Global warming debunked in 4 words

How about we all stop bickering about whos to blame and just simply agree that TAXATION is NOT THE ANSWER and rich assholes that fart, drive, and use every bit as much and probably 10x more than I do, SHOULD NOT PROFIT in any way shape or form due to this "issue" whoever is to blame...

Government Regulation is also NOT THE ANSWER...the answer is SELF REGULATION through the astronomical lesson we are all going to share/learn eventually by behaving the way we do in this "consumption based world" we live in...

so again ill say it one more time, regardless and no matter who is at fault the "answers" and "solutions" thus presented in forms of carbon tax are NOT THE ANSWER...at the very least lets all just simply agree on that...

Originally posted by NadaCambia

It's amazing how dumb these people are. THey think because the government are trying to turn a profit that the entire thing is made-up. Despite the scientific objective facts proving it to be a reality beyond any question.

How can anyone not see the damage we've done, do you all live in the clouds?

Wow...if you continue down this path of calling those of us who do not believe the AGW lie as dumb I am going to show you who are the dumb people, and like always when I respond in kind people don't like it when I show them who really needs to face up the facts.

No one has said that mankind has had no dire consequences on the ENVIRONMENT, but ENVIRONMENT and CLIMATE are two different things. Meanwhile the CLIMATE does control the ENVIRONMENT the ENVIRONMENT does not control the CLIMATE of the planet.

Sequestering atmospheric CO2 is not going to get rid of the plastic island in the Pacific... it is NOT going to stop the pollution of rivers, lakes, and oceans.

This is what the Anthropogenists/AGW believers can't understand, sequestering atmospheric CO2 is NOT going to stop Climate Change, what it will do is make the entire Earth LESS GREEN.... It will stun and even kill the growth of all green biomass which will mean LESS harvests worldwide which means animals and humans will have LESS FOOD...

The AGW "believers" need to wake up, stop their idolizing of the religion that is AGW and LEARN THE FACTS.

Atmospheric CO2 is nothing but BENEFICIAL to Earth, all green biomass, animals and humans...(for the anthropogenists green biomass includes trees, and plants.)

Average atmospheric CO2 on Earth right now is about 380ppm-390ppm meanwhile the optimum levels are about 1,200ppm - 1,500ppm, and some research suggest higher levels are even better for all green biomass and animals, including humans on Earth.

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...

So sequestering atmospheric CO2 will NOT stop Climate Change but will be detrimental to all life on Earth. This is a simple fact that most environmentalists and anthropogenists haven't learnt yet, because they rather believe the people who have been lying to them from day 1, than listen to nature and the hundreds of research and thousands of scientists who say atmospheric CO2 does not cause the warming claimed by Mann, Jones et al, and the UN and the IPCC policy makers.

You want to look for the dumb people, start by looking at a mirror.

Originally posted by Essan
....
So is that why, despite a quiet sun, it's been so much hotter than it was last century?

And again when was it that the Sun started to quiet down?...the end of 2005 beginning of 2006.

What happened about a year or so later after the Sun started to quiet down?... The temperature on Earth went down.

What happened later with the Sun?... It's activity started picking up for a while, and temperatures went up a bit, but it wasn't mainly because of the Sun.

I also showed research that clearly states that as the Sun's activity went down more energy/cosmic rays, and radiation in general increased, but it's source was not the Sun, but FROM OUTSIDE THE SOLAR SYSTEM.

Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High
09.29.2009


September 29, 2009: Planning a trip to Mars? Take plenty of shielding. According to sensors on NASA's ACE (Advanced Composition Explorer) spacecraft, galactic cosmic rays have just hit a Space Age high.

"In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything weve seen in the past 50 years," says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. "The increase is significant, and it could mean we need to re-think how much radiation shielding astronauts take with them on deep-space missions."

science.nasa.gov...

I have already given you several times research that says that something else started warming the Earth's atmosphere after the Sun's activity went down, and whatever it was it's energy was being brought to Earth's atmosphere by the Solar Wind, that although it was weak was/is still working.

Scientists discover surprise in Earth's upper atmosphere
By Stuart Wolpert September 09, 2009

UCLA atmospheric scientists have discovered a previously unknown basic mode of energy transfer from the solar wind to the Earth's magnetosphere. The research, federally funded by the National Science Foundation, could improve the safety and reliability of spacecraft that operate in the upper atmosphere.

"Its like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

The sun, in addition to emitting radiation, emits a stream of ionized particles called the solar wind that affects the Earth and other planets in the solar system. The solar wind, which carries the particles from the sun's magnetic field, known as the interplanetary magnetic field, takes about three or four days to reach the Earth. When the charged electrical particles approach the Earth, they carve out a highly magnetized region — the magnetosphere — which surrounds and protects the Earth.

Charged particles carry currents, which cause significant modifications in the Earth's magnetosphere. This region is where communications spacecraft operate and where the energy releases in space known as substorms wreak havoc on satellites, power grids and communications systems.
....

newsroom.ucla.edu...


But anyway, what has been really happening to the Earth as atmospheric CO2 had been increasing, and although atmospheric CO2 was not the cause of the warming what really has been happening with the warming?

PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Thursday, June 5, 2003
Source: Goddard Space Flight Center

A NASA-Department of Energy jointly funded study concludes the Earth has been greening over the past 20 years. As climate changed, plants found it easier to grow.

The globally comprehensive, multi-discipline study appears in this week's Science magazine. The article states climate changes have provided extra doses of water, heat and sunlight in areas where one or more of those ingredients may have been lacking. Plants flourished in places where climatic conditions previously limited growth.

"Our study proposes climatic changes as the leading cause for the increases in plant growth over the last two decades, with lesser contribution from carbon dioxide fertilization and forest re-growth," said Ramakrishna Nemani, the study's lead author from the University of Montana, Missoula, Mont.
...

www.spaceref.com...

Originally posted by mc_squared
This thread debunked in 3 graphs.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0943566b2fef.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7745da43fdcd.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4b6f4da86d79.jpg[/atsimg]



*yawn*

3 graph's? what about

31,000 scientists.

reply to post by NTMofficial


Pretty sure they were the hockey stick graphs weren't they? You can't forcast anything off models you need to do real life experiments surely it wouldn't be that hard to do in certain biospheres so we can actually see the change and have solid evidence or would that debunk what they are trying to sell?

Originally posted by NTMofficial

3 graph's? what about

31,000 scientists.

Care to tell us what scientists you are talking about?

Thanks for the one liner with no evidence btw, it surely does "settles the science"...

To those that are saying the sun is currently in a weak cycle and due to our climate being warm this means climate change: WRONG.

The sun should be at its strongest point at this period of time but is faultering with less sunspots and will continue to get weaker and weaker, the Earth is actually slowly cooling down as we speak and will continue to do so for at least a century.

Seems the global warming rubbish is the modern version of organised religion ey?

I dont really believe in 'global warming', but i believe the global climate is changing.. for the worse.. and all those millions of tonnes of man made chemicals we've introduced into the atmosphere are going to give it a bitter bite.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

For some years now some other members and myself have been pointing to this. There are more sources of energy which affect the entire Solar System, and hence the Earth, and which can cause changes, including Climate Changes, and these sources are other than the Sun, or even Earth's ghgs, in which WATER VAPOR is the main and most significant ghg, and not CO2.

That’s something that seems to get conveniently glossed over lot. Water vapour is about 100 times more abundant that CO2 and significantly more potent since it absorbs energy over a far-wider energy-wave spectrum, from infrared to visable-light.

The central question at issue however is how much radiation-enhancement the CO2-greenhouse is actually producing. The IPCC use the following equation with I gather is provided by the HITRAN computer-simulation which is a radiative-transfer model and deals specifically with line-by-line spectral computations of greenhouse gases and predicts their radiative forcing characteristics. The equation is: RF = (C1/CO)Inx5.35. ‘RF’ stands for ‘radiative forcing’, ‘C1’ is the final CO2 concentration, ‘CO’ is the initial CO2 concentration and ‘In’ is the ‘natural logarithm of’. Personally I have seen no justification for this equation and have not been able to find derivation for it empirically or theoretically. What specific methods were used in the formulation of this equation remain a mystery to my mind. The HITRAN computer-simulation with which it is based is owned by the US-military establishment and they appear to be keeping the equation close to their chest. Anyway, if we accept it for argument’s sake we can calculate how much radiative forcing the IPCC says that the CO2-greenhouse is actually producing. The pre-industrial concentration of CO2 was 280ppm and today the concentration stands at 390ppm. We therefore have a radiative forcing of 1.772W/sq.m. Notice how the IPCC’s equation doesn’t actually convert CO2 increments into temperature-increments. To calculate that we must use the Stefan Boltzmann law (SB) which the radiative transfer of heat is governed by. The SB-law implies that the current radiative forcing on the surface of earth is 390.11W/sq.m at a baseline temperature of 288K (15C). Adding 1.772W/sq.m to 390.11W/sq.m gives a temperature-increase of [391.8/σ]1/4 = 288.31K = 15.31C. ‘391.8’ is the new surface irradiance in response to the increased downward radiation from CO2, ‘σ’ is Stefan’s Constant and ‘1/4’ is the fourth-power root. So, to date, the total amount of anthropogenic warming from CO2, based deductively on physical law, theoretically can only account for 0.31C of the supposed 0.7C increase since the pre-industrial era. Therefore the IPCC’s claim that human CO2 is responsible for the 0.7C temperature-increase is demonstrably false and in contradiction with the laws of physics.

And this is accepting that we humans have increased CO2 by 40%, which even though is generally accepted, I believe is probably false.

Originally posted by Wulfric


Seems the global warming rubbish is the modern version of organised religion ey?

edit on 12-7-2011 by Wulfric because: (no reason given)

Funny, I see the anti-science global warming deniers as being the ones very similar to religious fundamentalists. Not only in their staunch anti-science stance, but in their close minded dogma as well.

I

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Funny, I see the anti-science global warming deniers as being the ones very similar to religious fundamentalists. Not only in their staunch anti-science stance, but in their close minded dogma as well.

I

Care to tell us and explain what "anti-science" you are talking about?... Last i checked the lies form AGW are being refuted WITH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE...

But I guess if you shut your eyes real hard, cover your hears with your palms and start yelling and repeating "AGW is real" it becomes true to you...

the caps on mars are melting! do they have automobiles and cows as well??

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Funny, I see the anti-science global warming deniers as being the ones very similar to religious fundamentalists. Not only in their staunch anti-science stance, but in their close minded dogma as well.

I

Care to tell us and explain what "anti-science" you are talking about?... Last i checked the lies form AGW are being refuted WITH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE...

Really? I'd love to see the 'scientific evidence' that 'debunks' climate theory models from the past 3 decades. Got any links to this, or just blogs making fun of Al Gore?

But I guess if you shut your eyes real hard, cover your hears with your palms and start yelling and repeating "AGW is real" it becomes true to you...

edit on 14-7-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

I've never had to do that. I base my opinions on the evidence presented, from all sides, constantly questioning and revising.. I suspect you are not doing the same, but are approaching the issue with a pre-determined idea and combing through manufactured opinions to find ones that support this opinion of yours.

Please, feel free to prove me wrong with a detailed, scientifically backed explanation of how "AGW" is refuted using 'science'.

Remember, though, references to someone's opinion about "Climate Gate" or Al Gore's weight are not science.

If they can find a way to tax it they will...wait that's 10 words.
If someone can make money on it....sorry 7 words.
What a sham...3 words getting close.
A pile of bull s... sorry can't write the 4th word and the letter A doesn't count.

Originally posted by 12 stranded dna
the caps on mars are melting!

So?

People have died from cancer for hundreds of thousands of years.

Does that mean no-one dies from being shot?

Just because climate changes naturally does not mean that human activity cannot also change climate.

Even is climate is currently changing naturally it does not mean that human activity is not also changing climate.

It's not one or the other - as some deniers and others (and, indeed, some more vocal, less informed, AGW advocates) might want you to think.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Really? I'd love to see the 'scientific evidence' that 'debunks' climate theory models from the past 3 decades. Got any links to this, or just blogs making fun of Al Gore?

Several of us, including myself have been poisting such research dozens of times in these forums.

Here are some examples.

Cirrus disappearance: Warming might thin heat-trapping clouds

www.uah.edu

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases,\" he said. \"That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space.\"

(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
I've never had to do that. I base my opinions on the evidence presented, from all sides, constantly questioning and revising.. I suspect you are not doing the same, but are approaching the issue with a pre-determined idea and combing through manufactured opinions to find ones that support this opinion of yours.

If you do a search on my posts I ALWAYS give research which backs my arguments. I have been a member of these forums since 2004, and if you actually had researched my profile you would find that my arguments are backed by hundreds of peer-reviewed research.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Please, feel free to prove me wrong with a detailed, scientifically backed explanation of how "AGW" is refuted using 'science'.

Remember, though, references to someone's opinion about "Climate Gate" or Al Gore's weight are not science.

SOME of the other research I have posted before.

On-line Publication Documentation System for Stockholm University
Full DescriptionUpdate record

Publication type: Article in journal (Reviewed scientific)
Author: Grudd, H (Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology)
Title: Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers
In: Climate Dynamics
Publisher: Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg
Volume: 31
Pages: 843-857
Year: 2008
Available: 2009-01-30
ISSN: 1432-0894
Department: Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology
Language: English [en]
Subject: Physical geography, Climatology
Abstract: This paper presents updated tree-ring width (TRW) and maximum density (MXD) from Torneträsk in northern Sweden, now covering the period ad 500–2004. By including data from relatively young trees for the most recent period, a previously noted decline in recent MXD is eliminated. Non-climatological growth trends in the data are removed using Regional Curve Standardization (RCS), thus producing TRW and MXD chronologies with preserved low-frequency variability. The chronologies are calibrated using local and regional instrumental climate records. A bootstrapped response function analysis using regional climate data shows that tree growth is forced by April–August temperatures and that the regression weights for MXD are much stronger than for TRW. The robustness of the reconstruction equation is verified by independent temperature data and shows that 63–64% of the instrumental inter-annual variation is captured by the tree-ring data. This is a significant improvement compared to previously published reconstructions based on tree-ring data from Torneträsk. A divergence phenomenon around ad 1800, expressed as an increase in TRW that is not paralleled by temperature and MXD, is most likely an effect of major changes in the density of the pine population at this northern tree-line site. The bias introduced by this TRW phenomenon is assessed by producing a summer temperature reconstruction based on MXD exclusively. The new data show generally higher temperature estimates than previous reconstructions based on Torneträsk tree-ring data. The late-twentieth century, however, is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around ad 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The 200-year long warm period centered on ad 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century (p < 0.05) and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data. The new tree-ring evidence from Torneträsk suggests that this “Medieval Warm Period” in northern Fennoscandia was much warmer than previously recognized.

www.diva-portal.org...

Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China
Journal Climatic Change
Publisher Springer Netherlands
ISSN 0165-0009 (Print) 1573-1480 (Online)
Issue Volume 26, Numbers 2-3 / March, 1994
DOI 10.1007/BF01092419
Pages 289-297
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, February 07, 2005
Add to marked items
Add to shopping cart
Add to saved items
Permissions & Reprints
Recommend this article


PDF (509.6 KB)Free Preview

Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China
De'Er Zhang1

(1) Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Baishiqiaolu No. 46, 100081 Beijing, China


Abstract The collected documentary records of the cultivation of citrus trees andBoehmeria nivea (a perennial herb) have been used to produce distribution maps of these plants for the eighth, twelfth and thirteenth centuries A.D. The northern boundary of citrus andBoehmeria nivea cultivation in the thirteenth century lay to the north of the modern distribution. During the last 1000 years, the thirteenth-century boundary was the northernmost. This indicates that this was the warmest time in that period. On the basis of knowledge of the climatic conditions required for planting these species, it can be estimated that the annual mean temperature in south Henan Province in the thirteenth century was 0.9–1.0°C higher than at present. A new set of data for the latest snowfall date in Hangzhou from A.D. 1131 to 1264 indicates that this cannot be considered a cold period, as previously believed.

www.springerlink.com...

But hey, that just happened once in recent history, so it is a fluke right?...

Decline Of Roman And Byzantine Empires 1,400 Years Ago May Have Been Driven By Climate Change

ScienceDaily (Dec. 6, 2008) — The decline of the Roman and Byzantine Empires in the Eastern Mediterranean more than 1,400 years ago may have been driven by unfavorable climate changes.

Based on chemical signatures in a piece of calcite from a cave near Jerusalem, a team of American and Israeli geologists pieced together a detailed record of the area's climate from roughly 200 B.C. to 1100 A.D. Their analysis, to be reported in an upcoming issue of the journal Quaternary Research, [size]reveals increasingly dry weather from 100 A.D. to 700 A.D. that coincided with the fall of both Roman and Byzantine rule in the region.

www.sciencedaily.com...

The above coincides with the Roman Warm Period, which several records including the Sargasso Sea data shows to have been a lot warmer than the 20th century warming.

I can't paste and copy form the following due to Copyright issues, but if you are "actually interested" the following shows you an idea of what the climate was during the Roman, the Medieval, the LIA (Little Ice Age) and the temperature up until 1997-8.
www2.tu-berlin.de...

Ok, so we have had WARMER climate change in the past such as the Medieval Warm period, and the Roman Warm Period even though the atmospheric CO2 did not change much.

But the Global Warming crowd has proof with their GCMS (aka flawed computer models) right? These models are perfect, they are 95% certain right?...

The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

That was not what he expected to find.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

www.uah.edu...

Koutsoyiannis, D., A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides, On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671–684, 2008.

[doc_id=864]

[English]

Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.

www.itia.ntua.gr...

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
Journal Climate Dynamics
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0930-7575 (Print) 1432-0894 (Online)
Issue Volume 24, Numbers 7-8 / June, 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00382-005-0020-9
Pages 771-780
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, May 02, 2005


PDF (702.7 KB)HTMLFree Preview

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
S. M. Dean1 , B. N. Lawrence2, R. G. Grainger1 and D. N. Heuff3

(1) Atmospheric Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
(2) British Atmospheric Data Centre, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK
(3) Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Received: 13 September 2004 Accepted: 25 February 2005 Published online: 27 April 2005

Abstract Observations from the International Satellite Cloud Climatalogy Project (ISCCP) are used to demonstrate that the 19-level HadAM3 version of the United Kingdom Met Office Unified Model does not simulate sufficient high cloud over land. By using low-altitude winds, from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) Re-Analysis from 1979 to 1994 (ERA-15) to predict the areas of maximum likelihood of orographic wave generation, it is shown that much of the deficiency is likely to be due to the lack of a representation of the orographic cirrus generated by sub-grid scale orography. It is probable that this is a problem in most GCMs.

www.springerlink.com...

Title:
Late Holocene Environmental and Hydrologic Conditions in Northwestern Florida Derived from Seasonally Resolved Profiles of δ18O and Sr/Ca of Fossil Bivalves.
Authors:
Elliot, M.; de Menocal, P. B.; Linsley, B. K.; Howe, S. S.; Guilderson, T.; Quitmyer, I. R.
Affiliation:
AA(Edinburgh University, Dept. Geology and Geophysics, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JW United Kingdom ; [email protected]), AB(Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Route 9W, Palisades, NY 10964 ; [email protected]), AC(University at Albany, 1400 Washington Ave, Albany, NY 12222 ; [email protected]), AD(Laurence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Ave, Livermore, CA 94550 ; [email protected]), AE(Laurence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Ave, Livermore, CA 94550 ; ), AF(Florida Museum of Natural History, Dickinson Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611 ; )
Publication:
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2002, abstract #PP72A-0429
Publication Date:
12/2002
Origin:
AGU
AGU Keywords:
3344 Paleoclimatology, 4215 Climate and interannual variability (3309), 4227 Diurnal, seasonal, and annual cycles, 4870 Stable isotopes, 4875 Trace elements
Bibliographic Code:
2002AGUFMPP72A0429E

Abstract
We reconstruct environmental conditions of coastal Northwestern Florida from combined measurements of δ18O and Sr/Ca of fossil marine bivalves deposited in an archeological site during the late Holocene period. We first investigated the environmental controls of seasonally resolved records of δ18O and Sr/Ca of modern Mercenaria mercenaria and Mercenaria campesiensis collected live from five coastal sites along the east coast of North America. Seasonal profiles were obtained by sub-sampling the incremental growth layers of aragonite and were compared with in situ historical records of temperature and salinity. We show that these bivalves precipitate their shell in isotopic equilibrium with the water in which they grew and that the δ18O records are not affected by variations in growth rate. Winter growth appears to be interrupted or strongly reduced below water temperatures ranging from 7 to 18° C, depending on latitude. The annual average δ18O decreases with latitude, reflecting both the parallel trend of freshwater δ18O with latitude over the North American continent and the reduced winter growth rate. The Sr/Ca records of the 5 modern bivalves also exhibit seasonal variations can be correlated to water temperature. However, contrary to corals, the Sr/Ca ratio is considerably lower than the average sea water Sr/Ca composition and is positively correlated to the water temperature. We dated and measured the δ18O and Sr/Ca of 30 fossil M. campesiensis from an archeological site close to Cedar Key, in the Gulf of Mexico. Accelerator Mass Spectrometry 14C dates obtained for each shell show ages which cluster between 1100 to 1400 and 2300 to 2600 14C years BP corresponding approximately to two historical warm periods known as the Medieval Warm Period (~ 1300-900AD) and the Roman Warm Period (~ 250AD-200BC). The average annual and summer Sr/Ca of 4 fossil shells are higher than that of modern bivalves from the same location suggesting that annual coastal water temperatures were 3 to 4° C warmer than today. The bulk δ18O values show a marked trend towards more positive values. 24 fossil shells have bulk δ18O values 0.2\permil to 0.7\permil more positive than modern bivalves from the same location. These results suggest that the coastal waters off northwest Florida were warmer and less saline compared to today and attest of considerable differences of the regional climate and hydrological balance during the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Period.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

During the Medieval and Roman Warm periods atmospheric CO2 levels were at about 280-290s ppm or so yet these periods were globally WARMER than at present.

Also another fact the AGW religious followers continue to ignore is the fact that the current Climate Change started BEFORE atmospheric CO2 levels even began to increase.

The geological record of Earth shows that temperature changes lead atmospheric CO2 level changes, not that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of the warming claimed by the AGWists.

Another piece of disinformation that the AGWists love to try to spread is that they claim that the Sun's activity stopped increasing in the 1950s or 1980s, take your pick, but in fact research has continually shown that the Sun's activity has continued increasing until about 2006, and it has been, or was, unstable for a while.

One of the main arguments from the AGWists, is that is the Sun's activity had stopped in the 1950s, or 1980s, then CO2 must be the cause, but this is false since the Sun's activity has continue to increase well pass those decades.

reply to post by NTMofficial


OP are you retarded as hell?
The carbon tax isn't for carbon you breathe (how retarded do you have to be to think this?)
It's for creating unnecessary amount of carbon through pollution.
Climate Change is a very real thing.
One of my family friends is partnered with a very good foundation in Canada to try and get Canada onto clean, and non polluting energy. Your saying he's trying to earn money? Get the # out please, that is the last thing he has in mind. If you are your delusional persona want to think people are talking about Climate Change for monetary reasons, then please, just get the # out. You want to keep burning coal for the rest of your life? How about oil forever? That is absolutely retarded.

And to everyone that thinks it's a scam, maybe you should get yourself checked out for Paranoia. Absolutely pitiful.