ~8°C warmer than today, when the partial pressure of CO2 was ~400 parts per million. Multiproxy evidence suggests extreme warmth and polar amplification during the middle Pliocene.

    This is the future that we are headed for.

    Ordovician ice age, co2 at 4,000ppm.

  19. jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 12:33 pm
    …and polar amplification during the middle Pliocene.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Well jai, do you even know what the term “polar amplification” means? Can you explain in your own words the physics by which it is expected to exist? Let’s see if you’re just a troll throwing terms around or if you actually have reason, thought, and logic behind your remarks. Should only take you a paragraph or two. Let’s see what you got.

  20. It’s people like Jai Mitchel that make me feel even more strongly that AGW and CAGW is a hoax. I like to hear both sides of a story to test what I think. If Jai well represents the alarmist side of the story, then I can feel confident that we’ll be done with this wrong-headed energy policy nonsense very soon.

  21. Here is Lake E’s temps (from the paper) and CO2 from 4.0 Mya to 1.5 Mya.

    Wake me up when you find the correlation.

  22. Desert Yote: point taken; however, the synchonity of glacial pulses/initiation was not simultaneous within or between the hemispheres. That is all I was trying to point out.

    Phlogiston: glad to help. Also, my bad — it is the Internation Commission on Stratigraphy. I was having an extended senior moment, and could not recall off the top of my head the formal group in charge of our stratigraphy.

    Apologies for the misunderstandings,

    Mark H.

  23. jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 1:36 pm
    Stephen Richards. . .

    for your viewing pleasure. . .enjoy :)
    —————————————————
    Pluck that video clip off the WUWT popup ads. Did you jai?

    Thanks anyway for giving me a clearer understanding about how your mind works which is great because now I dont need to read your comments.

  24. Mark Hladik says:
    June 21, 2013 at 5:34 pm
    Desert Yote: point taken; however, the synchonity of glacial pulses/initiation was not simultaneous within or between the hemispheres. That is all I was trying to point out.
    ###

    I guess I read more into your comment then intended. I totally agree with your point. In fact, the variations in the timings of glacial events is one of the reasons that make the redefinition of the base of the Pleistocene to coincide with the base of the Gelasian such good idea. Now if we could just get rid of that Holocene monstrosity!

  25. Did “Newclear” something at Berkeley..

    but no award that he showed.

    I should have taken a screen grab.

    oh. isn’t that Muller’s roost ? which thread did Jai first appear on ?

  26. Let’s keep the arguments with Jai on site and not go poking around into anyone’s personal life.

  27. Jai, if the world was 8C warmer in the past with CO2 levels virtually identical to what they are now, why is the world not 8C warmer now? There is only one answer; because there are other more important factors that influence climate. Tilt of the Earth’s axis as mentioned before being one, solar output, clouds, water vapour, volcanic eruptions being others.
    Do you accept this?

  28. skunky says:
    I have a bridge for sale. It crosses the Thames, and has two big towers. £50,000,000 and it’s yours. email me at scammer@nigeria.com

    um, sorry, but if you want to make the sale, you have to put the words “I am a government paid climate scientist”, somewhere in the brochure.

    Sale to the bletheren… guaranteed !!!

  29. Hey, we don’t need to go back 2 million years to find warm northern latitude temperatures. There were hippos basking in London and Norfolk some 0.5 million years ago:

    http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2004/press_release_3230.html

    Quote:
    Rare fossilised remains of two ancient hippos have been discovered in Norfolk by scientists at the Natural History Museum and Queen Mary, University of London. The newly found fossil bones of hippo, found alongside horse, hyena, fish and a variety of rodent remains, provide a rare glimpse of the life and landscape of East Anglia 500-780,000 years ago. The excavation site provides abundant evidence for environmental change and possibly points towards a unique find of animals existing in a warm period in the UK’s geological history that has never previously been recorded.
    Endquote.

  30. There still are lots of hippos in Norfolk. Go into any downtown shopping mall in Norwich at the weekend and you can see them waddling around grazing and looking for mud baths to wallow in.

  31. @Michel..

    ouch !! because its true !!

    worrying about climate change is not an issue…….

    the next burger… much more so !!!

  32. michel says: June 22, 2013 at 2:20 am
    There still are lots of hippos in Norfolk. Go into any downtown shopping mall in Norwich at the weekend and you can see them waddling around.
    __________________________________

    ROFL.

    But come, come, now, there are many more hippos in the US. Does this mean that the US is warming?

    .

  33. I wasn’t able to get past the paywall for the paper. When I look at this http://s8.postimg.org/s62bnbmyd/Lake_E_and_CO2_4_to_1_5_Mya.png it’s hard to see any direct correlation between temperature and CO2, let alone figure out the likely direction of any causal relationship. It appears temperature may be leading swings in CO2, but sometimes they de-correlate, so…? Question for someone with access- the yellow line is expressing “CO2 at 3.0C per doubling -280 ppm equals 0.0C”, are they back calculating CO2 based on temperatures assuming a sensitivity of 3.0C per doubling of CO2? Do they ever display raw CO2 calculations for the sedimentary data? What would happen to this chart if you assumed a sensitivity of 1.6? Would their CO2 numbers skyrocket? Or was the CO2 independently calculated?

  34. Jai Mitchell spending a lot of time at skeptical science can be dangerous to your intellectual development. Having the kind of conversation over there that we are having here is impossible because it is first and foremost an echo chamber for global warming promotion that deletes and edits almost all contrary opinions.

  35. I’m fed up with reading replies from people responding to activist nonsense.

    I know it’s very hard to do faced with an onslaught of trash but please the ignore the troll and pay attention to the topic of the post. The troll gets off on your responses; if you ignore her she will go away.

    If you don’t, the troll wins and the blog suffers.

  36. Chris @NJSnowFan [June 21, 2013 at 1:17 pm] says:

    “One impact from a large meteorite, comet or asteroid in the right placement can change our seasons”

    Sparks [June 21, 2013 at 2:06 pm] says:

    “I wouldn’t think asteroid strikes would change the axis of the planet by very much in relation to the potential devastation they could cause anyway, but we share our solar system with other large bodies that are constantly interacting with the earth and frequently perturbing its orbit and there is a natural precession of the solar system as a whole at play, these factors can change earths orbit and axis even at an incredibly small rate that are only noticeable over long periods of time.”

    I think you’re right about a “typical” asteroid, however there are apparently much bigger things. For example, whatever smacked into Uranus seriously affected it’s axial tilt and the consequences were enormous …

    Uranus has an axial tilt of 97.77 degrees, so its axis of rotation is approximately parallel with the plane of the Solar System. This gives it seasonal changes completely unlike those of the other major planets. Other planets can be visualized to rotate like tilted spinning tops on the plane of the Solar System, while Uranus rotates more like a tilted rolling ball. Near the time of Uranian solstices, one pole faces the Sun continuously while the other pole faces away. Only a narrow strip around the equator experiences a rapid day-night cycle, but with the Sun very low over the horizon as in the Earth’s polar regions. At the other side of Uranus’s orbit the orientation of the poles towards the Sun is reversed. Each pole gets around 42 years of continuous sunlight, followed by 42 years of darkness.[47] Near the time of the equinoxes, the Sun faces the equator of Uranus giving a period of day-night cycles similar to those seen on most of the other planets. Uranus reached its most recent equinox on December 7, 2007.[48][49]

    Northern hemisphere ---- Year ----- Southern hemisphere
     Winter solstice .... 1902, 1986 ... Summer solstice
     Vernal equinox ..... 1923, 2007 ... Autumnal equinox
     Summer solstice .... 1944, 2028 ... Winter solstice
     Autumnal equinox ... 1965, 2049 ... Vernal equinox

    One result of this axis orientation is that, on average during the year, the polar regions of Uranus receive a greater energy input from the Sun than its equatorial regions. Nevertheless, Uranus is hotter at its equator than at its poles. The underlying mechanism which causes this is unknown. The reason for Uranus’s unusual axial tilt is also not known with certainty, but the usual speculation is that during the formation of the Solar System, an Earth-sized protoplanet collided with Uranus, causing the skewed orientation.[50] Uranus’s south pole was pointed almost directly at the Sun at the time of Voyager 2’s flyby in 1986. The labeling of this pole as “south” uses the definition currently endorsed by the International Astronomical Union, namely that the north pole of a planet or satellite shall be the pole which points above the invariable plane of the Solar System, regardless of the direction the planet is spinning.[51][52] A different convention is sometimes used, in which a body’s north and south poles are defined according to the right-hand rule in relation to the direction of rotation.[53] In terms of this latter coordinate system it was Uranus’s north pole which was in sunlight in 1986.

    In the game of cosmic billiards there are certain shots that can ruin your entire day ( and lengthen it substantially :-).

  37. phlogiston says:
    June 21, 2013 at 2:20 pm
    We can return to the warmunists their own question – with interest. Concerning the last half of the 20th century with rising temps and CO2 they ask smugly “what else but CO2″ can be causing the warming?

    Well, how about 3 million yrs ago? 8 deg C warmer than now with identical CO2.

    What else can be causing the warming?

    It clearly is not CO2.

    ########################

    Many things cause fire. Arson, lightening, you can expand the list.

    Your house burns down. The fire marshall comes. He notes that arson was not the cause.
    Your child asks “does that mean arson cannot cause fires?”

    of course you correct him. Arson causes fires. Fires are caused by other things. finding a fire not caused by arson, doesnt mean arson doesnt cause fires. And also, finding a fire doesnt mean that it must be caused by arson.

    The planet warms when the output does not equal the input.
    when watts out do not equal watts in. it warms to restore this balance.

    The imbalance can be caused by many things: GHGs is one of those things. C02 is one of many GHGs.

    However the mystery of past temperatures unravels, nothing in that narrative will change the fundamental fact of physics: GHGs cause warming. they dont cause cooling. Finding a fire not caused by arson, does nothing to prove that arson doesnt cause fires.

  38. Steven Mosher says:
    June 22, 2013 at 3:51 pm
    phlogiston says:
    June 21, 2013 at 2:20 pm
    We can return to the warmunists their own question – with interest. Concerning the last half of the 20th century with rising temps and CO2 they ask smugly “what else but CO2″ can be causing the warming?

    Well, how about 3 million yrs ago? 8 deg C warmer than now with identical CO2.

    What else can be causing the warming?

    It clearly is not CO2.

    ########################

    Many things cause fire. Arson, lightening, you can expand the list.

    Your house burns down. The fire marshall comes. He notes that arson was not the cause.
    Your child asks “does that mean arson cannot cause fires?”

    of course you correct him. Arson causes fires. Fires are caused by other things. finding a fire not caused by arson, doesnt mean arson doesnt cause fires. And also, finding a fire doesnt mean that it must be caused by arson.

    The planet warms when the output does not equal the input.
    when watts out do not equal watts in. it warms to restore this balance.

    The imbalance can be caused by many things: GHGs is one of those things. C02 is one of many GHGs.

    However the mystery of past temperatures unravels, nothing in that narrative will change the fundamental fact of physics: GHGs cause warming. they dont cause cooling. Finding a fire not caused by arson, does nothing to prove that arson doesnt cause fires.
    +++++++++++++++++++
    Again Mosher creates a strawman. The point which you want to redirect people from, is that CO2 was claimed the culprit of the warming with almost 100% certainty. The evidence does not bear that out. CO2 has not been shown to have caused all or most of the warming as has been argued.

    To pick your point apart and shred it, there is evidence that arson has caused fires. But no evidence that CO2 caused the warming –none. So your strawman is baseless. Stop trying to delude people with strawmen scenarios. Your cleverness is diabolical, but it does not fool me or many others.

  39. Yes, yes… but … it was … colder then ;-) that’s what made it warmer

    Sorry, couldn’t resist the thumb-nose

  40. ralfellis says:
    June 22, 2013 at 12:16 am

    Re: Norfolk hippos from 500-780,000 years ago.

    They swam in the Thames at the site of London as recently as the Eemian, ~125,000 years ago or more recently. Just more evidence that this interglacial is cooler than the previous one, without coal-mining & burning or cement-making by Neanderthals.

    And if our cousins across the pond think that you have fine examples of hippos in Norfolk malls, you haven’t been to any Wal-Mart in the USA.

  41. Summer temperatures were about 10 degrees higher than now in northeastern Siberia during the previous interglacial 125 000 years ago when CO2 was at 300 ppm. And hippos were not only swimming in the Thames,they were living at 1300 feet altitude on the Yorkshire moors (google “Victoria Cave”). And there were water buffaloes on the Rhine and monkeys in Bavaria.

  42. @Phlogiston, 2.13pm

    I have always liked the geological term ‘Recent’, although rather a lot has actually happened in that brief period of time.

    But my one-time structural geology professor, who came for South Wales and had little respect for any rock that couldn’t stand up on its own, dismissed the whole lot, saying: “Anything after the Cretaceous is gardening!”

  43. Steven Mosher says:
    June 22, 2013 at 3:51 pm

    phlogiston says:
    June 21, 2013 at 2:20 pm
    We can return to the warmunists their own question – with interest. Concerning the last half of the 20th century with rising temps and CO2 they ask smugly “what else but CO2″ can be causing the warming?

    Well, how about 3 million yrs ago? 8 deg C warmer than now with identical CO2.
    What else can be causing the warming?
    It clearly is not CO2.

    ########################

    Many things cause fire. Arson, lightening, you can expand the list.
    Your house burns down. The fire marshall comes. He notes that arson was not the cause.
    Your child asks “does that mean arson cannot cause fires?”

    My child would probably say “yes it was me Daddy”. But that’s beside the point.

    This all seems to boil down to the induction / deduction issue of epistemology and the philosophy of the scientific method, especially Karl Popper’s laws, which we have argued here before and no doubt will again. Your position appears to be the precise opposite of that of Karl Popper. Popper says it is harder to prove something right (induction) and easier to prove it wrong (deduction). You say that induction (A=B thus B=C thus C=D ….) and a series of linear logical steps is the only way to obtain scientific knowledge (assumes the system is simple, linear and rigid so each step is robust), while any attempt to disprove anything can be avoided by bringing in arguments of causality and complexity and houses burning down etc. (the system is now complex so refutation can be escaped).

    Poppers stark statement was that “there are no inductive inferences” and it may be possible to argue that this is too extreme a position. There are some inductive inferences. In 1862, Darwin, commenting on the discovery of an orchid flower with a particularly long neck, predicted that a moth with an equally long tongue would pollinate this orchid. Such an moth was discovered in 1903 (and was observed pollinating the orchid in 1997). Thus an inductive inference by Darwin was successful, Darwin 1 Popper 0. More recently Peter Higgs reflected on the fact that fields tend to go with particles, so thinking about gravity – a field – predicted the eponymous boson as the particle associated with gravitational fields. Now the Higgs boson has been found. And in maths of course all is inductive and everything works since theory and reality are one.

    Its all about complexity. In the two examples there is a simple and direct linear connection between two things, moth’s tongue and orchid flower length, field and particle. But Popper’s arguments have most authority in the scientific study of complex systems, such as biology and climate (in this sense Popper was ahead of his time). Here the hubris of human intellect is on dangerous ground if it uses linear catholic logic to chart a path of logical inferences through unknown and chaotic territory.

    Arrhenius’ greenhouse theory is a good example. It all looked so simple at first – CO2 absorbs IR so the earth is warming in a CO2 blanket. But then reality steps in and it all got more and more complex. There was logarithmic decline in effect and saturation, issues of absorbance bands, interaction with water vapour, clouds and trying to endlessly prove every feedback has to be positive contrary to all engineering and systems understanding, emission heights etc. etc. And now it turns out that Arrhenius might have stepped on a thermodynamic landmine. Ilya Prigogine’s nonlinear thermodynamics of dissipative structures throws another log across the road. The correct scientific conclusion to take would be – so its much more complex than the simple Arrhenius cartoon so lets look at real world data, including historic CO2 and temperature data – and see what we can deduce from that. But no – too much political capital and intellectual hubris was invested in CAGW for that to be acceptable, so we have this furious rearguard action defending this complex inductive AGW hypothesis.

    If you make a canoe out of spaghetti and sugar icing and try to ride it over Niagara falls, the chance of it emerging intact at the bottom are about the same as the chance of the revised Arrhenius AGW hypothesis emerging intact from the real complexities and nonlinear chaotic dynamics of atmosphere, ocean and climate. (But the same canoe in the vacuum of space might sail splendidly.)

    In complex systems Popper reigns supreme – you have to start with observation, with theory following, not the other way around. Things can be proved wrong more easily than being proved right.

  44. CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 80 times as many molecules capturing 560 times as much heat making 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?

    Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

    See The Two Minute Conservative via Google or: http://adrianvance.blogspot.com and when you speak ladies will swoon and liberal gentlemen will weep.

  45. Ashby says:
    June 22, 2013 at 7:37 am
    ——————–

    The CO2 numbers are all from other independent studies. In climate science, they really, really like to cherrypick just one of these estimates at, let’s say 2.85 Mya, when it was 400 ppm and try to say that was CO2 at the time. But the temperature numbers are from 3.6 Mya to 2.2 Mya. And there are 100s of other CO2 estimates in this same timeframe (and coming from the same dataset as the 400 ppm) that are ignored and not talked about.

    I put all the (reliable method) CO2 estimates in all the charts I make because over this period, it fluctuates between 220 ppm to 416 ppm within the short timeframe and there is no reason to say it it was 400 ppm. Obvious enough.

    Now to put CO2 (in ppm) on the same chart as temperature (in anomaly C), they should be done on the same basis so they are comparable. The CO2 ppm is just converted into temperature AnomalyC by the 3.0C per doubling formula. If you changed it to 1.6C per doubling, the CO2 line would just be flatter.

Comments are closed.