Global Warming w/o Tiggy

[sylas]

As Frank has often said, the data should include those periods of time where we know for a fact that humans did not cause the climate.
Surely that is very important data.

For what purpose? I took Frank to be making a kind of meta-point about the massive changes on the scales of hundreds of millions of years; with the apparent implication that this has a bearing about how much we should care about short term changes. He seems to be making a point on what he considers important, rather than using the data to give any useful insight into the physics and science related to what climate is doing right now, or is likely to do over the coming centuries.

I do find climate on super long scales to be interesting as a scientific question in its own right. It bears upon things like how continents are arranged or the slow geological cycles of deposition and weathering. Interesting stuff, but a different topic to this thread.

There is other data from the past which does give much more directly useful insights into the present. For example, on the scale of recent centuries, there is some relevant evidence on sensitivity, and also on the pre-industrial trends. On the scale of a hundred thousand years or so, there's the ice age cycles, which can also inform sensitivity estimates. And so on.

I'm fine with using any data that is relevant; though where I have the most background is in the physics and measurements we can make right now. I personally think we get a lot more leverage from studies of the immediate present, where we have the processes at work right here under our noses and all kinds of ways to attempt quantified measurement of what is going on.

The paleoclimate data serves as a very useful double check on what is being discovered; and it's certainly relevant and useful for that.

From Glenn's OP, I take this thread to be focused on "global warming", which is a catch phrase for what climate is doing now, on comparatively short scales. If there's any actual evidence from the super long scale data Frank mentioned, by all means bring it on. If Frank is rather suggesting a whole different focus of discussion, I might well engage it; but preferably in a thread where it won't distract from the topic at hand here.

By restricting data to the last hundred years you are getting a biased answer.
Even in previous centuries we have seen glaciers melting at low CO2 levels
See:
http://www.glacierbay.org/geography.html

sm

I'm not restricting data. When we talk about direct temperature measurements, we can go back to around 1880 or so; beyond that there is some regional instrument data, but globally it is not so good. That's not my restriction; that's just everything we can get.

Satellite data is useful also. We have surface temperature measurements going back to about 1979. Not my restriction; but the restriction of what is available.

There's a whole suite of proxy based data going back over the last several hundred years, which is enough to give a rough picture of temperature trends on that scale. There are deuterium temperatures which allow ice cores to give a picture of temperatures over almost a million years, which is part of the Quaternary ice age cycles; a fascinating period for which we have some useful data also about some of the forcings.

I am not ignoring things, or restricting what data can be used. You are welcome to introduce any line of data you like. I'll respond to some of them, and perhaps other people will respond to others. I am not able to respond every single request to look at some line of new evidence myself; but that's not a restriction.

But do note… it is a fallacy to use the fact that things have changed in the past without anthropogenic contributions, as evidence against anthropogenic contributions in the present. Take rocketing CO2 levels as a case in point. That's changed naturally in the past. And right now, it is changing because of a human input. The argument that humans can't be causing the rise in CO2 because it has risen for other reasons in the past is fallacious. So also is the argument that humans can't be driving the increase in temperatures because temperatures have risen for other reasons in the past.

Glaciers, and Glacier Bay in Alaska

You provide a link to the "Glacier Bay Park" website. It's not a science site; though the site does have some background information on tours, history, science, flora and fauna, accommodation, etc.

A slightly higher level of information is available from the National Park Service site at Glacier Bay; and in particular they have a relevant FAQ with two questions on advance and retreat.

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, FAQ

(Link: Frequently Asked Questions)

Why are the glaciers advancing and retreating?
There is no simple answer. If a glacier has a steady source of snow turning to ice in the mountains, a good lens of water on which to slide along the bedrock, enough gravity and momentum in downhill movement, a good moraine of rock and rubble at the front to insulate it from water erosion and cold enough temperatures year-around, a glacier will advance. If it loses enough of these, it will retreat.

Is global warming or climate change causing the glaciers to melt?
Another good question that does not have a simple answer. Temperatures do effect glaciers. If there is not enough snow falling and accumulating in the high mountains then turning to ice, the glaciers will retreat. In Glacier Bay many of the glaciers are retreating and have been over the last 200 years. Whether this should be attributed to climate change is uncertain. Keep in mind that there are also a few glaciers in the park that are advancing and a few that are stable.

© source where applicable

The National Park Service pages also direct those wanting even more detail to Glacier and Landscape Change in Response to Changing Climate at the USGS pages. (US Geological Survey.)

Cheers -- sylas

[Augustine2004]

I concede that the fact glaciers' advancing does not necessarily mean the Earth's climate is cooling. Now will warmists concede glacier retreats do not necessarily mean climate warming?

[sylas]

If you mean cherry picking individual glaciers, then sure. But if you are willing to look seriously at glaciers world wide, well then you DO get strong evidence for which way climate is changing. If the vast majority are in rapid retreat, then that truly is very strong evidence for warming.

But remember... the strongest evidence for global warming is that we measure it directly, by a number of independent means. The strong warming trend now at work is measured with land stations, with ocean monitoring and with satellite measures of air temperature.

The accelerating decline of glaciers world wide is a useful confirmation that the measurements are indeed correct.

Although it is quite true that looking at an individual glacier tells you nothing much one way or the other (unless you get into a lot more detail of testing the specific factors at work in the one case being examined) the same CANNOT be said for looking at all the data.

The planet is heating up. We measure it. And the behaviour of glaciers worldwide confirms it, without having any political bias or secondary objectives.

Cheers -- sylas

[FLovell]

For what purpose? I took Frank to be making a kind of meta-point about the massive changes on the scales of hundreds of millions of years; with the apparent implication that this has a bearing about how much we should care about short term changes. He seems to be making a point on what he considers important, rather than using the data to give any useful insight into the physics and science related to what climate is doing right now, or is likely to do over the coming centuries....

"Changes on the scales of hundreds of millions of years"???

Good grief, Sylas, did you LOOK at the graphs of history I've many times (and again recently) included? [See below for them yet again -- the top one is from Drallos and the bottom one is from Scotese.]

I KNOW you can read the duration of the changes on a plot of data better than that -- look at the steepness of those changes -- most of the temperature changes occur within a several million to a dozen or two million years.

Sure, that's still MUCH longer than dozens to hundreds of years but WAY shorter than hundreds of millions of years, and also look at the range of temperature of those pre-human historic changes.

Those are some MIGHTY powerful natural (pre-human) forces at work to accomplish those changes -- and note how infrequently and for how short a duration in the past Earth's biosphere has been at the present temperature (as the temperature was passing through on its way to something cooler or passing through again on its way to back to something WAY warmer).

Not only that, notice also...ah, never mind, it's clear that I couldn't put a dent in your viewpoint if my life OR yours depended on it -- and if I can't influence a fellow science-savvy rationalist, I can't influence ANYone here (as my multi-year tenure has amply demonstrated)...so just forget it.

Sorry for the interruption, I lost m'head there for a moment. -- Frank (Lovell -- not the only Frank here!)

[roadwalker]

A lot of this debate about how things were in the way-far distant past is irrelevant, however.

There is no doubt that the dinosaurs lived, for the most part in warmer times. They were reptiles (cold-blooded for the most part) that required outside sources of heat, and further there is abundant fossil evidence that particularly during the triassic and jurassic periods much of the earth was covered with what would today be considered tropical plants. Whether this was due to an increase in CO2 or other greenhouse gases (CO2 is not the only one (!) ) due to volcanic eruptions, long term variability in the sun, or some other cause, is unknown.

However, to argue that the earth may have been warmer 100,000,000 years ago (for whatever reason) than any current projection completely misses the point. The point is that the environment that we have now is adjusted for what grows here now. If the earth were to warm up by a couple of degrees we would see a corresponding change in weather patterns (this is already manifesting itself in the prolonged drought over the southwestern deserts-- today's torrential rains in S. California notwithstanding) and corresponding food shortages and displacements of people leading to political instability. An increase in sea level of a just a couple of feet, while it probably would not be much noticed in areas that could erect good seawalls, would inundate or render unusuable via the deposits of salt water large areas of low-lying land in some of the most agriculturally productive and therefore heavily populated lands in the world (especially river deltas.)

To suggest that because dinosaurs lived in warm swamps a hundred million years ago doesn't change the prospect for food shortages and political instability because of today's global warming is like denying that there are tides. Net sea level rise is being measured, just as surely as the tides that reach above and below it are also being measured.

[shadowmaster]

For what purpose? I took Frank to be making a kind of meta-point about the massive changes on the scales of hundreds of millions of years; with the apparent implication that this has a bearing about how much we should care about short term changes. He seems to be making a point on what he considers important, rather than using the data to give any useful insight into the physics and science related to what climate is doing right now, or is likely to do over the coming centuries.

I do find climate on super long scales to be interesting as a scientific question in its own right. It bears upon things like how continents are arranged or the slow geological cycles of deposition and weathering. Interesting stuff, but a different topic to this thread.

There is other data from the past which does give much more directly useful insights into the present. For example, on the scale of recent centuries, there is some relevant evidence on sensitivity, and also on the pre-industrial trends. On the scale of a hundred thousand years or so, there's the ice age cycles, which can also inform sensitivity estimates. And so on.

I'm fine with using any data that is relevant; though where I have the most background is in the physics and measurements we can make right now. I personally think we get a lot more leverage from studies of the immediate present, where we have the processes at work right here under our noses and all kinds of ways to attempt quantified measurement of what is going on.

The paleoclimate data serves as a very useful double check on what is being discovered; and it's certainly relevant and useful for that.

From Glenn's OP, I take this thread to be focused on "global warming", which is a catch phrase for what climate is doing now, on comparatively short scales. If there's any actual evidence from the super long scale data Frank mentioned, by all means bring it on. If Frank is rather suggesting a whole different focus of discussion, I might well engage it; but preferably in a thread where it won't distract from the topic at hand here.



I'm not restricting data. When we talk about direct temperature measurements, we can go back to around 1880 or so; beyond that there is some regional instrument data, but globally it is not so good. That's not my restriction; that's just everything we can get.

Satellite data is useful also. We have surface temperature measurements going back to about 1979. Not my restriction; but the restriction of what is available.

There's a whole suite of proxy based data going back over the last several hundred years, which is enough to give a rough picture of temperature trends on that scale. There are deuterium temperatures which allow ice cores to give a picture of temperatures over almost a million years, which is part of the Quaternary ice age cycles; a fascinating period for which we have some useful data also about some of the forcings.

I am not ignoring things, or restricting what data can be used. You are welcome to introduce any line of data you like. I'll respond to some of them, and perhaps other people will respond to others. I am not able to respond every single request to look at some line of new evidence myself; but that's not a restriction.

But do note… it is a fallacy to use the fact that things have changed in the past without anthropogenic contributions, as evidence against anthropogenic contributions in the present. Take rocketing CO2 levels as a case in point. That's changed naturally in the past. And right now, it is changing because of a human input. The argument that humans can't be causing the rise in CO2 because it has risen for other reasons in the past is fallacious. So also is the argument that humans can't be driving the increase in temperatures because temperatures have risen for other reasons in the past.

Glaciers, and Glacier Bay in Alaska

You provide a link to the "Glacier Bay Park" website. It's not a science site; though the site does have some background information on tours, history, science, flora and fauna, accommodation, etc.

A slightly higher level of information is available from the National Park Service site at Glacier Bay; and in particular they have a relevant FAQ with two questions on advance and retreat.

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, FAQ

(Link: Frequently Asked Questions)

Why are the glaciers advancing and retreating?
There is no simple answer. If a glacier has a steady source of snow turning to ice in the mountains, a good lens of water on which to slide along the bedrock, enough gravity and momentum in downhill movement, a good moraine of rock and rubble at the front to insulate it from water erosion and cold enough temperatures year-around, a glacier will advance. If it loses enough of these, it will retreat.

Is global warming or climate change causing the glaciers to melt?
Another good question that does not have a simple answer. Temperatures do effect glaciers. If there is not enough snow falling and accumulating in the high mountains then turning to ice, the glaciers will retreat. In Glacier Bay many of the glaciers are retreating and have been over the last 200 years. Whether this should be attributed to climate change is uncertain. Keep in mind that there are also a few glaciers in the park that are advancing and a few that are stable.

© source where applicable

The National Park Service pages also direct those wanting even more detail to Glacier and Landscape Change in Response to Changing Climate at the USGS pages. (US Geological Survey.)

Cheers -- sylas

We disagree, Sylas.
You cite melting glaciers when they suit your argument but ignore ones which go against it.
I took a cruise that went into Glacier bay. On that cruise they had a map showing the extent of the glacier over the centuries (well before the rise of CO2).
That is real data and as pertinent as the melting of other glaciers.
Also pertinent is data when humans were not (and could not be) contributing to the environment.
To discard that data is simply not the scientific method.
IMHO


SM

[shadowmaster]

Tiggy’s Lament

The glaciers are melting. It’s happening now!
Oh mercy me! Oh holy cow!
What is that about Glacier Bay?
It melted long ago so you say
Well glaciers come and glaciers go.
It is that way with glaciers you know.
And what’s that about Greenland you say?
There was no ice in the Vikings day?
Well glaciers come and glaciers go.
It is that way with glaciers you know.
But the glaciers are melting. The seas will rise.
Wars will come and everyone dies
Water abounds. There is no sand.
Where can one find a dry piece of land?
The time has come to sound the alarm
The only safe place is Glenn Morton’s farm

[sylas]

We disagree, Sylas.

I'm fine with disagreement, especially when we can continue to engage the substance of it. My idea of a successful discussion is when contrasting view points can be expressed with clarity and with a focus on the subject at hand; and with mutual respect.

You cite melting glaciers when they suit your argument but ignore ones which go against it.

Disagreement is fine especially if you can get concrete on the substance of disagreement.

But I do not accept the personal remarks. They are false. I work really hard to be totally honest with myself, and with you, and with the evidence. I have not ignored anything.

In the post you quote, I specifically directed you to information on the very glaciers you mentioned. I went to a fair bit of trouble to look up useful general information, and I quoted basic background which confirms that we cannot simply attribute all glacial retreat to global warming. So I really don't think the personal aside about my ignoring evidence allegedly going against my view make any sense.

What I think would be great is for you to identify a specific position of mine you disagree with, and express what your alternative view is, or what evidence is actually against it. Put the focus on the substance of discussion. When this happens, then there is real scope for progress.

For example, you speak of "evidence against my view". In all seriousness, this is the kind of evidence I am especially interested in.

But what is this evidence? That glaciers have changed in the past with no human contribution? No conflict there; I repeatedly acknowledge that humans are not the only thing to change climate. That you can find examples of glaciers which have been in retreat for longer than the recent anthropomorphically driven rise in CO2? No problem there and for the same reason. Glaciers have been advancing and retreating for as long as there have been glaciers. That you can find examples of glaciers advancing? No problem again; there's no reason to expect a uniform response to current conditions.

My claims here have been with reference to global trends, not isolated individuals. Specifically.

• I have said that there is a strong trend worldwide towards retreat of glaciers as opposed to advance.
• I have said that this retreat gives a contribution to the current rate of sea level rise.
• I have said that this global trend towards retreat is evidence in good standing to confirm the reality of the global warming trend indicated by direct measurements.

I don't mind at all if you disagree with any of these. But I'm not really sure, to be honest, whether you actually disagree or not on any of these specific points. Neither have I seen any actual line of evidence given here that conflicts with or argues against these claims.

This next bit appears to be intended as an example of evidence which is "against" my view in some way.

I took a cruise that went into Glacier bay. On that cruise they had a map showing the extent of the glacier over the centuries (well before the rise of CO2).
That is real data and as pertinent as the melting of other glaciers.
Also pertinent is data when humans were not (and could not be) contributing to the environment.
To discard that data is simply not the scientific method.

I'm not discarding any data.

I know that climate is affected by more than human activity only. I know that climate has changed in the past with no human involvement at all. The pages I cited previously suggest that many glaciers in Glacier Bay have been retreating since the "little ice age"; and I suspect that solar activity has the major role there. How is this any kind of evidence against my position?

I don't see that finding glaciers which have been in retreat for hundreds of years (or longer) is evidence against anything I have argued here. What specific proposition would this be evidence against?

Note also what evidence I have been citing for my own part. I have not cited the melting of "other" individual glaciers. I cited global totals. These totals don't ignore anything. They consider ALL the glaciers, as best they can.

If you could show THIS was wrong, then sure; that would be evidence against my position.

Furthermore, I am not myself a glaciologist. I rely on what is published by working scientists; which I consider the best guide. I definitely do not limit myself to any selected subset of scientists based on conclusions; and I am particularly interested in work that is challenging my own understanding of the state of play.

The points I have made so far and in this forum, with respect to glaciers, are overviews. I have once in the past looked more carefully at one localized study (GRACE satellite data used to study Himalayan glaciers, work by John Shroder and colleagues) but I am no kind of expert on Alaskan glaciers. But for what it is worth, I understand that Alaskan glaciers show a definite trend towards accelerating retreat as temperatures have risen over the last 50 years, but not as a universal rule. Studies in this region also show that many glaciers, particularly tidewater glaciers, are in a strong retreat for reasons essentially unrelated to climate at all, and have to do with other kinds of changes permitting more rapid movement. Also, in Glacier Bay a lot of retreat goes back to ending of the so-called "little ice age" a couple of hundred years ago, which was climate change that is not primarily anthropogenic (I think).

Even given all this, I think you'll find that a survey of glaciers in Alaska will show a clear trend of increased melt and retreat since 1950. I'm basing that on a quick glance at some relevant papers, and not any kind of literature review. The details of local regions and individual glaciers is not my area of expertise and not something I have ever used to argue for global warming. I'd need to do a fair bit more study before I'd make strong claims of that kind.

My actual claim remains that there is a world wide trend of increasing retreat and melt of glaciers (especially alpine glaciers) which corresponds to the accelerated warming from the latter part of the twentieth century onwards. I know that this is a global trend, not a universal rule, and that individual glaciers have all manner of histories. The global evidence is the global trend, and you get that by including all the data you possibly can. I base my views on what has been published on this matter, and what I have read for myself.

I am not aware of any credible scientific work or evidence conflicting with this point. But I'd be genuinely interested to see it, if it exists.

Cheers -- sylas

[shadowmaster]

Sylas, I will agree that data since 1950 shows a warming trend. That simply is a cherry picking of the data that supports the AGW view. I argue that one must consider all of the data including that before 1950. It is a fact that Glacier Bay was formed by a melting during the 1800s of the glacier that filled it . Scientific articles that say it is not so, are simply false. Also, the fact that Greenland had no glaciers in the past certainly diminishes the notion that today its melting is a disaster.

I am not critiquing you as an individual. But I am critiquing the scientific approach that you are publishing here. It is not by inclusion, but by omission. If CO2 did not cause past warming – or the lack of it cooling – then what is point of the last meager 50 years? When mankind did not contribute to the supply of CO2, warming and cooling were of similar magnitudes.

Are the articles you read telling the whole story? On a personal note, I am well known in the real world for modeling of complex process and making validated simulations. In noting the mess of modeling of climate data, I volunteered my background to the publications in that area. (I know some of the owners of the publications.) I was told to forget it because the input is not desired. It was called a "religion rather than a science. That people just publish articles that say ‘I did this, and I got that’. That the peer review has been corrupted by those who support AGW and filter, without intending it, by giving a pass to those articles that support AGW and attacking those which don’t.” So I was told not to waste my time trying for any objectivity.


sm

[sylas]

"Changes on the scales of hundreds of millions of years"???

Good grief, Sylas, did you LOOK at the graphs of history I've many times (and again recently) included? [See below for them yet again -- the top one is from Drallos and the bottom one is from Scotese.]

Frank, I really and truly am familiar with the diagrams you are citing, and with associated research. Not in enormous detail, but I *have* discussed them previously, though in another forum, in a context where it was actually relevant to the thread. It's a different topic from what this thread is about.

On the matter of scale, the scale I mean is the scale that is written across the bottom of the graph. This has nothing to do with the rate of change, but rather with the durations involved in waiting for the changes to come along. The kinds of changes these graphs and these papers are dealing with are changes that occur at long intervals. To see where such changes occur, and the context for such changes, you use graphs like the one you have displayed, with a scale of hundreds of millions of years.

The work of Scotese, for example, is primarily related to the impact of plate tectonics. I already mentioned this above as one of the processes that becomes significant at this scale. You CAN get sudden changes by this means; a good example relevant to climate is the opening or closing of the Drake passage, and a clear band of open ocean around the Antarctic.

But plate tectonics is not something relevant to the short term future, on time scales of human society, because Plate tectonics goes slowly, and we get plenty of warning for such events. It's not due to be a factor in climate change for many thousands of years, probably millions.

Those are some MIGHTY powerful natural (pre-human) forces at work to accomplish those changes -- and note how infrequently and for how short a duration in the past Earth's biosphere has been at the present temperature (as the temperature was passing through on its way to something cooler or passing through again on its way to back to something WAY warmer).

Not only that, notice also...ah, never mind, it's clear that I couldn't put a dent in your viewpoint if my life OR yours depended on it -- and if I can't influence a fellow science-savvy rationalist, I can't influence ANYone here (as my multi-year tenure has amply demonstrated)...so just forget it.

Frank, you don't HAVE to dent my viewpoint on this. We agree on all the points you mention, as far as I can tell. Nothing you are saying here is in the slightest conflict with the points I have been making in the discussion of THIS thread.

As far as I can tell, the only way you might be wanting to "dent" my world view is something to do with what I ought to be interested in or focused upon. Is that right? But even here, you don't need to dent my world view. I really AM already interested in the topics you mention.

It's just that I am ALSO interested in THIS topic being discussed in this thread, and you've given no reason at all for being UNINTERESTED in the global warming topic. If you happen not to be interested, no problem. Please just go away, and start a different thread for what YOU find interesting. You are very likely to find me joining in there as well, because I truly do share that interest, honestly.

But I'd actually prefer you to stick around and contribute to the topic of this thread, should you choose. That's up to you, you are welcome to stay or go as you choose. But please don't just divert this thread because you'd rather be talking about a different topic. OK?

Cheers -- sylas

[Augustine2004]

Sylas, I would be interested in how climatologists have managed to rule out the possibility that an active sun kept out cosmic rays that would have seeded clouds that would have snowed enough to keep the glaciers advancing. If anyone couldn't parse that, let me put it another way:

the sun is more active
fewer cosmic rays
less cloudy
reduced precipitation (snow)
glaciers shrinking.

[grmorton]

6 days without a sunspot. At a time when we should be approaching solar max. Merry christmas enjoy the cold weather this weekend while they tell you how hot it is

[Augustine2004]

I'm not certain how true this piece is http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/
but it merits consideration here to the extent that it shows what's happening behind the scene or stage. If climate was real, scientists would notice a rise in global temperature and look around for a cause . . . But if it really didn't happen that way, we need to know. Foreknowledge is forewarned (or is it forearmed?)

[FLovell]

I'm not certain how true this piece is http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/
but it merits consideration here to the extent that it shows what's happening behind the scene or stage. If climate was real, scientists would notice a rise in global temperature and look around for a cause . . . But if it really didn't happen that way, we need to know. Foreknowledge is forewarned (or is it forearmed?)

Interesting, this Tickell fellow -- never heard of him, will hafta look up more about him. Good find, Aug, THANKS! I'll add that to the pile, should be something in it sooner or later tha proves helpful in sorting out the mystery.

This next has no useful bearing whatsover on the AGW (vs. plain ol' natural GW) as settled science controversy (or non-controversy, depending on in which wing of the GCC sanctuary one sits), but the according tio the news tonight the whole-month average HIGH daily temperature of THIS December in Kentucky fell below the historic AVERAGE daily temperature of Kentucky Decembers. I find that, um...interesting.

-- Frank

PS: Just passing through, Sylas -- not re-engaging; I don't think you and I can even get into the same conversation (let alone have a productive one).

[grmorton]

A lot of this debate about how things were in the way-far distant past is irrelevant, however.

There is no doubt that the dinosaurs lived, for the most part in warmer times. They were reptiles (cold-blooded for the most part) that required outside sources of heat, and further there is abundant fossil evidence that particularly during the triassic and jurassic periods much of the earth was covered with what would today be considered tropical plants. Whether this was due to an increase in CO2 or other greenhouse gases (CO2 is not the only one (!) ) due to volcanic eruptions, long term variability in the sun, or some other cause, is unknown.

this sounds like a classic young-earth creationist argument--'you weren't there so you can't know what happened.'. This is patently absurd given the status of geological knowledge in this day and age. People can use fossil leaf stomata to estimate the atmosphere (D. J. Beerling, B. H. Lomax, D. L. Royer, G. R. Upchurch, Jr., and L. R. Kump
An atmospheric pCO2 reconstruction across the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary from leaf megafossils
PNAS 99: 7836-7840)

People can use gas bubble in amber to estimate former CO2 levels Robert A. Berner and Gary P. Landis, "Gas Bubbles in Fossil Amber as Possible Indicators of the Major Gas Composition of Ancient Air," Science, 239(1988):1406-1409, p. 1408

People can use the rate of limestone deposition to infer how much CO2 had to cycle through the atmosphere each year to estimate the CO2 levels of the oceans (and then physical relationships to infer it for the atmosphere)

Notice that none of these methods involve either the sun or volcanism. As you can see these approaches have been known for quite a long time.

However, to argue that the earth may have been warmer 100,000,000 years ago (for whatever reason) than any current projection completely misses the point. The point is that the environment that we have now is adjusted for what grows here now. If the earth were to warm up by a couple of degrees we would see a corresponding change in weather patterns (this is already manifesting itself in the prolonged drought over the southwestern deserts-- today's torrential rains in S. California notwithstanding) and corresponding food shortages and displacements of people leading to political instability. An increase in sea level of a just a couple of feet, while it probably would not be much noticed in areas that could erect good seawalls, would inundate or render unusuable via the deposits of salt water large areas of low-lying land in some of the most agriculturally productive and therefore heavily populated lands in the world (especially river deltas.)

this is the problem with global warming. It is the universal cause. If it is colder, it is due to global warming. If it is hotter, it is due to global warming. If it rains; it is due to global warming. If it doesn't rain; it is due to global warming. Tornados? Global warming. Hurricanes? Global warming.(think of all the claims when Rita and Katrina came to town) No hurricanes? global warming. No kidding.

Fred Pearce, “Fewer Atlantic hurricanes, But Look Out for the Big Ones,” New Scientist, May 24, 2008, p. 9

“What's more, Knutson's team have a clear idea about why their numbers come out the way they do. What matters in hurricane formation, they say, is not so much the sea temperature itself as the temperature difference between the sea and the top of the troposphere, the atmosphere's weather zone. Knutson says the upper troposphere is set to warm even more than the Atlantic surface in the coming decades, and that this will tend to suppress hurricane formation.”

© source where applicable

In what way is this any different than the religious believer who says God always answers prayer? If the believer gets what he wants, God said yes. If he doesn't; God said 'no'. God answers either way. This is why I think AGW is merely a religion, not science.

Investors Business Daily recently noted the same phenomenon. The article is worth a read. http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...rm-ongers.aspx

"The Abiding Faith Of Warm-ongers, IBD, 12-22-2010

Karl Popper, the late, great philosopher of science, noted that for something to be called scientific, it must be, as he put it, "falsifiable." That is, for something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it's false. That's what scientific experimentation and observation do. That's the essence of the scientific method.

Unfortunately, the prophets of climate doom violate this idea. No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. The weather turns cold and wet? It's global warming, they say. Weather turns hot? Global warming. No change? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? You guessed it.

Nothing can disprove their thesis. Not even the extraordinarily frigid weather now creating havoc across most of the Northern Hemisphere. The Los Angeles Times, in a piece on the region's strangely wet and cold weather, paraphrases Jet Propulsion Laboratory climatologist Bill Patzert as saying, "In general, as the globe warms, weather conditions tend to be more extreme and volatile."

© source where applicable

serious investors don't care about anything but what the facts on the ground are. They invest according to what is, because if they invest against what is, they lose their money. IBD seems to think AGW isn't.

AGW is like commies under every bed, or the invisible leprechauns under my desk right now(I swear they are there but no one can detect them in any way, and that the leprechauns cause the weather. Furthermore, the more invisible leprechauns there are, the more variable the weather becomes. Each leprechaun wants to do something). I contend that these invisible leprechauns are having wild sexual orgies beneath my desk and are multiplying like bunny rabbits. Thus, I predict from their increasing numbers, the world will get warmer and colder, have more and less hurricanes, more and fewer tornadoes, more, and less snow.

Prove me wrong about the leprechaun-weather connection. Everything you can say will confirm their existence. You tell me: "I can't see them so they aren't there". I get to reply: "Yep, I told you they were invisible" You say: They don't do anything or have any effect" I say: "Yes they do, see that rain yesterday? They caused it. You say: "Well it isn't raining now" I can say: "Yep, they caused that as well". "There are more hurricanes," you say.Yep, the number of leprechauns who want more hurricanes out number those who want fewer. You say, but now, there are fewer hurricanes. Yep, now the leprechauns who want fewer hurricanes out number those who want more. Same with Tornadoes snowfall etc. The game is quite simple but sad when scientists don't recognize that this is the game they are playing.

To suggest that because dinosaurs lived in warm swamps a hundred million years ago doesn't change the prospect for food shortages and political instability because of today's global warming is like denying that there are tides. Net sea level rise is being measured, just as surely as the tides that reach above and below it are also being measured.

This is really what AGW is about--controlling other people. This group of scientific fundamentalists think they know what is best for one and all. They are no different than the YECs who think they know how to interpret earth history (or the lack of it) for the rest of us. These scientific fundamentalists don't want to allow anyone else to have a differing opinion. If you disagree, they will try to keep you from being published (ala the climate-gate emails), they will call you names like "denier" which in their book is equivalent to Christians calling someone 'heretic'. These sci-fundies think they have the wisdom to rule the world and allocate food, fuel, health resources etc to one and all. AGW is about hubris, not science.

As to tides rising, they are, in areas that are geologically sinking. They aren't in areas where coasts are in active uplift.