Ahh but it's not the red snapper of old. Different species.
Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
Just off hand it seems there is a disconnect between the "science" of the PETM, and the James Hansen "Science" of the late twentieth Century. Aren't we getting just a little bit ahead of ourselves here? (see the underlined portion.)
Well let's see, if we interpret "possibly" as "did" then our current rate is 5 one millioneth of the lowest emission rate estimate for the PETM. And again, how much did the temperature rise according the educated guesses, 41 deg F. So our temperature should be rising 0.0002 deg F per year. (Ceteris paribis, and assuming that the PETM warming was due to CO2, AND warming is due to CO2 now - an unjustified assumption in both cases of course.) Or alternatively CO2 was an insignificant factor then, and an even less significant factor now. Or CO2 did not matter than, as far as temperature goes, but it sure does matter now.
Here is a point I made a long time ago. The paleo record also shows that there were periods when the CO2 was much higher than it is today, yet the temperature was lower than it is today. That's a little problem for Hansen and his boys.
Now, Richter, do you understand why I am so skeptical of the Hansen school of "far-too-simple climate science"? There are a lot of knowledgeable people working in this area. Sadly, James Hansen is not one of them -- he's become a charlatan. I think he started out with good intentions, then became emotionally involved and was psychologically unable to backtrack. And even more sadly, the media and politics have combined to make the science an also ran.
I am sticking by my earlier prediction that this whole business will eventually become known as "climate gate". And I am going to keep hammering away at you until you finally see the light. You're far too bright to be hanging with the USA today crowd.
The Temperature may indeed be going up, the jury is still out, but if it is, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the increases in our atmosphere's trace CO2 levels.
_____________
I believe Ockham's Razor generally holds in science. The most likely cause of fractional degree long term surface temperature increase is direct thermal pollution. Larger increases, or decreases are going to be do to solar, geothermal, plant/animal imbalances or astrophysical phenomena. All climate models virtually ignore the role of the plants; yet plants are 50% , or more , of the total picture!
Wrong again buckoh. Yes it is that simple.
The levels of CO2 do control the earth's temperature. At least as important as solar variations. You should try reading some recent science about it. You seem to be stuck with thirty year old red snapper.
Last edited:
then what peer reviewed science do you have that explains that although co2 levels follow (not lead) the change in ocean temperature, co2 causes the change?
Its pretty simple really. until you post peer reviewed science showing that man made co2 causes warming... everything you and your team says is speculation at best.
Its pretty simple really. until you post peer reviewed science showing that man made co2 causes warming... everything you and your team says is speculation at best.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html
It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.
- John C. Fyfe,
- Gerald A. Meehl,
- Matthew H. England,
- Michael E. Mann,
- Benjamin D. Santer,
- Gregory M. Flato,
- Ed Hawkins,
- Nathan P. Gillett,
- Shang-Ping Xie,
- Yu Kosaka
- & Neil C. Swart
It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/scie...ampaigners-say-global-warming-IS-slowing-down
The team of experts, including scientist Michael Mann ,who helped draw up the initial figures of how much the earth was likely to heat up by, say they have disproved evidence used by world leaders before the Paris climate change conference in November Those figures disputed there had been a major slow down in temperature increases in the 17 years from 1997 to 2014.
In a paper entitled Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown published in Nature Climate Change, the scientists, instead claimed that global warming slowed down during a period that saw an increase in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions.
Their findings contradict a study produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) last year which claimed the “Pause” did not happen.
"This raises interesting science questions: are we living in a world less sensitive to GHG forcing.
"Our results support previous findings of a reduced rate of surface warming over the 2001–2014 period — a period in which anthropogenic forcing increased at a relatively constant rate. Recent research
"Based on our analysis, which relies on physical understanding of the key processes and forcings involved, we find that the rate of warming over the early twenty-first century is slower than that of the previous few decades.
The team of experts, including scientist Michael Mann ,who helped draw up the initial figures of how much the earth was likely to heat up by, say they have disproved evidence used by world leaders before the Paris climate change conference in November Those figures disputed there had been a major slow down in temperature increases in the 17 years from 1997 to 2014.
In a paper entitled Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown published in Nature Climate Change, the scientists, instead claimed that global warming slowed down during a period that saw an increase in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions.
Their findings contradict a study produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) last year which claimed the “Pause” did not happen.
"This raises interesting science questions: are we living in a world less sensitive to GHG forcing.
"Our results support previous findings of a reduced rate of surface warming over the 2001–2014 period — a period in which anthropogenic forcing increased at a relatively constant rate. Recent research
"Based on our analysis, which relies on physical understanding of the key processes and forcings involved, we find that the rate of warming over the early twenty-first century is slower than that of the previous few decades.
Last edited:
What!? CO2 levels are "at least as important as solar variations"?
That is a major change to your dogma.
Thank you for at least conceding that much.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html
- John C. Fyfe,
- Gerald A. Meehl,
- Matthew H. England,
- Michael E. Mann,
- Benjamin D. Santer,
- Gregory M. Flato,
- Ed Hawkins,
- Nathan P. Gillett,
- Shang-Ping Xie,
- Yu Kosaka
- & Neil C. Swart
It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.
Your chart's no good. There was zero slowdown in the rate of the heat content increase of planet earth. In fact it accelerated.
This is the chart. Up to date, best current data.
I haven't conceded anything. I always knew it. Solar variation is NOT causing the current sudden very high rate of warming. CO2 -and the other ghgs - is causing it.
That is not what you have stated in the past. That is different. Liar.
No it is wrong.Your chart's no good. There was zero slowdown in the rate of the heat content increase of planet earth. In fact it accelerated.
This is the chart. Up to date, best current data.