It was a bad paper making many assumptions. Here are the problems with it. The paper is based on many assumptions without supporting data. Here are a few examples: 1. They assume that CO2 is capable of causing climate changes, even though 95% of the greenhouse gas (GHG) effect is from water vapor. In order to seriously consider CO2 as a causal mechanism, you first need to prove that very tiny increases in CO2 do indeed increase atmospheric water vapor. However, during recent warming, purported to be caused by increased CO2, atmospheric water vapor has not gone up, it has decreased slightly. CO2 by itself cannot cause significant warming because there is little of it in the atmosphere (0.038%) and CO2 accounts for only a few percent of the GHG effect. 2. They assume that the AMOC is the only driver of climate change, totally ignoring the influence of the Pacific Ocean, which covers almost half of the Earthâs surface and we can see in the modern data a strong influence of ENSO as a driver of climate changes (actually a closer correlation than the AMOC). They offer no evidence that the AMOC is the main and only driver of climate change. 3. They assume a hemispheric âsee-sawâ of climate changes in which the North and South Hemispheres are out of phase, despite strong evidence in both hemisphere that climate changes were closely simultaneous, not out of phase with one another (Easterbrook, 2011). 4. They dismiss all other causal mechanisms by simply stating that they are only of âregional importanceâ, similar to the tactic of dismissing the MWP and Little Ice Age as only regional climate changes, not global. They also totally ignore the complete lack of correlation of CO2 with Holocene climate changes. They donât even mention the very strong correlation of variation in 10Be and 14C with climate changes, suggesting a solar cause.
Say what? I think you have me confused with 'futurecurrents'. What I posted were some of the problems with the paper he posted promoting the "CO2 leads to global waming" theory.
Sorry... I thought I did click on futurecurrents. You may have been the first person who pointed out to me that the ice cores show temperature rises before CO2.
So now you understand that until now, you and the other et atheists and all the man made AGW assholes like bill maher had no science? And now maybe with a bit of guesswork... for the first time you have an argument... that CO2 buildup may have some causal relationship on warming?
So Co2 is greenhouse gas (there is absolutely no question about this) and it has lead to higher temperatures in the past when it goes up just as now it is raising temperatures as it hits the highest levels seen in two million years.
No, you see, we have always had brains, common sense and science behind us. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In the past there was not the sudden huge release of CO2 into the atmosphere like we have today. The fact that, in the past, CO2 may not have always been the initial cause of temperatures rising does mean that is not happening today.
Latest weekly report shows a 1% year over year increase. What's a year in geologic time equivalent to? Like, a millisecond? "Sudden huge release" is almost a euphemism. Explosion would be more descriptive, I think. What's left after the explosion? Not a lot.
Again... show the fricken data... you have none. Really, your last paper was just sort guessing. Would they be guessing if they had the data or the science. So now you may say the release of CO2 is alarming... but you do not know it is causing temperatures to rise. Besides, since we know temperatures went up and down in the past... does it matter if we reach the peak early?
You're hopeless. The only one guessing is you. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that would change your mind. I'm quite convinced of that now. Your intransigent ideological stupidity is stunning. Thanks for playing - you lose. I mean your great-grandchildren lose.
Yes, and it's the rapidity with which it is rising that makes it so injurious to ecological systems. There is no time to adapt. The rate is an order of magnitude greater than it was during the Paleo- Eocene thermal maximum. Future geologists will see a layer in the rocks here that will denote the Anthropocene Epoch. I wonder how thin it will be.