Yet another paper demonstrates warmer temperatures 1000 years ago and even 2000 years ago

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

The temp data has been mined and stations that gave cooler data were eliminated.

The Heartland Institute did an expose of weather reporting stations and found more problems than correct stations.

Bottom line is that the temp data has been screwed with so much it's hard to tell what the real temps were. The CRU claims they lost most of the data, yet they seem to think the data they kept is the gold standard.

CO2 is a trace gas, and the ammount man contributes is a fraction of a fraction of a percent.

If our climate was that sensitive to CO2 we'd have died off long ago.

Last time I looked at atmospheric CO2 it was 383 parts per million, that's less than half of one percent, as I have typed many times before on other threads, just how can so liitle have so much effect?

reply to post by pikestaff


0.1 ppm of lead ingestion can cause damage in a human. just because it sounds like a small number doesn't mean it can't do harm.

reply to post by pikestaff


The same way that 7-10 ppm of arsenic in human hair is considered safe, but 11 ppm is indicative of arsenic toxicity.

The Christiansen/Ljungqvist reconstruction:

We use a reconstruction method, LOCal (LOC), that recently has been shown to confidently reproduce low-frequency variability.

www.clim-past.net...

However that method may not quite live up to the claim, at least not as an accurate reconstruction for actual temperatures.

Because the proxy noise variance at low frequencies cannot be directly estimated, and thus has to be regarded as unkown, it is more safe to regard a reconstruction with the LOC method as providing an estimate of the upper bound of the large-scale low-frequency temperature varibility rather than one with a correct estimate of this variance.

journals.ametsoc.org...

In other words, Christiansen/Ljungqvist may have demonstrated what the maximum temperatures could have been, not what they actually were.

Regarding the tree ring study (Esper et al), here's what one of the scientists involved with the study says of it and the distorted interpretations of it.

However, the study actually does none of the above. "Our study doesn't go against anthropogenic global warming in any way," said Robert Wilson, a paleoclimatologist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland and a co-author of the study, which appeared July 8 in the journal Nature Climate Change. The tree rings do help fill in a piece of Earth's complicated climate puzzle, he said. However, it is climate change deniers who seem to have misconstrued the bigger picture.

"This data is spatially specific. You would expect to see this trend in northern Scandinavia, but not in the Alps," Wilson said. "Almost all models show that the current global warming is probably warmer overall than that warming."

But Wilson, Schmidt and the vast majority of climate scientists agree: human-caused warming of the entire globe now overwhelms those subtle, regional heat redistributions. World temperatures are now pushing in only one direction: up.

www.livescience.com...

reply to post by Kali74

Arsenic levels in the human body have been observed in detail; thus the confidence in the 'safe' and 'unsafe' levels. We also have some similar observations on carbon dioxide health effects:

The effects of increased CO2 levels on adults at good health can be summarized:

• normal outdoor level: 350 - 450 ppm
  
• acceptable levels: < 600 ppm
  
• complaints of stiffness and odors: 600 - 1000 ppm
  
• ASHRAE and OSHA standards: 1000 ppm
  
• general drowsiness: 1000 - 2500 ppm
  
• adverse health effects expected: 2500 - 5000 ppm
  
• maximum allowed concentration within a 8 hour working period: 5000 ppm

The levels above are quite normal and maximum levels may occasionally happen from time to time.

Source: www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

Also:

Extreme and Dangerous CO2 Levels

• slightly intoxicating, breathing and pulse rate increase, nausea: 30,000 ppm
  
• above plus headaches and sight impairment: 50,000 ppm
  
• unconscious, further exposure death: 100.000 ppm

Source: www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

(Formatting tags added to the above excerpts to reproduce page layout)

If you want to farther expand acceptable and unacceptable levels of CO2 based on environmental effects, much more empirical data is required to achieve a safe level atmospherically as pertains to global energy balance.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by miniatus


That depends specifically on the moisture in the environment.. it's surely not been the case in OBSERVABLE situatiions... you might call it agenda.. but farmers tend to be independent folks .. many of my family are farmers in the midwest.. things are not great for them ... drought is bad news..

Think what you want.. but reality isn't so much in your favor so far.

The problems that most farmers have been having is that cities/governments have been hogging the water which the farmers can't use to irrigate their fields... That's the real situation, and the fact that you don't know this tells me you haven't researched it at all.

What is happening now is similar to the "California Water Wars" at the beginning of this century.

I don't like to link to wikipedia but a lot of people like it, so here is what wikipedia has to say about this century old war.
en.wikipedia.org...

Here is part of what is happening now...again...

Transcript


JUDY WOODRUFF: Now: California's water wars are back, as the state struggles to transfer a vital resource from where it falls to where it's needed.

NewsHour correspondent Spencer Michels reports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the area south of Sacramento where most of the state's water converges and an area that's crucial to new plans.

SPENCER MICHELS: At the center of a century-long debate over California water is the delta, a jumble of rivers, sloughs, canals and islands surrounded by levees.

It's the spot where the water and snow that falls on the Sierra Nevada Mountains ends up, on its way to San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. It's a beautiful area for fishing, boating and farming. The land is fertile. The water is plentiful. Farmers can pump right out of the Sacramento River for free, and the crops are robust.

Much of this water is pumped across the delta and sent to where the people are, in the arid and populous southern part of the state and to some parts of the San Francisco Bay area. But residents of this half-a-million-acre watery landscape in northern California are concerned that the state and federal governments, along with powerful, thirsty interests further south, some of them corporate farming operations, will divert more of their water and ruin their land and their livelihoods.
...

www.pbs.org...

Also, what you obviously don't know, or understand is the fact that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 makes most, if not all green biomass on the planet grow stronger, taller, and yield more products which means more harvests/food for people...

Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

and as a matter of fact...

Rebecca Lindsey June 5, 2003

Leaving aside for a moment the deforestation and other land cover changes that continue to accompany an ever-growing human population, the last two decades of the twentieth century were a good time to be a plant on planet Earth. In many parts of the global garden, the climate grew warmer, wetter, and sunnier, and despite a few El Niño-related setbacks, plants flourished for the most part.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

Also, with higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than now all plants make better use of water, which means they use LESS water leaving more water for humans and animals...

...
In the study of Maroco et al. (1999), Zea mays plants growing at an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 1100 ppm exhibited stomatal conductances that were 71% lower than rates displayed by control plants growing in air containing 350 ppm CO2. Likewise, Volin et al. (1998) reported that stomatal conductances in two C4 grasses grown at twice-ambient CO2 concentrations were significantly lower than those displayed by their respective controls. Moreover, in an open-top chamber study conducted on a tallgrass prairie, Adams et al. (2000) noted that a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration caused consistent reductions in stomatal conductances and transpirational water losses in the dominant C4 grass (Andropogon gerardii), thus contributing to significant increases in water-use efficiency.

Similar CO2-induced increases in water-use efficiency have been quantified by Conley et al. (2001), who reported that Sorghum bicolor grown in FACE plots receiving 570 ppm CO2 exhibited water-use efficiencies that were 9 and 19% greater than those exhibited by ambiently-growing plants under well-watered and water-stressed conditions, respectively. In addition, in the previously-mentioned study of Maroco et al. (1999), Zea mays grown at 1100 ppm displayed a water-use efficiency that was 225% greater than that displayed by control plants grown at 350 ppm CO2.

In summary, it is clear that C4 plants do indeed respond positively to increases in the air's CO2 concentration by exhibiting reduced stomatal conductances and transpirational water losses, which contribute to increases in water-use efficiency. Hence, knowledgeable researchers are suggesting that the long-held view that C4 plants will not be benefited by elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2 needs to be replaced with this more correct assessment (Wand et al., 1999; Zhu et al., 1999). Clearly, as the atmospheric CO2 concentration increases, most C4 plants will almost certainly display increases in water-use efficiency, which should allow them to better deal with conditions of water stress. Consequently, this phenomenon should allow plants of the future to expand their ranges into areas where they currently cannot survive due to limited soil moisture availability, thereby contributing to a great "greening of the globe."
...

www.co2science.org...

The atmospheric CO2 level currently is around 380ppm-400ppm, it is not constant, and the fact that the areas that have been warming the most during the ongoing Climate Change have been far away from sources of CO2 should be telling anyone with a brain that CO2 and pollution are not the cause of the ongoing Climate Change...

...
Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...

These facts should clearly tell anyone that CO2 is not a problem and in fact the Earth should have MORE in order to feed the population better and conserve water...

These are not the only facts which debunk the AGW hoax, "they are only a taste of the truth."

I didn't realize that Europe, which in school I was taught was a continent, dictated global temperatures.

reply to post by twfau


Except that the rain doesn't get deposited where it should.

So, all of a sudden,the midwest of the United States doesn't get rain, the rain moves east. So suddenly, the Uk gets torential downpours and floods that wash away precious farming soil, and the breadbasket turns into the desert.

Originally posted by pasiphae
reply to post by pikestaff

 

0.1 ppm of lead ingestion can cause damage in a human. just because it sounds like a small number doesn't mean it can't do harm.

Except that atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant and in fact is needed and used by all green biomass on the planet...

There is not "excess of atmospheric CO2", in fact there is a LACK of atmospheric CO2...

At the levels that CO2 exist on Earth it is neither detrimental, nor the cause of "the massive warming, or the ongoing Climate Change which started in the early 1600s...

reply to post by twfau

nevermind

reply to post by QBSneak000


We are between cooling/warming periods. Which means the temps should be staying constant.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by pasiphae
reply to post by pikestaff

 

0.1 ppm of lead ingestion can cause damage in a human. just because it sounds like a small number doesn't mean it can't do harm.

Except that atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant and in fact is needed and used by all green biomass on the planet...

This has to do with AGW....how

There is not "excess of atmospheric CO2", in fact there is a LACK of atmospheric CO2...

my my, lala land yet again.

At the levels that CO2 exist on Earth it is neither detrimental, nor the cause of "the massive warming, or the ongoing Climate Change which started in the early 1600s...

Well, at least we all know you just speak out of your bum for no good reason

Originally posted by nixie_nox
I didn't realize that Europe, which in school I was taught was a continent, dictated global temperatures.

Would you care to inform us to whom you were responding to?...

If you are talking about the Medieval or Roman Warm Periods those warming periods were GLOBAL in nature, and there are hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers that demonstrate this fact.

Anyway, since you didn't have the "insight" to quote who you were responding to my answer might be the wrong one.

But it seems that a lack of insight is what the AGW believers have a lot of, and have a need for a "belief" even whens it is false/wrong...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by nixie_nox
I didn't realize that Europe, which in school I was taught was a continent, dictated global temperatures.

Would you care to inform us to whom you were responding to?...

If you are talking about the Medieval or Roman Warm Periods those warming periods were GLOBAL in nature, and there are hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers that demonstrate this fact.

This is false. You keep repeating nonsense. It was regional.

reply to post by moniesisfun


*laughs*

Good ol EU, it wouldn't be a GW thread without his ususal verbal diahrrea.

AT least that post wasn't 6 pages of graphs and links so he can troll.

Originally posted by moniesisfun

This has to do with AGW....how

So you have no idea that the AGW religous belief states that anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause of the Global Warming, and Climate Change?...

If you haven't learnt this by now you shouldn't try to meddle in these discussions which amount ALWAYS to nothing but empty rhetoric and hot air...

Originally posted by moniesisfun
my my, lala land yet again.

Didn't you read the sources I gave?... At a level of 1,200 -1,500ppm of CO2 most plants grow and produce yields 25% -60% more than at present levels, that is a CLEAR indication that the amount of atmospheric CO2 at present is LACKING...

Originally posted by moniesisfun
Well, at least we all know you just speak out of your bum for no good reason

Of course when you can't deny the evidence try to name call and belittle the messenger... A clear sign of a lack of intelligence, and having no argument at all...

Originally posted by nixie_nox


*laughs*

Good ol EU, it wouldn't be a GW thread without his ususal verbal diahrrea.

AT least that post wasn't 6 pages of graphs and links so he can troll.

So the people posting evidence are trolling, while those who keep insulting to no end, and talking nothing but rhetoric and hot air with no real evidence to support their beliefs are not the trolls?...

You have even changed the meaning of what a troll is...

The AGW religious camp sure are a hilarious bunch at least...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by moniesisfun

This has to do with AGW....how

So you have no idea that the AGW religous belief states that anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause of the Global Warming, and Climate Change?...

You present a strawman. AGW is about science. The fact that anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause of AGW has nothing to do with your statement that it's a pollutant whatsoever. It indirectly causes AGW. Please read some science.

If you haven't learnt this by now you shouldn't try to meddle in these discussions which amount ALWAYS to nothing but empty rhetoric and hot air...

Again, strawman.

Didn't you read the sources I gave?... At a level of 1,200 -1,500ppm of CO2 most plants grow and produce yields 25% -60% more than at present levels, that is a CLEAR indication that the amount of atmospheric CO2 at present is LACKING...

No, it's a clear indication that you have poor logical capacities. If the plants could adequately absorb the current rates of CO2 being pumped out by industry, there wouldn't be a rise in atmospheric CO2, or a drop in PH in the oceans. How you imagine that 1.200-1,500ppm is ideal due to plants absorbing more.... is beyond me, and a clear sign of idiocy.

Of course when you can't deny the evidence try to name call and belittle the messenger... A clear sign of a lack of intelligence, and having no argument at all...

Actually, you're the one who usually plays that card. Your "evidence" has been debunked, over and over again, yet you continue on...

Originally posted by moniesisfun

This is false. You keep repeating nonsense. It was regional.

Ooooh...regional when peer-reviewed research from all over the globe state that it happened in Europe, the Antarctic, Africa, North America, Central America, South America, China and all of Asia among other places yet "it was just a regional event"?...

Like I said before, the AGW religious camp sure are a hilarious bunch...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Oh, I forgot to add the part where you are predictable too.