I am not sure I was clear Ricter. And of course I could be wrong. I wasn't referring to discovery of new species, but actually observing their formation. Have we done that?
We have. Google "have we observed speciation". Have we actually observed planet formation? Does it occur, even if a beginning-to-end observation would take far, far more time than the length of a single human lifespan?
which makes more sense.. a planet needing to sustain a few billion more people with more plant food or less? which makes more sense... the earth has cycled for billions of years releasing carbon and buffering itself from the elements and continues to cycle or that man has broken the earth. which makes more sense... co2 is part of a positive and negative feedback mechanism which has kept our atmosphere conducive to certain types of life for a few billion years... or the earth is now broken? based on our longest term charts are we near historically low levels of co2 or not? how do you know we are just not rebounding off the last ice age? finally... can we really compare... today's instrument data... with proxies... seriously, this is the most important question... all of this temperature and co2 comparison stuff have a lot of assumptions built in.
How exact does this science really sound... I am not blaming the science... the science is incredible... but the benchmarking is an educated guess relative to instrument data... In fact.... anyone but an agw nutter should be alarmed that all of sudden agw nutters are telling us the tree ring data is broken. --- "Essentially nothing is available in the way of quantitative measurements of weather conditions for the time before 1800 A.D. " http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/05_1.shtml Reconstructing Past Climate Change temperature anomalies from various proxies, dating back to A.D. 1000. Each of the colored lines represents a different study, the authors of which are noted in the legend. The black line from 1850 to the present represents direct observations of temperature from thermometers. Instrumental Records of Climate Thermometers have only been in widespread use since around 1850. Thus, the instrumental record for earlier times is quite poor and full of gaps. Essentially nothing is available in the way of quantitative measurements of weather conditions for the time before 1800 A.D. To reconstruct climate change, therefore, we need to use indirect indicators. One source of information is historical records: logs, dairies, lists on when the wine harvest began, reports on when the ice first broke up in a northern river, or when the cherry trees first blossomed. In some cases, such reports go back hundreds of years, although rarely in unbroken sequence. Logs and dairies are treasured finds, they do not exist for most regions of the planet. Proxy Records of Climate In many areas, Earth itself has kept a detailed log, albeit in a language that must first be deciphered. Paleoclimatologists (climatologists who study past � or paleo � climates) use the term "proxy" to describe a way that climate change is recorded in nature, within geological materials such as ocean or lake sediments, tree-rings, coral growth-bands, ice-cores, and cave deposits. For a proxy to be useful it must first be established that the proxy (i.e. tree-ring width, stable isotope composition of ice, sediment composition) is in fact sensitive to changes in temperature (or some other environmental parameter). This phase of research is known as calibration of the proxy. Perhaps the most frequently used temperature proxy is the relative abundance of microfossils in sediments. That microfossils bear witness to temperature was recognized early in the history of oceanography. John Murray, naturalist of the Challenger Expedition (1872-1875), found that planktonic foraminifers not only make up much of the sediment on the sea floor �but that different species indicate the temperature of the waters wherein they live. The simplest way to estimate temperature from such an assemblage is to assign to each species a typical temperature and calculate the weighted average depending on abundance. Tree-ring width is another reliable proxy of ambient environmental conditions. When a tree grows at high elevation, near the tree limit, its growth is limited by temperature, and the thickness of its growth rings contains clues about whether the growing season was warm or cold. An equation can then be written relating the changes in ring width to temperature change. Similarly, if the growth is limited by water (say, in a warm semi-arid setting) the ring width can be used to calculate changes in rainfall. Climate proxies have been utilized to provide a semi-quantitative record of average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere back to 1000 A.D.
here is an interesting article ... with a quote in the end... that should make a nutters head spin. the northern areas are cooling ... but NASA expects the tropics to have warmed. www.livescience.com/21624-tree-rings-global-warming.html That Scandinavia may have been slightly warmer in the 11th century than today also doesn't change the fact that the world, as a whole, is warmer now. "This data is spatially specific. You would expect to see this trend in northern Scandinavia, but not in the Alps," Wilson said. "Almost all models show that the current global warming is probably warmer overall than that warming." Finally, according to Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate scientist, the tree rings show what mounds of other data have shown as well: For the past few millennia, Earth's northern latitudes had been cooling down overall. "Similarly, we expect that over the same period the tropics should have warmed slightly," Schmidt said in an email. These trends resulted from shifts in the Earth's orbit on thousand-year-long time-scales. But Wilson, Schmidt and the vast majority of climate scientists agree: human-caused warming of the entire globe now overwhelms those subtle, regional heat redistributions. World temperatures are now pushing in only one direction: up.
when you are a nutter you can't respond to points made about science with any substance... you just post distorted perspective charts and then when you are banned from that you post wacky crap to distract from the fact you have zero science showing man made co2 is causing warming.... because we can't even be sure we are warming and we certainly don't know man co2 is doing it... because co2 levels trail warming and cooling.
With FC's complete record of distortion and misrepresenting facts we might as well give up on him actually responding to point made about the science. Earlier today, we found futurecurrents attempting to claim information from Zeke Hausfather - a long time promoter of Global Warming - were from Judith Curry a respected scientist who questions "Climate Change". More distortion and misrepresentation added to his continuous record. http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...st-year-on-record.287931/page-74#post-4119371 With this type of continually misrepresentation and fraudulent claims from FC & his ilk there is no real chance for any type of rational debate. To futurecurrents climate change is a religion and all those who don't believe in it are going to a hot hell.