Rich countries should subsidise Brazil and other countries to curb deforestation of rain forests

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,367
Do any climate scienists agree with the above opinion?
AFAIK, NO, they do not.

The paragraph is wrong - the causal cycle for going in an out of ice ages is: Orbital shifts (Milankovitch cycles) cause warming ---> Warming unlocks CO2 ---> More warming ----> Melting ice & more CO2 in the atmosphere --> More water vapour in the atmosphere ---> Even more warming.

Water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas, but is not regarded as a forcing for global warming because it does not mix well in the atmosphere - it precipitates out as rain or snow. CO2 on the other hand, once released, mixes well and stays around for thousands of years, until it is re-absorbed by the earth or the sea.

CO2 is the "control knob" of the global thermostat. Its level in the atmosphere is the main driver of planetary temperature.

@Patslatt1 also. It is perhaps worth remembering that before ice cores began to be used to gain information about historical atmospheric content scientists who were convinced that anthropomorphic warming was a fact were quite confident that the new information would confirm their belief that CO2 actually caused global warming. What a surprise then that the ice cores revealed the exact opposite. Warming predated CO2 elevation by centuries. Obviously reeling from this for a while they then responded with a very plausible argument that while CO2 obviously didn't initiate warming it certainly accentuated it once it was initiated and I'm sure they are correct in saying that.

However this much more complex situation introduces a massive level of doubt into any attempt to assess what is going on because clearly warming has to be initiated by other factors before CO2 can get to do its work and it's impossible to be any way sure how much warming can be assigned to each process rendering the historical records preserved in the ice much less useful on the face of it because none of it can provide an example of where CO2 elevated temperatures at a time when other forces were not active.

It is noticeable , however, that there is generally a quite close alignment between temperature and levels of CO2 with changes in the former being closely matched by adjustments in the latter-generally taking less than a thousand years which would definitely suggest that there was a substantial and direct causation between elevated levels of CO2 and higher temperatures. The warmists were having a field day.

Not for long however. Ice cores from Vostock initially confirmed the emerging consensus until diligent scientists began to study the real timescales somewhat hidden in the graphs. As you say the cycle is that orbital factors initiate warming with the result that CO2 levels are increased so that at the start of each Ice Age there is an elevated level of CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of the preceding warming period and I'm sure it was at the start of the last Ice Age that the Vostock cores revealed just such a situation with CO2 levels quite similar to what we have today but with an Ice Age raging on for 14,000 years before the CO2 began to fall.

The high CO2 levels did nothing to prevent the Ice Age raging on with plummeting temperatures or so it would seem. Of course you could say that the other forces controlling temperature were acting against the tendency of CO2 to warm the Earth and I've no doubt that this is absolutely true. But it is surely the case that when orbital controllers are switching from forcing a higher temperature to when they are doing the opposite there must be a period of neutral influence during which CO2 might be said to be acting alone. This is not apparent here but perhaps more detailed studies have to be carried out. In any case it seems to be inescapable that CO2 levels offer virtually nothing to mankind as a method of control over the earths temperature. The gas is too weak. You would turn the control knob and nothing would happen most especially when the other controllers are not supportive.
 


Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,086
I always thought Jair Bolsonaro was a fascist ape, in hock to Brazil's agricultural and mining industries, who funded his rise.

So I am not surprised to see him going full-on climate change denial. Basically, he is claiming that satellite photos showing Amazon deforestation are faked by scientists.


This makes Donald Trump look like JFK, though Trump I am sure admires this "bold" step. I suppose some crooked emissary of big business will not be appointed to hide or fake the data so Bolsonaro's cronies can make their money.
Fascism in business suits is on the rise in many countries thanks to the failings of power seeking democratic politicians.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,086
@Patslatt1 also. It is perhaps worth remembering that before ice cores began to be used to gain information about historical atmospheric content scientists who were convinced that anthropomorphic warming was a fact were quite confident that the new information would confirm their belief that CO2 actually caused global warming. What a surprise then that the ice cores revealed the exact opposite. Warming predated CO2 elevation by centuries. Obviously reeling from this for a while they then responded with a very plausible argument that while CO2 obviously didn't initiate warming it certainly accentuated it once it was initiated and I'm sure they are correct in saying that.

However this much more complex situation introduces a massive level of doubt into any attempt to assess what is going on because clearly warming has to be initiated by other factors before CO2 can get to do its work and it's impossible to be any way sure how much warming can be assigned to each process rendering the historical records preserved in the ice much less useful on the face of it because none of it can provide an example of where CO2 elevated temperatures at a time when other forces were not active.

It is noticeable , however, that there is generally a quite close alignment between temperature and levels of CO2 with changes in the former being closely matched by adjustments in the latter-generally taking less than a thousand years which would definitely suggest that there was a substantial and direct causation between elevated levels of CO2 and higher temperatures. The warmists were having a field day.

Not for long however. Ice cores from Vostock initially confirmed the emerging consensus until diligent scientists began to study the real timescales somewhat hidden in the graphs. As you say the cycle is that orbital factors initiate warming with the result that CO2 levels are increased so that at the start of each Ice Age there is an elevated level of CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of the preceding warming period and I'm sure it was at the start of the last Ice Age that the Vostock cores revealed just such a situation with CO2 levels quite similar to what we have today but with an Ice Age raging on for 14,000 years before the CO2 began to fall.

The high CO2 levels did nothing to prevent the Ice Age raging on with plummeting temperatures or so it would seem. Of course you could say that the other forces controlling temperature were acting against the tendency of CO2 to warm the Earth and I've no doubt that this is absolutely true. But it is surely the case that when orbital controllers are switching from forcing a higher temperature to when they are doing the opposite there must be a period of neutral influence during which CO2 might be said to be acting alone. This is not apparent here but perhaps more detailed studies have to be carried out. In any case it seems to be inescapable that CO2 levels offer virtually nothing to mankind as a method of control over the earths temperature. The gas is too weak. You would turn the control knob and nothing would happen most especially when the other controllers are not supportive.
For a really good popular description of ice ages see What causes an ice age and why do they matter? Given the literally glacial pace of the ice age as it might recur from its thousands of years pause, CO2 emissions would likely stop its slow buildup of ice and prevent its recurrence.
 
Last edited:

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,573
Fascism in business suits is on the rise in many countries thanks to the failings of power seeking democratic politicians.
Sounds like bringing in blood-sucking vampire bats to replace the flies that are bothering you. Not very sensible or logical.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,573
@Patslatt1 also. It is perhaps worth remembering that before ice cores began to be used to gain information about historical atmospheric content scientists who were convinced that anthropomorphic warming was a fact were quite confident that the new information would confirm their belief that CO2 actually caused global warming. What a surprise then that the ice cores revealed the exact opposite. Warming predated CO2 elevation by centuries. Obviously reeling from this for a while they then responded with a very plausible argument that while CO2 obviously didn't initiate warming it certainly accentuated it once it was initiated and I'm sure they are correct in saying that.

However this much more complex situation introduces a massive level of doubt into any attempt to assess what is going on because clearly warming has to be initiated by other factors before CO2 can get to do its work and it's impossible to be any way sure how much warming can be assigned to each process rendering the historical records preserved in the ice much less useful on the face of it because none of it can provide an example of where CO2 elevated temperatures at a time when other forces were not active.

It is noticeable , however, that there is generally a quite close alignment between temperature and levels of CO2 with changes in the former being closely matched by adjustments in the latter-generally taking less than a thousand years which would definitely suggest that there was a substantial and direct causation between elevated levels of CO2 and higher temperatures. The warmists were having a field day.

Not for long however. Ice cores from Vostock initially confirmed the emerging consensus until diligent scientists began to study the real timescales somewhat hidden in the graphs. As you say the cycle is that orbital factors initiate warming with the result that CO2 levels are increased so that at the start of each Ice Age there is an elevated level of CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of the preceding warming period and I'm sure it was at the start of the last Ice Age that the Vostock cores revealed just such a situation with CO2 levels quite similar to what we have today but with an Ice Age raging on for 14,000 years before the CO2 began to fall.

The high CO2 levels did nothing to prevent the Ice Age raging on with plummeting temperatures or so it would seem. Of course you could say that the other forces controlling temperature were acting against the tendency of CO2 to warm the Earth and I've no doubt that this is absolutely true. But it is surely the case that when orbital controllers are switching from forcing a higher temperature to when they are doing the opposite there must be a period of neutral influence during which CO2 might be said to be acting alone. This is not apparent here but perhaps more detailed studies have to be carried out. In any case it seems to be inescapable that CO2 levels offer virtually nothing to mankind as a method of control over the earths temperature. The gas is too weak. You would turn the control knob and nothing would happen most especially when the other controllers are not supportive.
The Vostok Ice Core did not show levels of CO2 equal to todays. No ice core has.

Here is a graphic of the CO2 levels from the Vostok Ice Core. It goes back some half-million years, the period in which the human race (and our agriculture) evolved.

vostok.co2.gif

Each minimum represents an Ice Age, and each maximum an Interglacial. Note the that CO2 never rises above 300 ppm - yet human action has driven current CO2 levels to over 400 ppm - a level causing an average global temperature we humans have never endured before.


That CO2 rises precedes and drives global temperature rise is a well-demonstrated fact.

Skeptical Science have a rebuttal of the "CO2 lags Temperature" argument, which was a climate denier favourite.


CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages [Milankovitch cycles did] but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.
Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif
Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.
(x-axis is the reverse of the above graphic)
 
Last edited:

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,573
For a really good popular description of ice ages see What causes an ice age and why do they matter? Given the literally glacial pace of the ice age as it might recur from its thousands of years pause, CO2 emissions would likely stop its slow buildup of ice and prevent its recurrence.
I will read with interest, and raise you this BBC podcast, a discussion with 3 scientists chaired by Melvyn Bragg. ;)


Update: Okay, the Ice Age article is very short, and the podcast is more detailed. The article does mention that orbital variations can trigger the end of ice ages, but it does not add that only happens by increasing the volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Without a atmosphere the earth's temperature would be much like that of the Moon.

But it does have this quote, which is true.

"There's no chance of us going into an ice age now because the greenhouse gases we've put into the atmosphere during the industrial era have warmed the earth."
 
Last edited:

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,573
Additionally, an effective rebuttal of the "CO2 legs Temperature" myth by Peter Sinclair in his Climate Crock series. It traces the myth to the discredited "Climate Swindle" movie of 2007.

 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,367
The Vostok Ice Core did not show levels of CO2 equal to todays. No ice core has.

Here is a graphic of the CO2 levels from the Vostok Ice Core. It goes back some half-million years, the period in which the human race (and our agriculture) evolved.

vostok.co2.gif

Each minimum represents an Ice Age, and each maximum an Interglacial. Note the that CO2 never rises above 300 ppm - yet human action has driven current CO2 levels to over 400 ppm - a level causing an average global temperature we humans have never endured before.


That CO2 rises precedes and drives global temperature rise is a well-demonstrated fact.

Skeptical Science have a rebuttal of the "CO2 lags Temperature" argument, which was a climate denier favourite.




Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif
Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.
(x-axis is the reverse of the above graphic)
Perhaps I should explain my general approach to issues like this where I'm not in any way an expert myself but I have some sort of rough method by which I accept the evidence of the differing experts. I view people who believe strongly in man made climate change as being in a similar position to those who believe in evolution and indeed to the position that the UK government found itself in in NI during the troubles. Basically all three had to be lucky all of the time while their opponents could eke out an existence by being lucky once.

So to my way of thinking the theory of evolution would essentially be proven very doubtful if just one instance of it's not having had any influence on the development of a life form was proven and this is where I'm running into bother with the CO2 theory of warming. In the link below you will find a discussion of the fact, confirmed in your own graph above, that there was a time lag of 14,000 years between the initiation of the last Ice Age and the drop off in the elevated levels of CO2. While it seems to be the longest lag it is not the only one and in fact I think every initiation has one.

In your links above the scientists make much of the fact that the Milancovitch cycles are much too weak to cause the levels of warming which are typical of the inter glacial periods and as I've said already, I think that they are right in saying that CO2 and/or methane is a necessary part of the equation to explain the levels of temperature rises seen in reality. My point was though that I felt that they may have been attributing too much or indeed maybe far too much of this to CO2.

When one then considers the evidence of the huge lag during which time the elevated CO2 is shown to have had no influence on the earths temperature then I think that this supports my suspicions strongly. In fact it would appear that the weakness of the Milancovitch cycles referred to in your links raises even further doubts about CO2 warming since it most certainly should have allowed the high levels of CO2 to prevent the initiation of the Ice Age until the levels came down. So I guess that the question is -are the orbital or solar factors stronger than we thought or is some other gas like methane the real culprit. Luckily I dont have to be lucky all of the time. Once will do me fine and I don't have a clue what the answer is though I'd favour methane.

 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,573
Perhaps I should explain my general approach to issues like this where I'm not in any way an expert myself but I have some sort of rough method by which I accept the evidence of the differing experts. I view people who believe strongly in man made climate change as being in a similar position to those who believe in evolution and indeed to the position that the UK government found itself in in NI during the troubles. Basically all three had to be lucky all of the time while their opponents could eke out an existence by being lucky once.

So to my way of thinking the theory of evolution would essentially be proven very doubtful if just one instance of it's not having had any influence on the development of a life form was proven and this is where I'm running into bother with the CO2 theory of warming. In the link below you will find a discussion of the fact, confirmed in your own graph above, that there was a time lag of 14,000 years between the initiation of the last Ice Age and the drop off in the elevated levels of CO2. While it seems to be the longest lag it is not the only one and in fact I think every initiation has one.

In your links above the scientists make much of the fact that the Milancovitch cycles are much too weak to cause the levels of warming which are typical of the inter glacial periods and as I've said already, I think that they are right in saying that CO2 and/or methane is a necessary part of the equation to explain the levels of temperature rises seen in reality. My point was though that I felt that they may have been attributing too much or indeed maybe far too much of this to CO2.

When one then considers the evidence of the huge lag during which time the elevated CO2 is shown to have had no influence on the earths temperature then I think that this supports my suspicions strongly. In fact it would appear that the weakness of the Milancovitch cycles referred to in your links raises even further doubts about CO2 warming since it most certainly should have allowed the high levels of CO2 to prevent the initiation of the Ice Age until the levels came down. So I guess that the question is -are the orbital or solar factors stronger than we thought or is some other gas like methane the real culprit. Luckily I dont have to be lucky all of the time. Once will do me fine and I don't have a clue what the answer is though I'd favour methane.

I am not sure if you are reading Mearn's blogpost right.

vostok_T_CO2.png

He says (directly quoted ... )
  • CO2 and temperature are closely coupled at the glacial termination, both rising together
  • CH4 and temperature are less well coupled at the glacial termination, CH4 rising up to 2000 years after temperature
  • CO2 is decoupled from temperature at the glacial inception remaining constant for over 14,000 years while temperatures plunge over 7˚K
  • CH4 is closely coupled with temperature at the glacial inception, both falling together
  • :
  • :
Glacial termination corresponds to warming, so he is not contradicting the scientific narrative that CO2 is directly coupled with the emergence of the Earth from Ice Ages. See his chart for what he means by "Termination". IMHO, he could have defined his terms better.

We are now in an Interglacial (i.e. retreating glaciers), and it is at the Inception of another Ice Age (and the ending of the Interglacial) that he detects a lag in the arrendant fall of CO2. This is interesting, but should not concern us too much as he accepts CO2 as a driver of warming. And it is warning that concerns us.

He seems to be suggesting another greenhouse gas (methane) drives the renewed glaciation (by its absence!), but I need to read the post thoroughly.

A blogpost will not change science until it is published as a peer reviewed paper, thoroughly discussed and corroborated by other scientists. I am not sure if Mearns' work has done that.
 
Last edited:

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,367
I am not sure if you are reading Mearn's blogpost right.

vostok_T_CO2.png

He says (directly quoted ... )

Glacial termination corresponds to warming, so he is not contradicting the scientific narrative that CO2 is directly coupled with the emergence of the Earth from Ice Ages. See his chart for what he means by "Termination". IMHO, he could have defined his terms better.

We are now in an Interglacial (i.e. retreating glaciers), and it is at the Inception of another Ice Age (and the ending of the Interglacial) that he detects a lag in the arrendant fall of CO2. This is interesting, but should not concern us too much as he accepts CO2 as a driver of warming. And it is warning that concerns us.

He seems to be suggesting another greenhouse gas (methane) drives the renewed glaciation (by its absence!), but I need to read the post thoroughly.

A blogpost will not change science until it is published as a peer reviewed paper, thoroughly discussed and corroborated by other scientists. I am not sure if Mearns' work has done that.
I accept everything that you say there but you are again side-stepping my primary point. The man says it in plain English that at the initiations of the glacial periods the link between the Earths temperature and the level of CO2 is broken. As I have said in my last post the nature of the thing is that if it is ever broken at any time then it is likely not to be there at all at any time. Why would the link be there at the end of the glaciation when it is definitely not there at the start which is what you seem to be suggesting. You are trying to make out that CO2 is largely responsible for the warming but that somehow it's to be ignored that it is unable to keep the earth warm once it reaches a high level? What's going on there?.

Anyway I take your point about his work not having been peer reviewed properly and all of the rest and I have no idea whether it has or not. But the nature of what he has done is very basic. Really it amounts to using other peoples primary work and a bit of diligence and intelligence of his own to reach his conclusions. His work definitely depends on the others being right in their calculations but can hardly be faulted for logic as far as I can see. It is on the net since 2014 so the lack of a rebuttal five years later is becoming glaring.

It should be said that after the realisation that temperature rises preceded the rise of CO2 in climate history there was a swift and very convincing rebuttal of the deniers conclusion that this proved that CO2 was not the cause of warming. I see no such comprehensive rebuttal for this and I have a distrust of complicated explanations. Apparently scientists ,during the time of the belief in a flat earth, came up with quite a number of very convincing but complicated proofs that it was true. Let us not make that mistake with this. All I'm saying is let's not depend on cutting CO2 if we want to bring down the temperature of the Earth.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,573
I accept everything that you say there but you are again side-stepping my primary point. The man says it in plain English that at the initiations of the glacial periods the link between the Earths temperature and the level of CO2 is broken...
That was not my reading of it. The post complements the accepted causal process of temperature and greenhouse gas it does not contradict it.

What do you think "
  • CO2 and temperature are closely coupled at the glacial termination, both rising together "
means?

You can see that in the way CO2 volume and temperature rise are rising together in a feedback during glacial termination.

CO2inception.png

This is reversed for CH4 (methane, another greenhouse gas)

CH4inception.png

In other words, more CO2 means a warmer earth, a fact predicted by radiation physics, and confirmed by observation.

I would agree that, in order to stabilize Earth's temperature, we need to pay attention of other greenhouse gases like methane as well as CO2. His speculation that the inception of a new Ice Age is due to ocean circulation sound like the best explanation. But I am wary in general of any "proof" of an "unseen hidden force".

Again I would be more excited by Mearns' conclusions if they have entered mainstream science, like the latest IPCC report. So I am skeptical of his conclusions, as we should be of all scientific work. It would be interesting to see what that says, though it is usually out of date as soon as published.
 
Last edited:

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,367
That was not my reading of it. The post complements the accepted causal process of temperature and greenhouse gas it does not contradict it.

What do you think "
  • CO2 and temperature are closely coupled at the glacial termination, both rising together "
means?

You can see that in the way CO2 volume and temperature rise are rising together in a feedback during glacial termination.

CO2inception.png
.
What I think it means is that at the termination of the period of glaciation the close coupling of CO2 and temperature largely reflects the fact that the rising temperatures are causing the increased release of CO2 into the atmosphere through the normal processes. That it is not the other way around is proven by the fact that on the inception of the next glaciation the CO2 remains high for many thousands of years while temperature plummets. There is virtually no other possible explanation and it seems that you are refusing to acknowledge this
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,573
What I think it means is that at the termination of the period of glaciation the close coupling of CO2 and temperature largely reflects the fact that the rising temperatures are causing the increased release of CO2 into the atmosphere through the normal processes. That it is not the other way around is proven by the fact that on the inception of the next glaciation the CO2 remains high for many thousands of years while temperature plummets. There is virtually no other possible explanation and it seems that you are refusing to acknowledge this
TBH, if that is what he is saying, then he is overstating his case, as his data does not show that .... see the charts above.

HIs hypothesis of "some other force" at glacial inceptions has never been tested and must remain a speculation.

This is a comment by "polar scientist":

<snip>
Was there really a delay between the rise in temperature and the rise in CO2 at glacial terminations? The original Vostok data suggested that might be the case, but subsequent detailed work (e.g. Pedro et al, 2012, Climate of the Past 8, 1213-1221; and Shakun et al 2012, Nature 484, 49-55) suggest that here was minimal or no delay, a finding confirmed by the later work of Parrenin et al, 2013, Science 339, 1060-1063).
For more details, see for example:
Bender, M., 2013, Paleoclimate. Princeton Primers in Climate. Princeton Uni. Press.
Ruddiman, W., 2014, Earth’s Climate- Past and Future. Freeman Press.
Summerhayes, C., 2015, Earth’s Climate Evolution. Wiley/Blackwell.

936ded9ef39a8d39ff70b66bae3f0732?s=40&d=mm&r=g.jpgEuan Mearns says:
June 16, 2017 at 9:12 pm
Colin, thanks for this which appears to be a pretty good summary of my post and the comments and for providing the literature back up.
This was a controversy some years ago, but the Shakun paper mentioned above was the first to give a definitive answer.


nature10915-f2.2.jpg
The explanation for the figure is best obtained from the paper.
 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,367
TBH, if that is what he is saying, then he is overstating his case, as his data does not show that .... see the charts above.

HIs hypothesis of "some other force" at glacial inceptions has never been tested and must remain a speculation.

This is a comment by "polar scientist":



This was a controversy some years ago, but the Shakun paper mentioned above was the first to give a definitive answer.


nature10915-f2.2.jpg
The explanation for the figure is best obtained from the paper.
It is not his data and it isn't very complicated. The data shows that the high levels of CO2 did not prevent the earths temperature from plummeting which in the absence of any other explanation means that the CO2 is not the cause of the warming. None of your posts make any attempt to address this and as far as I am concerned the debate is over at this stage.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,573
It is not his data and it isn't very complicated. The data shows that the high levels of CO2 did not prevent the earths temperature from plummeting which in the absence of any other explanation means that the CO2 is not the cause of the warming. None of your posts make any attempt to address this and as far as I am concerned the debate is over at this stage.
If you want to bring the debate to a close, can you find any peer reviewed paper that has these conclusions.? Do you read the Shakun paper, for example? At least it was peer reviewed and published in a highly-rated journal, unlike Mearns' blogpost.

There are 4 other papers cited in my post. Have you consulted them?

Reject all the papers I have cited all for the sake of a single blogpost, which was never peer reviewed, never published in any reputable journal, and is not part of the widely accepted research on the topic. And whose author can propose no mechanism to back it up.

The post had no explanation for the differences between temperature rising and falling, and I showed that the author agreed with my points when a commenter put them to him.

Of course, you are perfectly free to come to your own idiosyncratic conclusions, but they are off-beam with the accepted science.
 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,367
If you want to bring the debate to a close, can you find any peer reviewed paper that has these conclusions.? Do you read the Shakun paper, for example? At least it was peer reviewed and published in a highly-rated journal, unlike Mearns' blogpost.

There are 4 other papers cited in my post. Have you consulted them?

Reject all the papers I have cited all for the sake of a single blogpost, which was never peer reviewed, never published in any reputable journal, and is not part of the widely accepted research on the topic. And whose author can propose no mechanism to back it up.

The post had no explanation for the differences between temperature rising and falling, and I showed that the author agreed with my points when a commenter put them to him.

Of course, you are perfectly free to come to your own idiosyncratic conclusions, but they are off-beam with the accepted science.
I am surprised at your obvious dishonesty. None of your links will deal with the one problem that I have. They are too busy countering the now redundant argument regarding CO2 rises following temperature which I did not contradict any way. It's pointless debating with you. Toodle do.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,562
Twitter
No
//

But it does have this quote, which is true.

"There's no chance of us going into an ice age now because the greenhouse gases we've put into the atmosphere during the industrial era have warmed the earth."
And thank god for that. Hot is way better than cold. The longer we fend off the next ice age, the better.

Just remember not to buy a seaside property, is all.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top