Global Warming: Reality vs Republican Theology

[elektra]

My wife would like to know how, you believe, the Paris accord will require the contravention of the US Constitution.

Then you wife should make a user name and join in, I suggest Mrs. Crick.

 

[Crick]

Fine, I have no such interest. I would suggest you re-examine the accord itself and perhaps the US Constitution because you've got a major misunderstanding of fundamental US government.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is "Global warming" the same as "Climate change"? They mean two different things why are thy used interchangeably?

 

[Wyatt earp]

1) I don't give two shits if Rome was warmer than today. That's not the point. Rome was not warming as quickly as we are today. You've heard this dozens of times. It's not the absolute temperatures, it's the RATE OF CHANGE.

2) The US Constitution will not have a single period altered by our acceptance of the Paris Climate Accord. That's not how treaties work and you have successfully demonstrated your general ignorance - and your failure to take the simple measure of looking up the correct answer - for all to see.

How the Hell do you know Rome didn't warm faster ??????


Sheesh .......

 

[RollingThunder]

So....let us know when you build your time machine and go back with your gadgets and get good instrumental temperature records for the last few thousand years....until then, I'll stick with the scientific evaluation of the combination of all of the various proxie temperature records that scientists can decipher....which includes, but is not limited to, ice cores, tree rings, sub-fossil pollen, boreholes, corals, lake and ocean sediments, and carbonate speleothems.

Well since you "believe" in proxys so much

Unlike the way things work in your crackpot cult of realty denial, bearbutt, understanding science does not really require one to "believe", you poor demented retard....just to understand and accept the evidence.

(and they all have their limitations like tree rings for example are effected by a host of growing variables including volcanic erruptions)

Why do you ignore as it is suggested by tree ring proxys that the Roman period was warmer then today?

Tree rings suggest Roman world was warmer than thought

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL........WHY, OH WHY do you denier cult retards so often fail to actually read the material you link to? Your puppetmasters hand you a link and tell you it means something contrary to AGW theory and you are too fucking stupid to read it first, you delusional nutbagger.

From YOUR article....

Jan Esper of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, thinks that at least some of those tree rings actually show something else: a long-term cooling trend that lasted right up until the Industrial Revolution. The trend came about because of reduced solar heating caused by changes to the Earth’s orbit known as Milankovitch wobbles, says Esper.

He studied the density of tree rings in hundreds of northern Scandinavian trees and found that they showed evidence of a gradual cooling trend that began around 2000 years ago. The finding fits with other proxies for temperature – such as the chemical make-up of air trapped in glaciers and the organic remains in ancient lake sediments – which have also suggested a cooling trend.

In 2009, Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University at Flagstaff published evidence, using a range of proxies, that indicated a cooling in the Arctic for most of the past 2000 years (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1173983). Esper’s findings suggest that the cooling trend was even stronger than Kaufman concluded.

The finding does not change our understanding of the warming power of carbon dioxide. In fact, it shows that human CO2 emissions have interrupted a long cooling period that would ultimately have delivered the next ice age.



***

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ah yes, we have another 'scientist' like Silly Billy here. No classes in Physics, Chemistry, or Biology, but he is a scientist. AGW is real. Every National Academy of Science in the world states that. Even the National Academy of Science of Saudi Arabia states that. That you constantly flap your yap, yet do not put up a single supporting article is telling. One would think that with that high IQ that you would be capable of finding scientific articles supporting your posts.

Appeal after appeal to authority and when people call bull shit on your lies, then, like the little bitch you are, you scream denier as your little tantrum progresses. Your a spoiled brat that doesn't know shit about science. Those of us who have degrees see you for what you are.

Its best to ignore fools like you who refuse to use any cognitive thought or process and simply post up Cut and Paste crap over and over again.. You dont get to tell me or anyone else who or what is credible, you certainly are not.

Now be a good little troll and fuck off!

 

[Crick]

I see I need to bring back my old sig. What degree are you claiming to have? And if you don't feel like answering now, recall that you've said before and you just brought it up.

When are you all going to refute WG-I of AR5? Seems like a simple enough task... if you've got the facts, got the evidence, got the science. Simple as pie. We're waiting Billy Boy.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So....let us know when you build your time machine and go back with your gadgets and get good instrumental temperature records for the last few thousand years....until then, I'll stick with the scientific evaluation of the combination of all of the various proxie temperature records that scientists can decipher....which includes, but is not limited to, ice cores, tree rings, sub-fossil pollen, boreholes, corals, lake and ocean sediments, and carbonate speleothems.

Well since you "believe" in proxys so much

Unlike the way things work in your crackpot cult of realty denial, bearbutt, understanding science does not really require one to "believe", you poor demented retard....just to understand and accept the evidence.

(and they all have their limitations like tree rings for example are effected by a host of growing variables including volcanic erruptions)

Why do you ignore as it is suggested by tree ring proxys that the Roman period was warmer then today?

Tree rings suggest Roman world was warmer than thought

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL........WHY, OH WHY do you denier cult retards so often fail to actually read the material you link to? Your puppetmasters hand you a link and tell you it means something contrary to AGW theory and you are too fucking stupid to read it first, you delusional nutbagger.

From YOUR article....

Jan Esper of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, thinks that at least some of those tree rings actually show something else: a long-term cooling trend that lasted right up until the Industrial Revolution. The trend came about because of reduced solar heating caused by changes to the Earth’s orbit known as Milankovitch wobbles, says Esper.

He studied the density of tree rings in hundreds of northern Scandinavian trees and found that they showed evidence of a gradual cooling trend that began around 2000 years ago. The finding fits with other proxies for temperature – such as the chemical make-up of air trapped in glaciers and the organic remains in ancient lake sediments – which have also suggested a cooling trend.

In 2009, Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University at Flagstaff published evidence, using a range of proxies, that indicated a cooling in the Arctic for most of the past 2000 years (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1173983). Esper’s findings suggest that the cooling trend was even stronger than Kaufman concluded.

The finding does not change our understanding of the warming power of carbon dioxide. In fact, it shows that human CO2 emissions have interrupted a long cooling period that would ultimately have delivered the next ice age.



***

No one handed me that link retardo...

It was just a fast example of something well known.



So again the question remains why do you ignore the suggestion by proxys that the roman period was warmer?

 

[RollingThunder]

1) I don't give two shits if Rome was warmer than today. That's not the point. Rome was not warming as quickly as we are today. You've heard this dozens of times. It's not the absolute temperatures, it's the RATE OF CHANGE.

2) The US Constitution will not have a single period altered by our acceptance of the Paris Climate Accord. That's not how treaties work and you have successfully demonstrated your general ignorance - and your failure to take the simple measure of looking up the correct answer - for all to see.

How the Hell do you know Rome didn't warm faster ?????? Sheesh .......

This is what is called: 'Argument From Ignorance', (or argumentum ad ignorantiam)......and it is a kind of logically fallacious insane argument that ONLY ignorant retards use. It assumes that because the retard is incapable (too stupid) of understand something, then it is impossible for anyone to understand it. It assumes that something must be false because it has not (yet) been absolutely proven true. In the real world, scientists know that an "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", something entirely beyond the comprehension of ignorant retards like ol' bearbutt.

"Another form that this fallacy can take is the form of an argument from incredulity (also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction) which is that one's personal incredulity or credulity towards a premise is a logical reason for acceptance or rejection. This incredulity can stem from ignorance (defined as a lack of knowledge and experience) or from willful ignorance (defined as a flat out refusal to gain the knowledge)."

Once again, ol' bearbutt demonstrates his ignorance of science and his complete lack of intelligence, logic and reasoning ability

 

[jc456]

Who do you believe "changed the name"? Was there a pronouncement? Do you not believe that global warming would be part of global climate change? When a major portion of what is going on are secondary effects of that warming: ice melt, glacial shrinkage, increasing weather intensity, sea level rise, timing changes in numerous biological systems - that a broader term might be more accurate?

And when you say that "global warming was... bullshit" are you claiming that it has not warmed? Do you believe global temperatures today are the same as they were at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution?

Only cults believe in something.

ROTFLMFAO......that might tie with some of your other bullshit for the title of 'the stupidest thing you've ever said', bearbutt.
So you consider all Christians to be cultists? LOLOLOL. You pathetic loon!
How about people who "believe" the sun will rise in the east tomorrow? Are we cultists too?
And everybody else on the planet (except you) who "believes" that if they drop something, it will fall downwards? Are we all part of 'The Gravity Cult'?

Do you have data that it was not?

What do you think, moron?

Sources: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis, NASA, accessed January 25

Like many people with very low intelligence, bearbutt, you seem to imagine that you can somehow 'reason out' scientific issues better than all of the real scientists based only on your own abject ignorance about not only science itself, but also about all of the factual evidence the scientists are using and the sources that data is based on.....and also with you completely lacking in any apparent reasoning skills whatsoever because you are apparently very, very retarded, as well as completely ignorant.

You are a joke!

I forgot to mention to you, like I posted here at least 20 times, I am a God Damn....

".....retarded lunatic with delusions of competence"

Yeah, we know!

expert on analog and digital temperature controllers do to my job in plastics for the past 33 years. Some plastics are extremely heat sensitive like acteal and can become explosive..
So again what's more accurate
This
View attachment 69333
Or this
View attachment 69335
Or this

Or fucking this
View attachment 69335

So....let us know when you build your time machine and go back with your gadgets and get good instrumental temperature records for the last few thousand years....until then, I'll stick with the scientific evaluation of the combination of all of the various proxie temperature records that scientists can decipher....which includes, but is not limited to, ice cores, tree rings, sub-fossil pollen, boreholes, corals, lake and ocean sediments, and carbonate speleothems.

Exactly. When will you be going back in time with the newest technology so you do get accurate readings and we see if your group is right.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So....let us know when you build your time machine and go back with your gadgets and get good instrumental temperature records for the last few thousand years....until then, I'll stick with the scientific evaluation of the combination of all of the various proxie temperature records that scientists can decipher....which includes, but is not limited to, ice cores, tree rings, sub-fossil pollen, boreholes, corals, lake and ocean sediments, and carbonate speleothems.

Well since you "believe" in proxys so much

Unlike the way things work in your crackpot cult of realty denial, bearbutt, understanding science does not really require one to "believe", you poor demented retard....just to understand and accept the evidence.

(and they all have their limitations like tree rings for example are effected by a host of growing variables including volcanic erruptions)

Why do you ignore as it is suggested by tree ring proxys that the Roman period was warmer then today?

Tree rings suggest Roman world was warmer than thought

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL........WHY, OH WHY do you denier cult retards so often fail to actually read the material you link to? Your puppetmasters hand you a link and tell you it means something contrary to AGW theory and you are too fucking stupid to read it first, you delusional nutbagger.

From YOUR article....

Jan Esper of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, thinks that at least some of those tree rings actually show something else: a long-term cooling trend that lasted right up until the Industrial Revolution. The trend came about because of reduced solar heating caused by changes to the Earth’s orbit known as Milankovitch wobbles, says Esper.

He studied the density of tree rings in hundreds of northern Scandinavian trees and found that they showed evidence of a gradual cooling trend that began around 2000 years ago. The finding fits with other proxies for temperature – such as the chemical make-up of air trapped in glaciers and the organic remains in ancient lake sediments – which have also suggested a cooling trend.

In 2009, Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University at Flagstaff published evidence, using a range of proxies, that indicated a cooling in the Arctic for most of the past 2000 years (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1173983). Esper’s findings suggest that the cooling trend was even stronger than Kaufman concluded.

The finding does not change our understanding of the warming power of carbon dioxide. In fact, it shows that human CO2 emissions have interrupted a long cooling period that would ultimately have delivered the next ice age.



***

This now also reminds me, why do you also ignore the soil core samples off of Africa, that suggest the great Sahara desert turned from dry to tropical in only a few hundred years?


Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated


Some 12,000 years ago, the only place to live along the eastern Sahara Desert was the Nile Valley. Being so crowded, prime real estate in the Nile Valley was difficult to come by. Disputes over land were often settled with the fist, as evidenced by the cemetery of Jebel Sahaba where many of the buried individuals had died a violent death.

But around 10,500 years ago, a sudden burst of monsoon rains over the vast desert transformed the region into habitable land.

This opened the door for humans to move into the area, as evidenced by the researcher's 500 new radiocarbon dates of human and animal remains from more than 150 excavation sites.

"The climate change at [10,500 years ago] which turned most of the [3.8 million square mile] large Sahara into a savannah-type environment happened within a few hundred years only, certainly within less than 500 years," said study team member Stefan Kroepelin of the University of Cologne in Germany.

 

[jc456]

1) I don't give two shits if Rome was warmer than today. That's not the point. Rome was not warming as quickly as we are today. You've heard this dozens of times. It's not the absolute temperatures, it's the RATE OF CHANGE.

2) The US Constitution will not have a single period altered by our acceptance of the Paris Climate Accord. That's not how treaties work and you have successfully demonstrated your general ignorance - and your failure to take the simple measure of looking up the correct answer - for all to see.

Because a tree ring can be so accurate

 

[Wyatt earp]

1) I don't give two shits if Rome was warmer than today. That's not the point. Rome was not warming as quickly as we are today. You've heard this dozens of times. It's not the absolute temperatures, it's the RATE OF CHANGE.

2) The US Constitution will not have a single period altered by our acceptance of the Paris Climate Accord. That's not how treaties work and you have successfully demonstrated your general ignorance - and your failure to take the simple measure of looking up the correct answer - for all to see.

How the Hell do you know Rome didn't warm faster ?????? Sheesh .......

This is what is called: 'Argument From Ignorance', (or argumentum ad ignorantiam)......and it is a kind of logically fallacious insane argument that ONLY ignorant retards use. It assumes that because the retard is incapable (too stupid) of understand something, then it is impossible for anyone to understand it. It assumes that something must be false because it has not (yet) been absolutely proven true. In the real world, scientists know that an "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", something entirely beyond the comprehension of ignorant retards like ol' bearbutt.

"Another form that this fallacy can take is the form of an argument from incredulity (also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction) which is that one's personal incredulity or credulity towards a premise is a logical reason for acceptance or rejection. This incredulity can stem from ignorance (defined as a lack of knowledge and experience) or from willful ignorance (defined as a flat out refusal to gain the knowledge)."

Once again, ol' bearbutt demonstrates his ignorance of science and his complete lack of intelligence, logic and reasoning ability

Ignorance? I think not fool I want hard data and not estimates by proxy like your ignorant cult "believes" in.

 

[jc456]

So....let us know when you build your time machine and go back with your gadgets and get good instrumental temperature records for the last few thousand years....until then, I'll stick with the scientific evaluation of the combination of all of the various proxie temperature records that scientists can decipher....which includes, but is not limited to, ice cores, tree rings, sub-fossil pollen, boreholes, corals, lake and ocean sediments, and carbonate speleothems.

Well since you "believe" in proxys so much

Unlike the way things work in your crackpot cult of realty denial, bearbutt, understanding science does not really require one to "believe", you poor demented retard....just to understand and accept the evidence.

(and they all have their limitations like tree rings for example are effected by a host of growing variables including volcanic erruptions)

Why do you ignore as it is suggested by tree ring proxys that the Roman period was warmer then today?

Tree rings suggest Roman world was warmer than thought

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL........WHY, OH WHY do you denier cult retards so often fail to actually read the material you link to? Your puppetmasters hand you a link and tell you it means something contrary to AGW theory and you are too fucking stupid to read it first, you delusional nutbagger.

From YOUR article....

Jan Esper of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, thinks that at least some of those tree rings actually show something else: a long-term cooling trend that lasted right up until the Industrial Revolution. The trend came about because of reduced solar heating caused by changes to the Earth’s orbit known as Milankovitch wobbles, says Esper.

He studied the density of tree rings in hundreds of northern Scandinavian trees and found that they showed evidence of a gradual cooling trend that began around 2000 years ago. The finding fits with other proxies for temperature – such as the chemical make-up of air trapped in glaciers and the organic remains in ancient lake sediments – which have also suggested a cooling trend.

In 2009, Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University at Flagstaff published evidence, using a range of proxies, that indicated a cooling in the Arctic for most of the past 2000 years (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1173983). Esper’s findings suggest that the cooling trend was even stronger than Kaufman concluded.

The finding does not change our understanding of the warming power of carbon dioxide. In fact, it shows that human CO2 emissions have interrupted a long cooling period that would ultimately have delivered the next ice age.



***

This now also reminds me, why do you also ignore the soil core samples off of Africa, that suggest the great Sahara desert turned from dry to tropical in only a few hundred years?


Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated


Some 12,000 years ago, the only place to live along the eastern Sahara Desert was the Nile Valley. Being so crowded, prime real estate in the Nile Valley was difficult to come by. Disputes over land were often settled with the fist, as evidenced by the cemetery of Jebel Sahaba where many of the buried individuals had died a violent death.

But around 10,500 years ago, a sudden burst of monsoon rains over the vast desert transformed the region into habitable land.

This opened the door for humans to move into the area, as evidenced by the researcher's 500 new radiocarbon dates of human and animal remains from more than 150 excavation sites.

"The climate change at [10,500 years ago] which turned most of the [3.8 million square mile] large Sahara into a savannah-type environment happened within a few hundred years only, certainly within less than 500 years," said study team member Stefan Kroepelin of the University of Cologne in Germany.

Now that can't be. Ask the folks in here warming up today.

 

[RollingThunder]

So....let us know when you build your time machine and go back with your gadgets and get good instrumental temperature records for the last few thousand years....until then, I'll stick with the scientific evaluation of the combination of all of the various proxie temperature records that scientists can decipher....which includes, but is not limited to, ice cores, tree rings, sub-fossil pollen, boreholes, corals, lake and ocean sediments, and carbonate speleothems.

Well since you "believe" in proxys so much

Unlike the way things work in your crackpot cult of realty denial, bearbutt, understanding science does not really require one to "believe", you poor demented retard....just to understand and accept the evidence.

(and they all have their limitations like tree rings for example are effected by a host of growing variables including volcanic erruptions)

Why do you ignore as it is suggested by tree ring proxys that the Roman period was warmer then today?

Tree rings suggest Roman world was warmer than thought

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL........WHY, OH WHY do you denier cult retards so often fail to actually read the material you link to? Your puppetmasters hand you a link and tell you it means something contrary to AGW theory and you are too fucking stupid to read it first, you delusional nutbagger.

From YOUR article....

Jan Esper of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, thinks that at least some of those tree rings actually show something else: a long-term cooling trend that lasted right up until the Industrial Revolution. The trend came about because of reduced solar heating caused by changes to the Earth’s orbit known as Milankovitch wobbles, says Esper.

He studied the density of tree rings in hundreds of northern Scandinavian trees and found that they showed evidence of a gradual cooling trend that began around 2000 years ago. The finding fits with other proxies for temperature – such as the chemical make-up of air trapped in glaciers and the organic remains in ancient lake sediments – which have also suggested a cooling trend.

In 2009, Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University at Flagstaff published evidence, using a range of proxies, that indicated a cooling in the Arctic for most of the past 2000 years (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1173983). Esper’s findings suggest that the cooling trend was even stronger than Kaufman concluded.

The finding does not change our understanding of the warming power of carbon dioxide. In fact, it shows that human CO2 emissions have interrupted a long cooling period that would ultimately have delivered the next ice age.



***

No one handed me that link retardo...

Then why did you post something that you very obviously DID NOT READ that DOES NOT SAY what you claim it does, dumbass?

Why would you post something that you obviously DID NOT READ that actually says this....
"....a long-term cooling trend that lasted right up until the Industrial Revolution. The trend came about because of reduced solar heating caused by changes to the Earth’s orbit known as Milankovitch wobbles, says Esper. ....evidence of a gradual cooling trend that began around 2000 years ago. Esper’s findings suggest that the cooling trend was even stronger....The finding does not change our understanding of the warming power of carbon dioxide. In fact, it shows that human CO2 emissions have interrupted a long cooling period that would ultimately have delivered the next ice age."

It was just a fast example of something well known.

It was just a bogus non-existent example of a fraudulent denier cult myth that you have been duped in believing....because you are such an ignorant gullible retard.

So again the question remains why do you ignore the suggestion by proxys that the roman period was warmer?

You utter moron! There was absolutely nothing in your article that said that the Roman Period was warmer than the present.....it just said that one lone study indicated that it might have been warmer than scientists had previously thought it was. I already pointed out that you obviously didn't even read the article you linked to. It was titled: Tree rings suggest Roman world was warmer than thought........NOT warmer than today, imbecile.

 

[elektra]

Fine, I have no such interest. I would suggest you re-examine the accord itself and perhaps the US Constitution because you've got a major misunderstanding of fundamental US government.

Perhaps you should learn before you post, you have called it an, "Agreement", an "Accord", and a "Treaty", which is it Crick!

 

[Wyatt earp]

So....let us know when you build your time machine and go back with your gadgets and get good instrumental temperature records for the last few thousand years....until then, I'll stick with the scientific evaluation of the combination of all of the various proxie temperature records that scientists can decipher....which includes, but is not limited to, ice cores, tree rings, sub-fossil pollen, boreholes, corals, lake and ocean sediments, and carbonate speleothems.

Well since you "believe" in proxys so much

Unlike the way things work in your crackpot cult of realty denial, bearbutt, understanding science does not really require one to "believe", you poor demented retard....just to understand and accept the evidence.

(and they all have their limitations like tree rings for example are effected by a host of growing variables including volcanic erruptions)

Why do you ignore as it is suggested by tree ring proxys that the Roman period was warmer then today?

Tree rings suggest Roman world was warmer than thought

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL........WHY, OH WHY do you denier cult retards so often fail to actually read the material you link to? Your puppetmasters hand you a link and tell you it means something contrary to AGW theory and you are too fucking stupid to read it first, you delusional nutbagger.

From YOUR article....

Jan Esper of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, thinks that at least some of those tree rings actually show something else: a long-term cooling trend that lasted right up until the Industrial Revolution. The trend came about because of reduced solar heating caused by changes to the Earth’s orbit known as Milankovitch wobbles, says Esper.

He studied the density of tree rings in hundreds of northern Scandinavian trees and found that they showed evidence of a gradual cooling trend that began around 2000 years ago. The finding fits with other proxies for temperature – such as the chemical make-up of air trapped in glaciers and the organic remains in ancient lake sediments – which have also suggested a cooling trend.

In 2009, Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University at Flagstaff published evidence, using a range of proxies, that indicated a cooling in the Arctic for most of the past 2000 years (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1173983). Esper’s findings suggest that the cooling trend was even stronger than Kaufman concluded.

The finding does not change our understanding of the warming power of carbon dioxide. In fact, it shows that human CO2 emissions have interrupted a long cooling period that would ultimately have delivered the next ice age.



***

No one handed me that link retardo...

Then why did you post something that you very obviously DID NOT READ that DOES NOT SAY what you claim it does, dumbass?

Why would you post something that you obviously DID NOT READ that actually says this....
"....a long-term cooling trend that lasted right up until the Industrial Revolution. The trend came about because of reduced solar heating caused by changes to the Earth’s orbit known as Milankovitch wobbles, says Esper. ....evidence of a gradual cooling trend that began around 2000 years ago. Esper’s findings suggest that the cooling trend was even stronger....The finding does not change our understanding of the warming power of carbon dioxide. In fact, it shows that human CO2 emissions have interrupted a long cooling period that would ultimately have delivered the next ice age."

It was just a fast example of something well known.

It was just a bogus non-existent example of a fraudulent denier cult myth that you have been duped in believing....because you are such an ignorant gullible retard.

So again the question remains why do you ignore the suggestion by proxys that the roman period was warmer?

You utter moron! There was absolutely nothing in your article that said that the Roman Period was warmer than the present.....it just said that one lone study indicated that it might have been warmer than scientists had previously thought it was. I already pointed out that you obviously didn't even read the article you linked to. It was titled: Tree rings suggest Roman world was warmer than thought........NOT warmer than today, imbecile.

It is Well known , that's why I said " suggested"

You can google the hell out of it and some say it was warmer some say not.


To argue about one link I posted just tells me this is the first time you heard about it and not to bright.

CO2 Science

Climate alarmists contend that the degree of global warmth over latter part of the 20th century was greater than it has been at any other time over the past one to two millennia. Why? Because this contention helps them sell their claim that the "unprecedented" temperatures of the past few decades were CO2-induced. Hence, they cannot stomach the thought that the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago could have been just as warm as, or even warmer than, it has been recently, especially since there was so much less CO2 in the air a thousand years ago than there is now. Likewise, they are equally loath to admit that the temperatures of the Roman Warm Period of twothousand years ago may also have rivaled, or exceeded, those of the recent past, since atmospheric CO2 concentrations at that still earlier time were also much lower than they are today. As a result, climate alarmists rarely even speak of the Roman Warm Period, as they are happy to let sleeping dogs lie.


Roman Warm Period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Roman Warm Period
The Roman Warm Period or the Roman climatic optimum has been proposed as a period of unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to 400 AD.[1]Cooling at the end of this period in south west Florida may have been due to a reduction in solar radiation reaching the Earth, which may have triggered a change in atmospheric circulation patterns.[2]

Theophrastus (371 – c. 287 BC) wrote that date trees could grow in Greece if planted, but could not set fruit there. This is the same situation as today, and suggests that southern Aegean mean summer temperatures in the fourth and fifth centuries BC were within a degree of modern temperatures. This and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek climate during that period was basically the same as it was around 2000 AD. Dendrochronological evidence from wood found at theParthenon shows variability of climate in the 5th century BC resembling the modern pattern of variation.[3] Tree rings from Italy in the late 3rd century BC indicate a period of mild conditions in the area at the time that Hannibalcrossed the Alps with elephants.[

Seasonal climate change across the Roman Warm Period/Vandal Minimum transition using isotope sclerochronology in archaeological shells and otoliths, southwest Florida, USA

Abstract
Archaeological evidence suggests that southwest Florida experienced variably warmer and wetter climate during the Roman Warm Period (RWP; 300 BC–550 AD) relative to the Vandal Minimum (VM; 550–800 AD). This hypothesis was tested by reconstructing seasonal-scale climate conditions for the latter part of the RWP (1–550 AD) by using high-resolution oxygen isotope ratios (δ18O) of archaeological shells (Mercenaria campechiensis) and otoliths (Ariopsis felis). Eight shells radiocarbon-dated to 150–550 AD recorded that the RWP summers at 150–250 AD were insignificantly different from today and the RWP summers at 250–350 AD and 450–550 AD were drier relative to today. Eight otoliths indicate that the winters were variable during the RWP, colder than today at 150–200 AD and 250–300 AD, similar to today at 200–250 AD, 300–350 AD and 450–500 AD, and warmer than today at 500–550 AD. The climate reconstructions agree with archaeological observations and are partially coherent with the history of sea-level change, with a drying and cooling trend at the 95% confidence level across the RWP/VM transition. The climate transition is not only consistent with falling sea level, but also coherent with reduced solar radiation. Reduced solar radiation may have triggered a change in atmospheric circulation patterns that precipitated the observed climate transition.

 

[RollingThunder]

This now also reminds me, why do you also ignore the soil core samples off of Africa, that suggest the great Sahara desert turned from dry to tropical in only a few hundred years?
Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated
Some 12,000 years ago, the only place to live along the eastern Sahara Desert was the Nile Valley. Being so crowded, prime real estate in the Nile Valley was difficult to come by. Disputes over land were often settled with the fist, as evidenced by the cemetery of Jebel Sahaba where many of the buried individuals had died a violent death.

But around 10,500 years ago, a sudden burst of monsoon rains over the vast desert transformed the region into habitable land.

This opened the door for humans to move into the area, as evidenced by the researcher's 500 new radiocarbon dates of human and animal remains from more than 150 excavation sites.

"The climate change at [10,500 years ago] which turned most of the [3.8 million square mile] large Sahara into a savannah-type environment happened within a few hundred years only, certainly within less than 500 years," said study team member Stefan Kroepelin of the University of Cologne in Germany.

Wow! You just keep getting even more stupidly insane, bearbutt....and I didn't think that was even possible.

Yeah, numbnuts, 10,500 years ago the Earth's climate was naturally changing as the planet transitioned from a hundred thousand year long 'ice age', or period of heavy glaciation, into the current interglacial period....driven by the same Millankovitch Cycles that had started and stopped the ice ages multiple times before over the last two and a half million years. SO WHAT!!! No one but an utter moron would imagine that the current abrupt, rapid, CO2 driven warming trend the world is experiencing has anything to do with the changes that occurred when the last ice age ended and the giant ice sheets that had covered North America and Europe melted and sea levels rose enormously. The Millankovitch Cycles are not currently warming the Earth, you poor fool. As your earlier article about the Roman Period made clear...the Earth had been in a the midst of a long slow cooling trend caused by the Millankovitch Cycles, until the Industrial Revolution came along and the rising CO2 levels reversed the natural cooling trend and started an un-natural abrupt and very rapid warming trend.

It is really hilarious that you keep posting things that don't in any way support your deranged denial of the reality of human caused global warming, all the while moronically claiming that they do. You are such a gullible loon!

 

[Wyatt earp]

So....let us know when you build your time machine and go back with your gadgets and get good instrumental temperature records for the last few thousand years....until then, I'll stick with the scientific evaluation of the combination of all of the various proxie temperature records that scientists can decipher....which includes, but is not limited to, ice cores, tree rings, sub-fossil pollen, boreholes, corals, lake and ocean sediments, and carbonate speleothems.

Well since you "believe" in proxys so much

Unlike the way things work in your crackpot cult of realty denial, bearbutt, understanding science does not really require one to "believe", you poor demented retard....just to understand and accept the evidence.

(and they all have their limitations like tree rings for example are effected by a host of growing variables including volcanic erruptions)

Why do you ignore as it is suggested by tree ring proxys that the Roman period was warmer then today?

Tree rings suggest Roman world was warmer than thought

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL........WHY, OH WHY do you denier cult retards so often fail to actually read the material you link to? Your puppetmasters hand you a link and tell you it means something contrary to AGW theory and you are too fucking stupid to read it first, you delusional nutbagger.

From YOUR article....

Jan Esper of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, thinks that at least some of those tree rings actually show something else: a long-term cooling trend that lasted right up until the Industrial Revolution. The trend came about because of reduced solar heating caused by changes to the Earth’s orbit known as Milankovitch wobbles, says Esper.

He studied the density of tree rings in hundreds of northern Scandinavian trees and found that they showed evidence of a gradual cooling trend that began around 2000 years ago. The finding fits with other proxies for temperature – such as the chemical make-up of air trapped in glaciers and the organic remains in ancient lake sediments – which have also suggested a cooling trend.

In 2009, Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University at Flagstaff published evidence, using a range of proxies, that indicated a cooling in the Arctic for most of the past 2000 years (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1173983). Esper’s findings suggest that the cooling trend was even stronger than Kaufman concluded.

The finding does not change our understanding of the warming power of carbon dioxide. In fact, it shows that human CO2 emissions have interrupted a long cooling period that would ultimately have delivered the next ice age.



***

No one handed me that link retardo...

Then why did you post something that you very obviously DID NOT READ that DOES NOT SAY what you claim it does, dumbass?

Why would you post something that you obviously DID NOT READ that actually says this....
"....a long-term cooling trend that lasted right up until the Industrial Revolution. The trend came about because of reduced solar heating caused by changes to the Earth’s orbit known as Milankovitch wobbles, says Esper. ....evidence of a gradual cooling trend that began around 2000 years ago. Esper’s findings suggest that the cooling trend was even stronger....The finding does not change our understanding of the warming power of carbon dioxide. In fact, it shows that human CO2 emissions have interrupted a long cooling period that would ultimately have delivered the next ice age."

It was just a fast example of something well known.

It was just a bogus non-existent example of a fraudulent denier cult myth that you have been duped in believing....because you are such an ignorant gullible retard.

So again the question remains why do you ignore the suggestion by proxys that the roman period was warmer?

You utter moron! There was absolutely nothing in your article that said that the Roman Period was warmer than the present.....it just said that one lone study indicated that it might have been warmer than scientists had previously thought it was. I already pointed out that you obviously didn't even read the article you linked to. It was titled: Tree rings suggest Roman world was warmer than thought........NOT warmer than today, imbecile.

It is Well known , that's why I said " suggested"

You can google the hell out of it and some say it was warmer some say not.


To argue about one link I posted just tells me this is the first time you heard about it and not to bright.

CO2 Science

Climate alarmists contend that the degree of global warmth over latter part of the 20th century was greater than it has been at any other time over the past one to two millennia. Why? Because this contention helps them sell their claim that the "unprecedented" temperatures of the past few decades were CO2-induced. Hence, they cannot stomach the thought that the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago could have been just as warm as, or even warmer than, it has been recently, especially since there was so much less CO2 in the air a thousand years ago than there is now. Likewise, they are equally loath to admit that the temperatures of the Roman Warm Period of twothousand years ago may also have rivaled, or exceeded, those of the recent past, since atmospheric CO2 concentrations at that still earlier time were also much lower than they are today. As a result, climate alarmists rarely even speak of the Roman Warm Period, as they are happy to let sleeping dogs lie.


Roman Warm Period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Roman Warm Period
The Roman Warm Period or the Roman climatic optimum has been proposed as a period of unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to 400 AD.[1]Cooling at the end of this period in south west Florida may have been due to a reduction in solar radiation reaching the Earth, which may have triggered a change in atmospheric circulation patterns.[2]

Theophrastus (371 – c. 287 BC) wrote that date trees could grow in Greece if planted, but could not set fruit there. This is the same situation as today, and suggests that southern Aegean mean summer temperatures in the fourth and fifth centuries BC were within a degree of modern temperatures. This and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek climate during that period was basically the same as it was around 2000 AD. Dendrochronological evidence from wood found at theParthenon shows variability of climate in the 5th century BC resembling the modern pattern of variation.[3] Tree rings from Italy in the late 3rd century BC indicate a period of mild conditions in the area at the time that Hannibalcrossed the Alps with elephants.[

Seasonal climate change across the Roman Warm Period/Vandal Minimum transition using isotope sclerochronology in archaeological shells and otoliths, southwest Florida, USA

Abstract
Archaeological evidence suggests that southwest Florida experienced variably warmer and wetter climate during the Roman Warm Period (RWP; 300 BC–550 AD) relative to the Vandal Minimum (VM; 550–800 AD). This hypothesis was tested by reconstructing seasonal-scale climate conditions for the latter part of the RWP (1–550 AD) by using high-resolution oxygen isotope ratios (δ18O) of archaeological shells (Mercenaria campechiensis) and otoliths (Ariopsis felis). Eight shells radiocarbon-dated to 150–550 AD recorded that the RWP summers at 150–250 AD were insignificantly different from today and the RWP summers at 250–350 AD and 450–550 AD were drier relative to today. Eight otoliths indicate that the winters were variable during the RWP, colder than today at 150–200 AD and 250–300 AD, similar to today at 200–250 AD, 300–350 AD and 450–500 AD, and warmer than today at 500–550 AD. The climate reconstructions agree with archaeological observations and are partially coherent with the history of sea-level change, with a drying and cooling trend at the 95% confidence level across the RWP/VM transition. The climate transition is not only consistent with falling sea level, but also coherent with reduced solar radiation. Reduced solar radiation may have triggered a change in atmospheric circulation patterns that precipitated the observed climate transition.

Oh wow bones, there are those proxy sea shells you were talking about that says the earth was warmer between 500 and 550 AD

 

[Wyatt earp]

This now also reminds me, why do you also ignore the soil core samples off of Africa, that suggest the great Sahara desert turned from dry to tropical in only a few hundred years?
Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated
Some 12,000 years ago, the only place to live along the eastern Sahara Desert was the Nile Valley. Being so crowded, prime real estate in the Nile Valley was difficult to come by. Disputes over land were often settled with the fist, as evidenced by the cemetery of Jebel Sahaba where many of the buried individuals had died a violent death.

But around 10,500 years ago, a sudden burst of monsoon rains over the vast desert transformed the region into habitable land.

This opened the door for humans to move into the area, as evidenced by the researcher's 500 new radiocarbon dates of human and animal remains from more than 150 excavation sites.

"The climate change at [10,500 years ago] which turned most of the [3.8 million square mile] large Sahara into a savannah-type environment happened within a few hundred years only, certainly within less than 500 years," said study team member Stefan Kroepelin of the University of Cologne in Germany.

Wow! You just keep getting even more stupidly insane, bearbutt....and I didn't think that was even possible.

Yeah, numbnuts, 10,500 years ago the Earth's climate was naturally changing as the planet transitioned from a hundred thousand year long 'ice age', or period of heavy glaciation, into the current interglacial period....driven by the same Millankovitch Cycles that had started and stopped the ice ages multiple times before over the last two and a half million years. SO WHAT!!! No one but an utter moron would imagine that the current abrupt, rapid, CO2 driven warming trend the world is experiencing has anything to do with the changes that occurred when the last ice age ended and the giant ice sheets that had covered North America and Europe melted and sea levels rose enormously. The Millankovitch Cycles are not currently warming the Earth, you poor fool. As your earlier article about the Roman Period made clear...the Earth had been in a the midst of a long slow cooling trend caused by the Millankovitch Cycles, until the Industrial Revolution came along and the rising CO2 levels reversed the natural cooling trend and started an un-natural abrupt and very rapid warming trend.

It is really hilarious that you keep posting things that don't in any way support your deranged denial of the reality of human caused global warming, all the while moronically claiming that they do. You are such a gullible loon!

Wait let me get this straight, now you say so what to climate change?



LMFAO



.