According to a recent paper** published in the journal Nature, only a dramatic fall in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are able to explain the transition from the mostly ice-free Greenland of three million years ago, to the ice-covered Greenland of today.
I am not convinced, but anyway, the paper begs the question, why did the purported elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations fall to levels similar to the pre-industrial era?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Late Pliocene Greenland glaciation controlled by a decline in atmospheric CO2 levels, Nature 454, 1102-1105 (28 August 2008), by Daniel J. Lunt, Gavin L. Foster, Alan M. Haywood and & Emma J. Stone.
Read the University of Bristol media release here.
Yeah and they don't do it. And so everything we thought we knew prior to this science fraud taking over simply has to be ethnically cleansed due to the stupid-talk express.
So, the paper saying that only changes in CO2 levels are able to explain the glaciation transition 3 million year ago in Greenland must show how the papers that Steve Short cites don't cut it.
Nature papers are freely available for reading, and for copying at any university library for a couple of bucks.
The cost to have a paper sent to you, if you can't get to a library yourself but a friend can, is even less.
This is next to nothing in a private enterprise world.
And if one disagrees with a paper in Nature, one is absolutely entitled to write a rebuttal and submit it for consideration. If one feels that Nature inappropriately rejects such a rebuttal, there is always recourse to publishing on the web and embarrassing the editoral board of the journal when your insight is made available to the world.
It doesn't have to be difficult.
There was a "dramatic" drop in CO2 levels 3 million years ago - from 300 ppm to 280 ppm.
This 'paper' is up there with Ammann and Wahl and Sherwood and Allen and anything done by Hansen and Mann; historically, there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature;
http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
And therefore no correlation between CO2 levels and ice levels. The isolation of Antarctica 35 million years ago, along with interruptions to thermohaline circulation, is the key to subsequent climate cooling.
We have the theory. And we have ample paleo-evidence. Every time oceanic flows are more restricted we get cooling. Not just to that area where the heat transport is reduced BUT GLOBALLY.
And the theory of it is basically undeniable. That when we apply Stefan Boltzmanns law hyper-regionally. Then we see that the better the mixing the better the heat retention.
So why would we be in denial of such obvious theory and practice match-up.
Its the same with Heinrich events. If the ice breaks free in such a way as to free up the Gulf Stream we will see a rapid warming. Not just up there but everywhere. And its obvious that we would do.
Thats the difference between the alarmist armchair scenario and this one. THIS ONE PANS OUT IN THE DATA.
You know before the wrecking-ball act that is modern climate alarmism, the fact of why this all happened was well-known. Geologists simply talked about the formation of the Isthmus of Panama and the consequent effect on climate. Not only when the two oceans were finally cut off completely. But in the lead-up to it.
Now its ESOTERIC KNOWLEDGE when it used to be just blandly accepted as the obvious reason. And in the alternative idiots view of the scenario, how did this dissapearance of the CO2 come about? And why then? Why then and why not some other time?
I tell you we are dealing with morons and all must be sacked and off the public tit for all time.
You know before the wrecking-ball act that is modern climate alarmism, the fact of why this all happened was well-known. Geologists simply talked about the formation of the Isthmus of Panama and the consequent effect on climate. Not only when the two oceans were finally cut off completely. But in the lead-up to it.
Now its ESOTERIC KNOWLEDGE when it used to be just blandly accepted as the obvious reason. And in the alternative idiots view of the scenario, how did this dissapearance of the CO2 come about? And why then? Why then and why not some other time?
I tell you we are dealing with morons and all must be sacked and off the public tit for all time.