Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

On tree rings, CO2 levels and the Pliocene

A study of tree-ring data recently found that in some regions temperatures during Roman times (21AD to 50AD) were 1.05 degrees Celsius higher than the 1951-1980 mean. The paper’s lead author, Professor…

Tree rings from around the time of Christ suggest warmer regional temperatures than those between the 1950s to the 1980s, but this does not imply higher mean global temperatures. Flickr/Petrified Forest Ranger

A study of tree-ring data recently found that in some regions temperatures during Roman times (21AD to 50AD) were 1.05 degrees Celsius higher than the 1951-1980 mean.

The paper’s lead author, Professor Jan Esper of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, and his colleagues wrote that: “large-scale near-surface air-temperature reconstructions relying on tree-ring data may underestimate pre-instrumental temperatures including warmth during Medieval and Roman times”.

Professor Esper was quoted in the press as saying:

We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low.

This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant, however it is not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1 degree Celsius.

The study and the above comments have provided fuel for people who argue that that current warming is not related to anthropogenic carbon emission. Here is an example, and here is another.

The extent to which the regional high-latitude summer tree-ring temperature reconstructions by Esper et al reflect past mean global temperatures is debated. Michael Mann (director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University) argues that Esper’s tree-ring measurements come from high latitudes and reflect only summer temperatures, arguing that “the implications of this study are vastly overstated by the authors.”

According to the IPCC AR4 in 2007, late Holocene reconstructions of maximum temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) have, in some areas, reached about 0.9 Celsius higher than mean global pre-industrial temperatures (Figure 1, from IPCC Figure 6.13), namely not all that different from Esper et al.’s 2012 estimates. However, the mean MWP temperature rise is about 0.3 – 0.5 degrees Celsius (see Figure 1), namely about half the 20th century rise of about 0.8 degrees Celsius, not even considering the additional 1.1 degrees C masked by sulphur aerosols (see below).

Figure 1 (After IPCC-2007 Figure 6.13). Radiative forcing and simulated temperatures during the last 1.1 kyr. Global mean radiative forcing (W m–2) used to drive climate model simulations due to (a) volcanic activity, (b) solar irradiance variations and © all other forcings (which vary between models, but always include greenhouse gases, and, except for those with dotted lines after 1900, tropospheric sulphate aerosols). (d) Annual mean NH temperature (°C) simulated under the range of forcings shown in (a) to © compared with the concentration of overlapping NH temperature reconstructions (shown by grey shading, modified from Figure 6.10c to account for the 1500 to 1899 reference period used here). All forcings and temperatures are expressed as anomalies from their 1500 to 1899 means and then smoothed with a Gaussian-weighted filter to remove fluctuations on time scales less than 30 years; smoothed values are obtained up to both ends of each record by extending the records with the mean of the adjacent existing values. IPCC 2007

What are the implications of these regional high latitude temperature reconstructions regarding the role of insolation versus versus radiative forcings by greenhouse gases for post 18th Century climate change?

During the first half of the 20th Century, a rise in insolation levels was responsible for a temperature anomaly of approximately 0.3 degrees Celsius and has stabilized since the mid-20th century (Solanki 2002). Solanki, an authority in solar science, states: “Hence the Sun cannot be the dominant source of this latest temperature increase, with manmade greenhouse gases being the likely dominant alternative.“

Since the onset of the industrial age, a total anthropogenic carbon release of between 1750 to 2010 of about 540 billions tonnes of carbon (GtC) - from both industrial emission and land clearing - raised atmospheric carbon from ~590 to 820 GtC and CO2 levels from 275 to between 395.7 and 400 ppm.

Current CO2 rise trends in ppm/year (2005 - 2.52; 2006 - 1.76; 2007 - 2.22; 2008 - 1.59; 2009 - 1.89; 2010 - 2.42; 2011 - 1.88 ppm/year) are the highest recorded in the Cainozoic (from 65 Ma) to the present.

Measurements taken last month at Mouna Loa at 395.77 ppm CO2 (Figure 2) and over the Arctic of 400 ppm, define new milestones in the rise of greenhouse gases (GHG) at levels not experienced since the Pliocene, (5.3 to 2.6 million years ago), a period during which mean global temperatures were 2 to 3 degrees Celsius and sea levels 25+/-12 meters higher than in the 18th century.

Figure 2. Atmospheric CO2 variations at Mouna Loa.

Mean global temperatures continued to rise (Figures 3 and 4), notably in polar and sub-polar latitudes and Greenland May-2012 temperature reached an all-time high of 24.8 degrees Celsius. The rise in temperature of about 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1880 is compounded by latent rise of approximately 1.1 degrees Celsius currently masked by industrially emitted sulphur oxide aerosols and sulphuric acid.

Figure 3. Global Surface Temperatures Anomalies (deviations from normal values) from four independent sources, showing nearly identical warming trends.

In accord with theoretical, laboratory experimental, paleoclimate proxies and direct measurements, the rising levels of greenhouse gases are shifting the energy state of the atmosphere beyond that which allowed the relatively stable climate conditions from about 10,000 years ago. Those stable conditions allowed the development of agriculture and civilization and minimizing the disruptive effect of extreme weather events such as have increased about the outset of the 21st century, as confirmed by Hadley, NOAA, CSIRO, BOM and other climate research organizations.

Figure 4. Global annual temperature map for 2002-2011 relative to 1951-1980.

In summary, whereas both insolation and atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) levels constitute major climate drivers, during post-industrial times the rise in GHG (3.1 Watt/m2) has superseded the rise in insolation (<0.4 Watt/m2) by a factor of near 8, although about half the corresponding rise in temperature is masked by short-lived industrially emitted sulphur aerosols.

Comments welcome below.

Join the conversation

210 Comments sorted by

    1. Peter Sommerville

      Scientist & Technologist

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      The key thing that is missing here is that the Esper paper correlates much more closely to the known historical record than the data produced by Mann et al. Mann may not like that but he will have to live with it. After all science is never settled as this paper so clearly indicates. All that really means is that we have to review the model predictions more carefully. I make no apology for my view that the models are seriously flawed.

      report
    2. Michael Silverton

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      The Esper paper only looks at summer temperatures and only in a small area. It is in no way comparable to multi proxy reconstructions which cover the Northern Hemisphere.

      report
    3. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      Peter Somerville claims
      "the Esper paper correlates much more closely to the known historical record than the data produced by Mann et al."

      That statement is so vague as to be meaningless. Usually when pressed the deniers will mutter "the hockey stick is broken" and and refer to self-appointed "climate auditor" Steve McIntyre's claims against Mann.

      This despite their being numerous other studies confirming Mann's work.
      e.g. http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

      Here is…

      Read more
    4. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      More nonsense from the Kookite Bible

      report
    5. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      Peter Somerville.
      The weirdest thing just happened. In fact it was so weird that I took a screen shot of before and after in case no one believes me. While I was reading some other comments on this article, I noticed the count on your comment going from deep in the red to positive while my rebuttal of your comment went from positive to deep in the red in the space of about ten minutes.

      The strangest thing is that Michael Silverton's comment in the middle did not change count at all - don't you agree that that is weird.

      It looks like someone has worked out how to game the counters on the site. I wonder who it could be? Never mind - I am sure the moderators can work it out from the web logs.

      report
    6. Peter Sommerville

      Scientist & Technologist

      In reply to Michael Silverton

      @Michael Silverton
      I totally agree with you Michael. However quantity is not always quality - diverse data sets can be much more variable, and that variability can conceal cycles buried in the data.

      Contrary to some comments I am not a "denier" - hardly a scientific word - more a term suited to religious zealots. I actually have no problems with the end of Mann's hockey stick. The trends over the last century or so have a solid foundation.

      But the proxy data does not reflect what historically…

      Read more
    7. Peter Sommerville

      Scientist & Technologist

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Not sure of the relevance of this post Mike to what was actually said. But thanks anyway. It was very cold and wet at the footy today - but I am not suggestiing that proves anything!

      report
    8. Michael Silverton

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      I'm somewhat surprised that you think the Esper paper confirms the historical record. There is no sign of the little ice age in their data and the MWP in their data appears to be much earlier than it is generally thought to occurr.

      report
    9. Peter Sommerville

      Scientist & Technologist

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Mike,

      I was so concerned about your observation that I have sent the following email to the Executive Director of the site. Some action may have been taken already to address this issue:

      "Andrew Jaspan
      Executive Director and Editor
      “The Conversation”

      Dear Andrew,

      I must congratulate you for the quality of the material that appears on The Conversation. The site, and Global Mail have become my favourite places to visit. It certainly attracts a lot of commentary, some of it excellent and…

      Read more
    10. Peter Sommerville

      Scientist & Technologist

      In reply to Michael Silverton

      @Michael Silverton

      MichaeI, I apologise for not replying earlier. This has been a busy weekend. Esper's paper, graphs and all, can be found here:

      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html

      but I am sure you know that already. Initially I used the word "correlate" and subsequently modified it to "better reflect". That was deliberate as you no doubt realise. I am not yet ready to say it "confirms" the historical record, as I think the methodology needs to…

      Read more
    11. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      Peter - I think you have already established that, as well as being equipped with some of the other internet "dark arts", you can copy and paste a link. But in all your posts on the Esper paper, there is simply no evidence that you have read it.

      report
    12. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      Sommerville says
      "Some have an incognito mode that clears cookies and histories for each instance of the browser"

      The incognito mode is useless. Armed with the weblogs it is trivial to work out the identity of the "phantom scorer"

      "Using a relatively simple test I have identified at least two contributors who are involved in this but their identity is not important."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Walter_Mitty

      report
    13. Ian Ashman

      Manager

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      LOL, seems someone likes to muck around with the voting for anyone who replies to Peter. Same thing happened to me. Hmmm...

      report
    14. Peter Sommerville

      Scientist & Technologist

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Mike,
      I am not sure there is any way to convince you that I have read it and understand it so I don't intend to try. Indeed it is a complex jargon ridden document which does take some time to work your way through. There is a supplementary PDF file with tables and graphs that is also worth a look - just in case you missed it. And it is not the first time I have pasted a link. Still haven't figured out how to over-ride the software and paste an image yet but...

      As for "internet dark arts" I am not Robinson Crusoe. I twigged to what was going on quite some time ago, and I have a little list of some of the perpetrators. I did receive a very interesting email today from the Technical Director, and they will be taking steps to prevent the practice of such dark arts as soon as it is practicable. A positive outcome for all I think.

      :-)

      report
    15. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Ian Ashman

      Yes. It was not hard to work it out. We are not dealing with the sharpest tool in the toolshed.

      report
    16. Peter Sommerville

      Scientist & Technologist

      In reply to Ian Ashman

      No need to be concerned Ian - you were never a player in this game - I know that. I heard you have been crook - I hope that is past.

      report
    17. Ian Ashman

      Manager

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Mike,

      Don't worry about it - Peter is being a little bit conservative with the truth in his title. "Retired Manager" doesn't sound as impressive I guess.

      report
    18. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      It explains how I know you are a master of bovine excrement. My credentials however are not relevant to a discussion of climate science Despite having an honours science degree, I feel no need to puff up my resume and call myself a scientist.

      report
    19. Peter Sommerville

      Scientist & Technologist

      In reply to Ian Ashman

      Ian,

      Some people retire their brain as soon as the piece of paper is in the can.

      Others choose to continue the learning path that the piece of paper initiated. They never actually retire.

      We each choose our own path!

      :-)

      report
    20. Peter Sommerville

      Scientist & Technologist

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Mike,

      "My credentials however are not relevant to a discussion of climate science" - I actually agree with you on this. Happy to assume you are widely read and knowledgeable. Happy to politely discuss your point of view.

      Curious though how this seems to be one way.

      :-)

      report
    21. David Boxall

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Mike Hansen: "While I was reading some other comments on this article, I noticed the count on your comment going from deep in the red to positive while my rebuttal of your comment went from positive to deep in the red in the space of about ten minutes."
      I'm told that it's within the skill set of the lowest "script kiddie". The fact that someone has gone and done it here is revealing.
      I've often wondered how much of climate science denial is founded in the peurile;
      - the naughty toddler's delight at provoking an adult;
      - the inability of a child to appreciate consequences and;
      - a deep-seated, yet formless, fear of the bogeyman or monsters under the bed.
      Strangely, it only seems to happen around posts headed "Peter Sommerville", who claims to be a "Scientist & Technologist". Weird, huh?

      report
    22. Peter Sommerville

      Scientist & Technologist

      In reply to David Boxall

      Suggest you do a better analysis. The puerile thing is that any one takes any notice of these red and blue markers. They are being manipulated all the time so they have absolutely no credibility. I simply pointed that out. One of the prime manipulators keeps changing his job description. I caught him out with a very simple trap. But he is not the only one.

      report
    23. David Boxall

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      Peter Sommerville: "... red and blue markers. They are being manipulated all the time ...". The direction of the manipulation implicates you. The fact that, elsewhere, you've bragged of doing the manipulating is pretty conclusive. It looks like you've finally realised the damage you've done to yourself.

      report
  1. Marc Hendrickx

    Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

    We had Hamilton twist the knife of irrationality into valid scientific uncertainty, now more misinformation from Herr Glikson. That can only mean an article from the other member of The Con's Troika of climate alarm Stephen Lewandowski is forth coming.
    The Moe, Larry and Curly of climate alarm, except not as credible as their namesakes.

    report
    1. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Hard to know what you are upset about Marc. Partly because you do not make any point but also as Dr Glickson points out the MWP debate excites those deniers "who argue that that current warming is not related to anthropogenic carbon emission"

      The argument is apparent from the links to denier articles given by Dr Glickson
      "Esper et al 2000-Year Reconstruction Depicts Powerful Natural Factors – Shatters Absurd Notion CO2 Drives Climate"
      and
      " the climate has often been warmer without any significant CO2 emissions having taken place - suggesting that CO2 emissions simply aren't that important"

      Essentially the argument is akin to "People die in car accidents therefore heart attacks cannot kill people".

      Yet here you are yesterday claiming "No one is denying that co2 will lead to higher temperatures."
      https://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-and-the-soothing-message-of-luke-warmism-8445#comment_56300

      Have you changed your mind again?

      report
    2. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      At least I spelt his name right. Seems you are making a play for the role of Shemp.

      report
    3. David Boxall

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Mike Hansen: "Have you changed your mind again?"
      More to the point; have you found one that works?

      report
  2. Marc Hendrickx

    Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

    This statement from Herr Glikson's article one of his most inane:

    "Current CO2 rise trends in ppm/year (2005 – 2.52; 2006 – 1.76; 2007 – 2.22; 2008 – 1.59; 2009 – 1.89; 2010 – 2.42; 2011 – 1.88 ppm/year) are the highest recorded in the Cainozoic (from 65 Ma) to the present."

    Perhaps Herr Doktor professor can provide the annual readings from the Paleocene so we cn compare in detail.

    report
  3. Marc Hendrickx

    Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

    And this one a blatant lie....

    "Those stable conditions allowed the development of agriculture and civilization and minimizing the disruptive effect of extreme weather events such as have increased about the outset of the 21st century, as confirmed by Hadley, NOAA, CSIRO, BOM and other climate research organizations."

    Use of the word "confirmed" more than a slight exaggeration.

    report
    1. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Marc Hendrickx - your incessant troll like posting demonstrates a true pathological obsession with denying the science of AGW at every possible turn.

      It's not even useful debate - just ad-homs and mis-represenation Tirelessly Repeated Over Lengthy Lines.

      You have no evidence and no science to support your pseudo-skepticism and jump on to every piece of denier bloggoshpere as if it were truth. How is it that anyone can have such arrogance to believe they know better than every single national science body of credibility is both amazing and pitifully pathetic.

      I am starting to feel genuinely sorry for you

      report
    2. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Dr Mark,
      The Con happily promotes the opinions of three charlatans and you blindly cheerlead with pom poms pumped furiously in a manner most unbecoming for someone who use the title Dr.

      Glikson's presents a blatant misrepresentation about extreme weather and you just let it pass. He claims to know the annual rate of change of CO2 going back to the Cretaceous andyou just duck your head and wave him through.

      You can cheer on your emperors all you like but I'm happy to stand back and point…

      Read more
    3. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      The head of NOAA's climate office, Tom Karl, said: "What we're seeing, not only in Texas but in other phenomena in other parts of the world, where we can't explain these events by natural variability alone. They're just too rare, too uncommon."

      http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/extreme-weather-climate-change.html

      http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0710/Does-climate-change-increase-the-odds-of-extreme-weather-events-video

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-poses-disaster-risk-for-most-planet

      Read more
    4. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Thanks for those cherries, fresh off the tree.

      In regard to the recent NOAA claims that relate to the Texan drought, here's a rebuttal from John Nielsen-Gammon. John Nielsen-Gammon is an American meteorologist and climatologist. He is a Professor of Meteorology at Texas A&M University, and the Texas State Climatologist, holding both appointments since 2000. (Another missing voice here at The Con who prefer the views of Moe, Larry and Curly).

      Twenty Times More Likely (Not): The Science
      "If…

      Read more
    5. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      I quote public bodies of reputable science and published peer reviewed papers - you quote denialist blog sites and non peer reviewed blog quote for a dissenting scientist.

      Who, exactly, is using cherries?

      report
    6. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      You are seriously deluded...
      I quoted:
      The IPCC, John Nielson-Gammon, Judy Curry and Roger Piele Jnr. Here are their Qualfications. I assume you know who the IPCC is.

      John Nielsen-Gammon is an American meteorologist and climatologist. He is a Professor of Meteorology at Texas A&M University, and the Texas State Climatologist, holding both appointments since 2000.

      Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute…

      Read more
    7. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Marc - I fear it is you who is so deluded that you cannot even see the narture of your angry ant approach.

      I have quoted peer reviewed literature and official positions of bodies comprising many scientists, those bodies being internationall recognised authorities on what wieght of the evidence in relation to climate science actually says.

      You accused me of cherry picking in doing so and then offered in response your quotes.

      They are from part of the small dissenting group of qualified scientists who have taken largely to using the bloggosphere to promulgate their contrarisan climate science views.

      The fact that you regard my use of peer previewed literature and the official position based on the weight of the evidence as "cherry picking" but your selective quotes from contrarians as well as blog published critiques of peer reveiwed science as "authoritative" is telling.

      Like I said - I feel sorry for the level of angry delusion you demonstrate

      report
    8. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      You linked to a series of newspaper articles and a paper by a known activist.The NOAA claims on Texas debunked by a Professor of Meteorology at Texas A&M University, and the Texas State Climatologist.

      LOL!

      report
    9. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      The newspaper articles (which clearly you did not read) are all reporting on official pronouncements by the bodies to which I refer (e.g. NOAA and the American Meteorological Society).

      The other was a paper by Hansen et al, a highly respected climate scientist.

      The "debunking" to which you refer were not offical pronouncements by a properly constituted body that studies climate science (such as NOAA or AMS) but individual reported statements by a contrarian on a blog

      report
    10. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Here is John Nielsen-Gammon, Professor of Meteorology at Texas A&M University, and the Texas State Climatologist scuttling your claim made here
      https://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-and-the-soothing-message-of-luke-warmism-8445#comment_56300
      that "No one is denying that co2 will lead to higher temperatures. The question is how high? At This stage observations are at the lower end of projections"

      From John N-G
      "But be honest: doesn’t it seem likely that, barring another major volcanic eruption, the next El Niño will cause global temperatures to break their previous record? Doesn’t it appear that whatever has caused global temperatures to rise over the past four decades is still going strong?"
      http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/04/about-the-lack-of-warming/

      report
    11. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      No need to feel sorry for Marc Hendrickx. He's making his mark as a satirist

      See for example, his uproarious 10 November 2010 contribution to ABC Unleashed "IPCC science: are you willing to take the risk?" (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40952.html). In the comments, I invited his comment on my partial summary of Cainozoic climate trends and their links with atmospheric greenhouse gas content; the absence of any reply shows that he is either or both of joking and out of his depth.

      Marc's author profile at ABC Unleashed describes him as "Marc Hendrickx lets off steam with an occasional piece of heavy handed satire that he composes in the moments he finds between completing a PhD at Newcastle University, working as a consulting geologist, and ..."

      Perhaps he's now a consulting satirist?

      report
    12. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to David Arthur

      Thanks David - but the link just inspires more pity from me. The fact that someone could be so public in their ill-informed pseudo-skepticism and hostiliity to evidence is a sorry state. That they cannot perceive their overweening arrogance in presuming to know better than the rest of the world (as evidenced by all the credible science bodies) is only more pitiful.

      I would like the reality of AGW to be untrue. So would Mr Hendrickx (and indeed I suggest most of the planet).

      The difference…

      Read more
    13. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      LOL Dr Mark says "That's what real sketpcis do."

      You would have much more credibility if you could spell the word correctly!

      report
    14. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      OMG! I confess. I'm a lousy typist when I'm banging this stuff out!

      Clearly - my mis-spellings invalidate my entire logic! I withdraw and bow to your superior twit.

      report
    15. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Mark is happy to support the Arctic Methane Emergency Group. An activist organization that makes the following declaration:

      "AMEG POSITION
      DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY
      We declare there now exists an extremely high international security risk* from abrupt and runaway global warming being triggered by the end-summer collapse of Arctic sea ice towards a fraction of the current record and release of huge quantities of methane gas from the seabed. Such global warming would lead at first to worldwide crop failures but ultimately and inexorably to the collapse of civilization as we know it. This colossal threat demands an immediate emergency scale response to cool the Arctic and save the sea ice. The latest available data indicates that a sea ice collapse is more than likely by 2015 and even possible this summer (2012). Thus some measures to counter the threat have to be ready within a few months."

      report
    16. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Now you mis-represent. I never stated I agreed with the AMEG statement.

      Only that (1) you made an error in your attack (which I note you have not the courage to admit) and (2) that the evidence clearly shows Artic sea ice continues to decrease - as the NASA data shows.

      here is what the National Sea Ice and data centre says

      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

      "Arctic sea ice continued to track at levels far below average through the middle of July, with open water in the Kara and Barents seas reaching as far north as typically seen during September. "

      And here is the latest graph - with data just days old (click on Figure 2)

      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

      The results clearly show well below historical averages - ad in fact are currently BELOW 2007 levels for the same time.

      report
    17. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      That error initially made by Glikson. You say you are sceptical yet when BS statements like the following are made on sites the author of the piece above quotes as expert opinion you remain mute. Ah but I forgot you are a "sketpcis" a true "sketpcis" indeed.

      "The latest available data indicates that a sea ice collapse is more than likely by 2015 and even possible this summer (2012). Thus some measures to counter the threat have to be ready within a few months."

      report
    18. Ian Ashman

      Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Mark, you'll find that our geotroll will take increasingly bizarre and mendacious positions the further you challenge him. His comfortable denier world-view, enabled by crackpots like Pielke, Curry and Watts, cant cope with the facts and evidence your present.

      report
    19. Ian Ashman

      Manager

      In reply to Michael Silverton

      They just don't like it when the 'authority' isn't part of their denier cult.

      report
    20. Ian Ashman

      Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Mark, you'll find that our geotroll will take increasingly bizarre and mendacious positions the further you challenge him. His comfortable denier world-view, enabled by crackpots like Pielke, Curry and Watts, cant cope with the facts and evidence your present.

      report
  4. Russell Cunningham

    Trainer

    The size of tree rings is a result of many factors including;- Rainfall, Wind, Water and air borne nutrients, Sunlight, Pests, diseases and other animal activity etc.
    This article looks like another example of pollution loving climate deniers clutching for straws. Take 1 fact wrap it with half truths and lies add some impressive names (Even if their research totally disagrees with you outcome) and the oil barons will love you.

    report
    1. Ian Ashman

      Manager

      In reply to Russell Cunningham

      Russell,

      Looks like another one deserts the deniers sinking ship:

      The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
      By RICHARD A. MULLER
      Published: July 28, 2012

      CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming…

      Read more
    2. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Ian Ashman

      Roger Pielke Snr has a post on the new paper by Watts et al 2012 (yes that is the Watts of WUWT fame)...link at the end.

      This includes an assessment of Muller's NYTimes op Ed:

      "Anthony’s new results also undermine the latest claims by Richard Muller of BEST, as not only is Muller extracting data from mostly the same geographic areas as for the NCDC, GISS and CRU analyses, but he is accepting an older  assessment of station siting quality as it affects the trends.

      Indeed, since he accepted…

      Read more
    3. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      But Mr Hendrickx? You are on record in this thread as stating

      "no one is saying climate change is not occurring, no one is saying co2 does not play a role"

      I did not realise when you made this state that you meant "I, Marc Hendrickx, a a no-one"?

      All you are deomnstrating in your reference to Pjielke and Watts is that in the world of AGW denial "Nope. springs eternal"

      report
    4. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Roger Pielke Snr further states (link above):

      "It certainly appears that Richard Muller is an attention-getter, which he has succeeded at, but, unfortunately, he has demonstrated a remarkable lack of knowledge concerning the uncertainties in quantifying the actual long-term surface temperature trend, as well as a seriously incomplete knowledge of the climate system."

      idem potest dici de te

      report
    5. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Only problem is (attention seeking aise) Prof Muller's current conclusions and understanding accords with the vast majority of climate scientists and every single national science body of credibility.

      communis opinio concordia cum veritate

      Roger Pielke Snr's does not (nor does Mr Hendrickx's)

      damnant quod non intelligunt

      report
    6. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      सच्चाई सामने आ जाएगा

      report
    7. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      The truth with respect to climate science has been revealed (In Hindoi and every other language). It's just that pseudo-skeptic cynics like Mr Hendrickx cannot accept or understand it.

      The common opionion of qualified climate scientists matches what is true

      But

      The Contrarians condemn what they cannot understand.

      report
    8. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Ian Ashman

      When run through google translator Ian seems to be saying:
      "Fuck your eighth generation of ancestors"
      Now is that what you meant? I wonder what the curators will make of it.

      The hindi phrase above reads "the truth will out" and so it will given science isn't captured by activists like Mark Harrigan and Ian Ashman ( one wonders how his staff put up with him).

      report
    9. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      So now according Dr Harrigan the science has been "revealed"! Was Harrigan visited by the climate angel (ouch) or Were those truths revealed on golden tablets he found in his backyard.
      Hallelujah!

      report
    10. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Mr Hendrickx - If I am an activist, then so are you - and one who fails to live up the standards of discourse you yourself espouse

      My activism, such as it is, is at least in support of the scientific concensus espoused by the majority of climate scientists and every single national science body of credibility - such as the Royal Society.

      It is also based on my own understanding of the evidence and the physics. Something on which I have some basis to claim credibility given my training to…

      Read more
    11. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Mr Hendrix - it was you who used the Hindi saying "The truth will be revealed"

      You demonstrate your usual double standard in now taking me to task for responding using the same terminology.

      But no, no angles or golden tablets, just diligent reading of the peer reviewed literature, examinations of the evidence and attending to the interpretations of those well qualified to do so.

      report
    12. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Denigrating Lindzen, Curry and Watts now, and building more strawmen to tear down. Yes you certainly are an activist. Your continued blind support of the Kookites a sign you have a long walk ahead.
      As Lady Percy says: Go ye giddy goose.

      report
    13. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Complete failure to address your double standard I notice. If you support Dick Lindzen and Watts then you are firmly part of the denialist crown and not following your own peaching whasoever

      report
    14. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      The translation is, "the truth will out". Significantly different to it being "revealed". But I can see how an activist swept by a religious like devotion to CAGW might make that mistake.

      report
    15. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Depends on what internet translattor is used Mr Hendrickx. I don't speak Hindi so wouldn't make such an authoritative claim. Apparaently this is "significantly" different. But 2.3 or 2.55 is "no more than 2"????

      Of course it hardly surprises that you are capable of only one interepretation of something - predisposed to your own views

      report
    16. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      "It certainly appears that Richard Muller is an attention-getter"

      He'a an apostate now.

      report
    17. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      And for the record. AGW will only prove catastrophic if we take no action to abate it.

      An outcome made more likely should denial of what the science and evidence is telling us prevails.

      report
    18. Peter Sommerville

      Scientist & Technologist

      In reply to Ian Ashman

      Actually a cursory examination of Richard Mullers's history will reveal to anyone inclined to look that he has never been on the "deniers (sinking) ship". He is by no means a "denier", nor is he a "skeptic". But he has been prepared to express his doubts about some of the science. If one cares to trace back to the beginnings of the BEST program that becomes obvious. His demonisation by some speaks of their ignorance.

      Likewise with Judith Curry. There is a insightful article in the "Scientific American, November 2010" that is worth reading. It is also available on-line.

      Regretably both have been seriously verballed by both ends of the spectrum.

      report
    19. David Boxall

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Marc Hendrickx: "... swept by a religious like devotion ...".
      Marc, do you acknowledge that you might be wrong? Bear in mind that your answer reflects on your intelligence, your honesty and your sanity.

      report
    20. Ian Ashman

      Manager

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      Peter, you are still pointing at the squirrel.

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The defensive walls of the Denier citadel were breached today by Richard Muller's announcement that he is no longer sceptical about climate science.

      "Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence…

      Read more
    21. Ian Ashman

      Manager

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      Peter says of Muller:

      "He is by no means a "denier", nor is he a "skeptic""

      Muller says of Muller:

      "Call me a converted skeptic..."

      report
    22. Peter Sommerville

      Scientist & Technologist

      In reply to Ian Ashman

      My initial reaction was to tackle this cherry picking upfront but then I realized it would have been a waste of time. All I can suggest is that you put your prejudices to one side and actually do some research. It is not my task to educate you - that time is past. I hope you actually remember how to do so.

      report
    23. David Boxall

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      Peter Sommerville: "... put your prejudices to one side and actually do some research."
      Says the voodoo "Scientist & Technologist" who's been known to imply that the capacity of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide is effectively infinite. http://tinyurl.com/cutdl8x

      report
    24. David Boxall

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      Peter Sommerville: "... so far off the topic it is becoming rediculous"
      Says the voodoo "Scientist & Technologist" who's been known to imply that the capacity of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide is effectively infinite. http://tinyurl.com/cutdl8x

      report
    25. Peter Sommerville

      Scientist & Technologist

      In reply to David Boxall

      Interesting comment from a former public servant. Suggest you read the latest New Scientist - it contains a hint.

      report
    26. Peter Sommerville

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to David Boxall

      My god you are persistent. And you continue to verbal me. I wouldn't mind so much David if I knew you were competent to comment, but I know you aren't.

      report
    27. David Boxall

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      Peter Sommerville: "... you continue to verbal me." Are you saying that you didn't imply what you implied?

      report
    28. David Boxall

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      Peter Sommerville: "... read the latest New Scientist - it contains a hint." I see no hint that the capacity of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide is effectively infinite.

      report
    29. Peter Sommerville

      Scientist & Technologist

      In reply to David Boxall

      Indeed - you are so blinkered you cannot see what is really being said. Personally, knowing you have no knowledge in this area I can only conclude your comments are driven by zealotry - not by science. But never mind.

      :-)

      report
    30. David Boxall

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      Peter Sommerville: "... it was worth a try!"
      To use your terminology; "verballing" New Scientist? Trying that smacks of desperation.

      report
    31. David Boxall

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      Peter Sommerville: "... I can only conclude your comments are driven by zealotry - not by science."
      Given that one better qualified than both of us subsequently agreed with me in that same thread, your conclusions are driven by; what? Wishful thinking? Delusion? Certainly not science.

      report
  5. Mark Harrigan

    PhD Physicist

    Thanks Dr Glikson - a neat summary at the end

    "In accord with theoretical, laboratory experimental, paleoclimate proxies and direct measurements, the rising levels of greenhouse gases are shifting the energy state of the atmosphere beyond that which allowed the relatively stable climate conditions from about 10,000 years ago. Those stable conditions allowed the development of agriculture and civilization and minimizing the disruptive effect of extreme weather events such as have increased about…

    Read more
    1. Andrew Glikson

      Earth and paleo-climate scientist

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Mark Harrigan
      Thanks for your comments.
      Every major theory in the short history of science continues to have some dissenting voices, even when the bulk of the empirical evidence, consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry, point out to the essential validity of the theory, even where not all details have been resolved. This applies to:
      Darwin's theory of evolution; Plate tectonic theory; Asteroid and comet impacts through time; The Universe expansion vs steady state; the roles of atmospheric…

      Read more
  6. Andrew Glikson

    Earth and paleo-climate scientist

    RATES OF GREENHOUSE GAS AND TEMPERATURE CHANGE DURING THE CAINOZOIC

    Mean post-1750 greenhouse and temperature rise rates (4.3x10-1 CO2/year; 3 - 9x10-3C/year) exceed those of previous shifts in the state of the climate by orders of magnitude, including the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Event) (1x10-1 ppm CO2/year; 5x10-4 C/year),

    Oligocene, Miocene and Pliocene global warming events (10-5 to 10-4 ppm CO2/year and 10-6C/year) and glacial termination events (10-2 CO2/year; 5x10-4C/year…

    Read more
    1. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      Thanks Moe, the CAPITALS make the MESSAGE so much more FACTUAL.

      You quoted annual rates in your piece above for a few years and claimed them to be " the highest recorded in the Cainozoic (from 65 Ma) to the present".
      You attempt to clarify with rates that are the averages over very long time frames. The resolution of these does not get down to year to year variations. The degree of self-deception truly remarkable.

      Next you'll be quoting the weather as a sign of impending climate doom. Oh you have done that already.

      report
    2. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Marc, the capitals are a heading.

      The fact that you have to resort to derogatory ad hominem style attacks betrays your own paucity of intellectual rigour in approaching this subject

      report
    3. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      If you actually address the points will you once again contend that midpoint of 1-4.1 is "something over 3"?

      Genius!

      report
    4. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      You have not defined whether you are comparing rates over the same duration. Are you?

      That is, if you provide a rate over a year, decade or century over the past century, do the rates you quote for periods thousands and millions of years ago apply over the same duration - year, decade, century?

      If not, then clearly they are not comparable.

      report
    5. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Wow,

      "The fact that you have to resort to derogatory ad hominem style attacks betrays your own paucity of intellectual rigour in approaching this subject."

      That comment will be worth remembering!!

      report
    6. Andrew Glikson

      Earth and paleo-climate scientist

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Peter,

      If of interest, I will be pleased to send you a paper which compares and analyzes rates of GHG and temperatures through the Cainozoic.

      report
    7. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      As usual Mr Hendrickx chooses to deliberately misinterpret.

      The range of 1 to 4.1 comes from Forster & Gregory http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/jcli3611.1, This was a paper Mr Henrdickx linked to support his assertion that temperature increases would be (at most) "around 2.

      Obviously the mathematical mid point of that is 2.55.

      The "3" that I have referred to consistently is the IPCC concensus. Something Mr Hendrickx wishes to deny

      The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized…

      Read more
    8. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Well Peter, it's better than calling everyone who disagrees with you a Left Wing extremist as has been your wont in the past (I congratulate you from refraining from doing so here)

      report
    9. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Your funny, you say no credible science supports "about 2" yet quite a number do, including the afore mentioned F and G, 2006. Anything over 4 is no longer credible unless you run your science through the Kookite filter. Nice try but no cigar.

      report
    10. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      F&G supports 2.55 - 27.5% large than 2.

      The concensus is around 3.

      I understand you can't accept that

      report
    11. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Ian Ashman

      "The fact that you have to resort to derogatory ad hominem style attacks betrays your own paucity of intellectual rigour in approaching this subject."

      report
    12. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      We can thank Hendrickx for letting us know that 3 deg C/CO2 doubling central estimate causes catastrophe and 2.3 deg C/CO2 doubling central estimate is hardly significant. Who said Hendrickx was useless?

      report
    13. Peter Sommerville

      Scientist & Technologist

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      This debate is becoming very boring. Invective from both sides is unlikely to,lead to any consensus.time to move on.

      report
    14. David Boxall

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      The lengthiest article doesn't change Curry's "elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence".
      Still playing with the tags, I see.

      report
    15. David Boxall

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      Peter Sommerville: "... time to move on."
      Says the voodoo "Scientist & Technologist" who's been known to imply that the capacity of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide is effectively infinite. http://tinyurl.com/cutdl8x

      report
    16. Peter Sommerville

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to David Boxall

      Getting a trifle boring David - do you enjoy cutting and pasting? Bit like my former associate, Ian. But please, don't verbal me. I never used the word infinite. Some intellectual rigor on your part would be nice.

      report
    17. Peter Sommerville

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to David Boxall

      Some people can't see beyond their prejudices. Perhaps you are in that fold. Just remember blind prejudice is what led to the rise of nazism and Japanese militarism. Sometimes we need to open our minds.

      And I am not playing with tags - getup isn't the only organisation that plays that sort of game.

      report
    18. David Boxall

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      Peter Sommerville: "... do you enjoy cutting and pasting?" It suffices in response to your repetitive voodoo science.
      I see you didn't bother to play with the flags on this one. Beginning to realise that you've shot yourself in the foot?

      report
    19. David Boxall

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      Peter Sommerville: "Some people can't see beyond their prejudices."
      When the overwhelming majority of people who are best qualified in a field come to substantially similar conclusions (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm), a sane adult will pay heed; even though they find those conclusions uncomfortable. Feeble minds might cling to whoever says what they find most comfortable.
      Peter Sommerville: "... I am not playing with tags ...". Elsewhere, you've boasted of doing just that. I presume you've finally realised the damage you've done to what little credibility you may have had.

      report
    20. David Boxall

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      Peter Sommerville: "... another cut and paste ...". It's the most efficient way to deal with your mundane voodoo science.

      report
    21. Peter Sommerville

      Scientist & Technologist

      In reply to David Boxall

      I don't need to play with the flags David - others have and I know who some of them are. I simply pointed out it was possible. And in one case demonstrated that it was possible.

      Fortunately, having communicated this to the Technical Director some changes have been made to make this more difficult - they are not perfect but I suspect they are sufficient to defeat the rather amateurish skills of one "IT Security Consultant".

      I was trained to respect other peoples views - irrespective of their capabilities. It is a pity that this is not a general practice here but some people obviously get off on abuse. A fact of life with the media I guess. It empowers those who would otherwise be powerless.

      Have a great weekend.

      report
    22. David Boxall

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      Peter Sommerville: "I don't need to play with the flags ...". Yet you've bragged of doing so and damaged your credibility in the process.

      report
    23. Peter Sommerville

      Scientist & Technologist

      In reply to David Boxall

      No - I have simply illustrated what is going on. You are simply too naive to accept that or you are involved. Over to you

      report
    24. Peter Sommerville

      Scientist & Technologist

      In reply to David Boxall

      David,

      You are a crap agent extraordinaire. Frankly I have decided it is a waste of time engaging with you - you and I have shared engagements which you have comprehensively lost. I ask my self why should I bother!

      report
    25. David Boxall

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      Peter Sommerville: "You are a crap agent extraordinaire." Says the voodoo "Scientist & Technologist" who has demonstrated deficiency in English language comprehension.
      Peter Sommerville: "... you and I have shared engagements which you have comprehensively lost." In your fevered imagination.
      It matters not what you or I think. My concern is for any reader who might be misled by your voodoo science.

      report
    26. David Boxall

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      Peter Sommerville: "... I have simply illustrated what is going on." And smugly bragged about doing it. In fact, from what I've seen, you're the main culprit.

      report
    27. Peter Sommerville

      Scientist & Technologist

      In reply to David Boxall

      David,

      Blind you may be but let me take you through the process. I selected a single exchange between me and one other. I used the weaknesses of the system to reverse the counters - taking my comment from (red) 12 to blue(12). I changed my protaganist's rating from (blue)14 to red(12). Within 30 minutes it was reversed with no change to the surrounding comments. I reversed the count again and this time there was a post from the particular individual, decrying the fact that he was sitting and watching the counters change.

      I did the same thing with another individual with almost exactly the same results.

      I have reported all of this to the site managers.

      You are either incredibly naive or you are complicate. Frankly I don't care - I have simply demonstrated that the counters are a crock of crap. You can accept that or ignore it. My conscience is clear.

      report
  7. Andrew Glikson

    Earth and paleo-climate scientist

    CLIMATE CHANGE RATES

    Detailed ice core records for the last 800,000 years contain no evidence for CO2 levels rising above 300 ppm, although they bear evidence for extreme temperature rises during events such as the intra-glacial Dansgaard-Oeschger 1500 years-long cycles and sharp temperature drops such as the interaglacial Youngest Dryas event.

    Pre-0.8 Ma events contain an example of an extreme climate event --- the PETM --- related to the release of about 2000 GtCarbon at 55 million years…

    Read more
    1. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      What is "dangerous warming"?

      Is there an authoritative definition of what it means?

      What is the estimated damage cost (from authoritative, objective, impartial sources)?

      What is the probability that a CO2 tax or ETS would control the climate and sea levels in the way the advocates would have us believe?

      Has anyone looked into that last question?

      report
    2. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Mr Lang - what would you regard as an authoritiative, objectivem impartial source???

      report
    3. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      No answer from Mr Lang I see?

      Okay, I'll offer from one from International Energy Authority - a body Mr Lang is very fond of quoting as a resource.

      They clearly regard warming over 2 degrees as dangerous both to the economy and society and that a price on carbon has an enormous positive NPV.

      http://www.iea.org/topics/climatechange/

      "With energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) representing the majority of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the fight against climate change has become…

      Read more
    4. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      What is quite remarkable about the PETM is the rapid return to contempory conditions following the probable release of v large amount of methane. Seems the earth's natural systems are quite able to deal with such a perturbation without resulting in a runaway greenhouse.

      report
    5. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      The PETM was associated with an increase in planeary temperatures of around 6 degrees celcius over about 20,000 years. It took 170,000 years to recover.

      Very "remarkable" indeed Mr Hendrickx - but total obfuscation to the issue at hand where humans are on track (if we don't reduce emissions) to put similar amounts of GHG's into the atmosphere in a few centuries.

      No problem though according to Mr hendrickx - after all, what's 100,000 years to recover?? except 10x the time scale of human civilisation…

      Read more
    6. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Large amount of methane oxidised in the atmosphere to CO2 (a weaker greenhouse gas), and PETM came off the boil.

      report
  8. Marc Hendrickx

    Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

    By the way nice photo. The caption is somewhat misleading (name just one thing about about The Con's presentation of climate change that isn't?) ...The caption says trees rings from "around the time of Christ"? Try around the time of Chindesaurus!

    Here's what the US National Parks Service says about those petrified logs in that photo...This doesn't quite match up with the climate doom being pushed by Andrew and his fellow Stooges.

    "Imagine a large basin area with numerous rivers and streams…

    Read more
    1. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Marc,

      You make an excellent point, but it seems not to many people can think sufficiently critically to pick it up.

      “A lush landscape with coniferous trees up to nine feet in diameter and towering almost two hundred feet tall surrounds you. Ferns, cycads and giant horsetails grow abundantly along the waterway, providing food and shelter for many insects, reptiles, amphibians, and other creatures.”

      Yep. Sure is Eden when the planet is warmer. Plenty of feed. Life thrives when warmer and struggles when colder. No sign of anything scary about warmer – except for scaremongers.

      More CO2 means health, wealth and happiness :)

      report
    2. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Mr Lang is absolutely correct to point out that there will be some positive effects from a warmer planet

      BUT these are vastly outweighted by the negatives about which he is either ignorant/ill informed or chooses to ignore.

      They are summarised very well here

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

      WITH links to peer reviewed science to validate the points.

      Conclusion: The negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives.

      report
    3. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Ian Ashman

      Well that's your minority opinion. They weigh up quite favourably when compared to The Arctic methane emergency group, one of Glikson's trusted sites. Tell me, are you a member as well? Do you agree with their emergency declaration:

      "The latest available data indicates that a sea ice collapse is more than likely by 2015 and even possible this summer (2012). "

      Pray tell dear Foul mouthed blogger what "emergency" measures are you taking at this point in time?

      report
    4. Ian Ashman

      Manager

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Uh-oh, our geotroll is starting to lose it! He will take increasingly bizarre and mendacious positions the further you challenge him. His comfortable denier world-view, enabled by crackpots like Pielke, Curry and Watts, cant cope with the facts and evidence presented.

      report
    5. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Colorado Plateau? High enough to have been above sea level with CO2 at 2000 ppm.

      report
    6. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Ian Ashman

      Thts quite funny coming from someone who lives in an evidence free zone.

      report
    7. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Thanks Marc. (I'm not sure why you've attracted a red star on the occasion of your providing an apparently helpful link.)

      report
    8. Don Gibbons

      Clerk

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Nothing scary. I love megamonsoons. And the inland of Pangaea was so delightfully conducive to endless aeolian ergs at about that time. A splendid place in which I'm certain human civilisation would have thrived.

      report
  9. Peter Lang

    Retired geologist and engineer

    Andrew Glikson,

    Why do all your articles present a doom and gloom perspective? Why don’t you present objective and balanced discussion. For example, you linked to two articles showing the planet is cooling, and then tried denigrate the material as from as “skeptics and deniers”. Why don’t you admit that the planet has been in a long term cooling trend for the past 50 million years and for the past 5000 years? We’ve past the peak of the current interglacial and are in a cooling phase towards the next ice age. Why don’t you provide that background for context?

    Why don’t you also mention that the planet is in an unusually cold period - a ‘Coldhouse phase? In fact, only the third coldhouse phase since multi-cell life began on Planet Earth. Why don’t you point out that the poles have been ice free for 75% of the time that multi-cell life began to thrive? Why don’t you point out that life thrives when warmer and struggles when colder?

    report
    1. Andrew Glikson

      Earth and paleo-climate scientist

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Peter,

      You are aware my articles summarize measurements, observations and interpretations by the bulk of the peer reviewed scientific literature, as reviewed and summarized by the IPCC-AR4, the world's Academies of Science (http://royalsociety.org/policy/climate-change/joint-statements-academies/) and scientific organizations including:

      NASA http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
      NOAA http://www.noaa.gov/
      NCAR http://www.noaa.gov/
      Hadley-Met http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/resources/hadley

      Read more
    2. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      Another straw man, no one is saying climate change is not occurring, no one is saying co2 does not play a role.

      report
    3. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      But Mr Hendrickx that is not true. Many people ARE saying climate change is not occuring and that CO2 does not play a role. Some even deny the existence of the GH effect. Many of them post on these pages.

      I do not see you ever post in refutation of them?

      Why not? Given that you are on the public record as stating

      ""The role of the scientist in this debate, is as it has been: to continue to diligently report the facts, test the theories, to be honest, to be skeptical, to avoid hyperbole, to properly outline the errors and uncertainties, to avoid activism."

      I see no evidence from you of this behaviour you publicly advocate

      report
    4. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      The last three words of my quote particularly relevant to you!

      report
    5. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      I am no activist. I do try be honest and legitimately skeptical. On the evidence on these posts you do not.

      I would suggest the blue/red indicators for us each support my view.

      Numerous times I have found you to deliberately mis-represent the science and when called to account you obfuscate and personally attack.

      If you call my pointing this out to you "activisim" - so be it. It is a shame you are unable to dilgently report the facts and to be honest and skeptical - as you publicly state should be done - instead mis-representing them , making false statements and blindly accepting any denilaist blog site that supports you views

      report
    6. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      You are so deluded that you pay attention to the red/blue tags. LOL.
      I hope you offset your blog posts. Hate to think what the Arctic methane emergency group would make of all those wasted emissions.

      report
    7. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      I notice you are incapable of addressing the points I have raised poitning out that you do not abide by your own publicly stated standards but instead prefer to call me delusional because I pay attention to (but am not bound by) the judgement of others.

      I pity you Mr Hendrickx - really

      report
    8. Ian Ashman

      Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Mark, you'll find that our geotroll will take increasingly bizarre and mendacious positions the further you challenge him. His comfortable denier world-view, enabled by crackpots like Pielke, Curry and Watts, cant cope with the facts and evidence your present.

      report
  10. Andrew Glikson

    Earth and paleo-climate scientist

    FAST TRANSITION TO EARLY MESOZOIC-LIKE CLIMATE

    Some comments suggest there exists a view as if pushing atmospheric radiative forcing and temperatures into early Mesozoic-like condtions under atmospheric CO2 levels higher than 1000 ppm may be an acceptable consequence of continuoing carbon emissions.

    There is at least one well studied example for what transpired upon such an abrupt climate shift, including its effect on the biosphere, as studied by Zachos et al. 2008 (and as in reference therein…

    Read more
    1. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      "Moreover, the PETM coincided with a major extinction of benthic foraminiferans, with widespread oxygen deficiency in the ocean as a possible cause"

      Of course, our friend Don Aitkin will tell us that since PETM conditions are precedented (by the PETM) that we should just carry on and cause them to happen again.

      report
  11. David Arthur

    resistance gnome

    Thanks for this, Dr Glikson.

    Have you had a look at Day et al, "Sources of multi-decadal variability in Arctic sea ice extent", Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034011 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034011, which used modelling studies to investigate the extent to which recent changes in Arctic September Sea Ice Extent (SIE) are attributable to the Arctic Oscillation (AO), the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO) and Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)?

    It was found that AO has not had significant in SIE changes between 1979 and 2010, and that ~30% of the SIE variation over this period could be attributed to AMO and AMOC. It was concluded that perhaps 70% of change in SIE over this period is attributable to anthropogenic causes.

    Could you comment on whether this attribution is reasonable, or whether other "natural" ie non-anthropogenic factors apart from AO, AMO and AMOC could be involved?

    report
    1. Andrew Glikson

      Earth and paleo-climate scientist

      In reply to David Arthur

      Hi David,

      Far from being an expert on Polar ice melt, I can only refer you to the appended websites as below. I will only add the atmospheric energy/radiative forcing state consequent on melting of the Arctic Sea ice, as a feedback, hasa been compared with the total CO2 emitted to date.

      Up To 95% Arctic Ice Loss Is Human-Induced
      http://www.greenerideal.com/science/0727-up-to-95-percent-arctic-ice-loss-human-induced/

      And statements by AMEG (Antarctic Methane Energency Group) http://www.ameg.me/index.php/about-ameg

      And look at http://www.nl-aid.org/domain/environment/northern-ice-is-melting-at-a-dramatic-rate/

      And a detailed discussion at
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htm

      report
    2. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      Lots of credible sources there!

      report
    3. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Laughable criticism from someone who uses self referenced blogs from known minority view climate contrarians as an authorittative source.

      Marc - we get it. You are a Cynic in realtion to climate sensitivity and related matters who is locked into his belief set and is unwilling to believe anything else.

      Let us hope you are correct. If warming can be limited to 2 degrees or less associated with a doubling of pre-indsutrial atmospheric CO2 then we will all be better off.

      Alas the current concencus from the majority of experts examining this matter disagrees with you

      report
    4. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Ian Ashman

      Ah, how sad :( A symptom of PDD and ASD.

      I note he is quoted as saying (in Quadrant)

      "The role of the scientist in this debate, is as it has been: to continue to diligently report the facts, test the theories, to be honest, to be skeptical, to avoid hyperbole, to properly outline the errors and uncertainties, to avoid activism."

      Rich given the language and attacks he uses on TC.

      Now I really do pity the poor blighter.

      Cheers :)

      report
    5. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Here a line from one of Andrew Glikson's links that Dr Mark Harrigan considers expert:
      http://www.ameg.me/index.php/about-ameg

      "AMEG POSITION
      DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY
      We declare there now exists an extremely high international security risk* from abrupt and runaway global warming being triggered by the end-summer collapse of Arctic sea ice towards a fraction of the current record and release of huge quantities of methane gas from the seabed. Such global warming would lead at first to worldwide crop failures but ultimately and inexorably to the collapse of civilization as we know it. This colossal threat demands an immediate emergency scale response to cool the Arctic and save the sea ice. The latest available data indicates that a sea ice collapse is more than likely by 2015 and even possible this summer (2012). Thus some measures to counter the threat have to be ready within a few months."

      report
    6. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Now you mis-represent. I never stated I agreed with the AMEG statement.

      Only that (1) you made an error in your attack (which I note you have not the courage to admit) and (2) that the evidence clearly shows Artic sea ice continues to decrease - as the NASA data shows.

      here is what the National Sea Ice and data centre says

      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

      "Arctic sea ice continued to track at levels far below average through the middle of July, with open water in the Kara and Barents seas reaching as far north as typically seen during September. "

      And here is the latest graph - with data just days old (click on Figure 2)

      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

      The results clearly show well below historical averages - ad in fact are currently BELOW 2007 levels for the same time.

      report
    7. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      "If warming can be limited to 2 degrees or less associated with a doubling of pre-indsutrial (sic) atmospheric CO2 then we will all be better off."

      It's not that we'll all be better off, it's that we (and any children in whose interests we toil) will be not as badly off as if warming exceeds 3 deg C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

      Trouble is, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 has not yet occurred, and already significant natural greenhouse gas reservoirs are outgassing. In other words, significant non-anthropogenic contribution to that doubling of atmospheric greenhouse gas over pre-Industrial levels is occurring.

      report
    8. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to David Arthur

      Good point David - By better off I should have said "less worse off" - but that's a bit clumsy.

      The potential for accelerated negative feedbacks due to GHG reservoir releases and other issues (e.g reduced abedo doe to ice loss) is a significant concern. Once that happens (pray that it doesn't) the planet is potentially in for run-away warming such as was in the PETM

      How fast the world warms depends on how fast greenhouse gases build in the atmosphere. Projections (based on the PETM) anticipate a warm-up of about eight degrees Celsius by 2400 if fossil-fuel burning and carbon sequestration go unaltered. The projected carbon release, about 5,000 petagrams, is similar in volume to what fueled the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum,or PETM, but the past rate, once thought to be rapid, was over 20,000 years, not a few hundred. And things can reach a tipping point long before then if we don't start to take reasonable abatement steps now.

      report
    9. David Boxall

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Marc Hendrickx:"Here a line from one of Andrew Glikson's links ...
      ... there now exists an extremely high international security risk ...".
      Is that supposed to be news? Didn't the Pentagon say something similar, earlier this century?

      report
  12. Marc Hendrickx

    Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

    Andrew Glikson links to site called the Antarctic Methane Emergency Group as a source of credible expert information, see his link above.

    For a laugh I highly recommend a visit, the " about" age contains this comment:

    "The latest available data indicates that a sea ice collapse is more than likely by 2015 and even possible this summer (2012). Thus some measures to counter the threat have to be ready within a few months."

    Summer 2012! I guess Mike/ Mark are supportive. What a joke. Antarctic sea ice is currently above the recent average. Perhaps The Con can commission an article from them, they are as credible as Glikson.

    report
    1. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Wrong on several accounts

      1) You have the wrong hemispere. The link is ti the Artic not the Antarctic. It seems your ability to master the detail of the facts is as poor as your interpretation of them

      2) As the nasa key indicators site shows - Arctic sea ice continues to decline - especially in thickness

      http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

      report
    2. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      That you agree with an extremist activist group that states "The latest available data indicates that a sea ice collapse is more than likely by 2015 and even possible this summer (2012)." a true testament to your delusional state. Perhaps you are a member? If so given they have issued a (excuse me while I LOL) "declaration of emergency" what "emergency measures are you taking at this point in time?

      In fact the latest available data currently shows over 4.3million square Kms of sea ice, most of it over 2 m thick in the Arctic. This years melt unlikely to reach the 2007 low.

      report
    3. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Now you mis-represent. I never stated I agreed with the AMEG statement.

      Only that (1) you made an error in your attack (which I note you have not the courage to admit) and (2) that the evidence clearly shows Artic sea ice continues to decrease - as the NASA data shows.

      here is what the National Sea Ice and data centre says

      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

      "Arctic sea ice continued to track at levels far below average through the middle of July, with open water in the Kara and Barents seas reaching as far north as typically seen during September. "

      And here is the latest graph - with data just days old (click on Figure 2)

      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

      The results clearly show well below historical averages - ad in fact are currently BELOW 2007 levels for the same time.

      Mr Henrdickx you are either deliberately lying or you just don;t know what you are talking about

      report
    4. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      2012 trending close to 2007. JAXA currently shows 2012 above 2007, as do the Danes (DMI) and the Norwegians (NERSC)? NSIDC will show 2012 with slightly more ice than 2007 in the next few days. Seems there are more cherries in my basket than yours.

      That error initially made by Dr Glikson.

      report
    5. Ian Ashman

      Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Mark, you'll find that our geotroll will take increasingly bizarre and mendacious positions the further you challenge him. His comfortable denier world-view, enabled by crackpots like Pielke, Curry and Watts, cant cope with the facts and evidence your present.

      report
    6. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      You claimed current levels were above average. They are not (in any data set)

      You also claimed they were above 2007 right now. They are not (according to NSIDC)

      Even on the Jaxa data

      http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

      The levels are so low and so small difference between now and the record low of 2007 as to be negligible.

      Again Mr hendrickx, I call you out. You are not following the standard you have publicly declaimed of ""The role of the scientist in this debate, is as it has been: to continue to diligently report the facts, test the theories, to be honest, to be skeptical, to avoid hyperbole, to properly outline the errors and uncertainties, to avoid activism."

      I find it shameful

      report
    7. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Oh yes, Dr Glickson DID misname the AMEG but he CLEARLY referenced his comments to Arctic Sea Ice. You did not.

      I see you are incapable of acknowledging your own errors but prefer to blame others, whose errors you repeat.

      Did it ever occur to you that might be the case with your mindless agreement with messrs Curry and Pjielke??

      report
    8. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Sounds like a crisis! Quick call the Super friends, or those masked crusaders of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group. Do they wear their underpants on the outside?

      Antarctic sea ice above average, this years arctic sea ice levels above the 2007 lows.

      Remember those last two words Dr Harrigan " avoid activism".

      report
    9. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Strange how you are so eager to hold another to account for a perceived violation of the last 3 words of your code for the scientist but totally unable to acknowledge your violoation of the other elements "to continue to diligently report the facts, test the theories, to be honest, to be skeptical, to avoid hyperbole, to properly outline the errors and uncertainties"

      I have shown, using data, that your claims about Arctic sea ice being "above average" and "above 2007" were false. I note you cannot acknowledge this.

      report
    10. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Because you are wrong. I stated Antarctic sea ice levels were above recent average, not Arctic. Let's go to the video tape...
      "Summer 2012! I guess Mike/ Mark are supportive. What a joke. Antarctic sea ice is currently above the recent average. Perhaps The Con can commission an article from them, they are as credible as Glikson."
      And here's that data that pulls your undies over your head...
      http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

      report
    11. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Mr Hendrickx - you are now being deliberately disinegnous

      You made your orginal comment in reaction to Dr Glickson's data references on ARCTIC sea ice.

      The full comment you made in reference to AMEG (after having visited their site which clearly labels itself as Arctic) was "The latest available data indicates that a sea ice collapse is more than likely by 2015 and even possible this summer (2012). Thus some measures to counter the threat have to be ready within a few months."

      Summer 2012…

      Read more
    12. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Wow that was some wedgie, seems to have warped your sense of reality!

      report
    13. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Sure Marc - have it your way. I'll take my sense of reality grounded in actual evidence from reliable places against your pseudo-skeptic delusional perspective any time.

      You had ample opporunity to correct your mis representation (or more kindly - complete mis understanding) of Arctic vs Antarctic Sea Ice) when I first pointed the error out to you. You've only belatedly done so when i have called you out on your errors.

      Regardless, the extent of sea ice in the Arctic continues to decline. Your original point attacking Dr Glikson is, therefore, refuted on the evidence and the available data.

      report
    14. Ian Ashman

      Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Yep, the geotroll has officially lost it.

      report
    15. Peter Sommerville

      Scientist & Technologist

      In reply to Ian Ashman

      Ian,

      I don't intend to defend Marc, but This is really getting to be repetitive and adding nothing to the debate. The other Mark is doing very well on his own without pointless comments such as this. Is it really in the spirit of "The Conversation"?

      report
    16. Ian Ashman

      Manager

      In reply to Peter Sommerville

      If you don't intend to defend him then don't comment on my comments. I have no interest in engaging with you - there are plenty of others here doing an excellent job pointing out the paucity of your arguments.

      report
    17. Peter Sommerville

      Scientist & Technologist

      In reply to Ian Ashman

      But you have, by your response. You can snipe at the edges but really that adds nothing to the debate. I have read many of your comments - in the main they are snide and ad hominem. I actually believed you were capable of better than that, but perhaps I was wrong. Enough said - we are clear where we stand.

      report
    18. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      "Seems there are more cherries in my basket than yours."

      2007 is the new normal for denialists.

      report
  13. Alex Cannara

    logged in via LinkedIn

    The concluding para of this article seems accurate --

    "In summary, whereas both insolation and atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) levels constitute major climate drivers, during post-industrial times the rise in GHG (3.1 Watt/m2) has superseded the rise in insolation (<0.4 Watt/m2) by a factor of near 8, although about half the corresponding rise in temperature is masked by short-lived industrially emitted sulphur aerosols."

    The climate globally has been + or - 1 degree C since the end of the…

    Read more
  14. Chris O'Neill

    Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

    "The rise in temperature of about 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1880 is compounded by latent rise of approximately 1.1 degrees Celsius currently masked by industrially emitted sulphur oxide aerosols and sulphuric acid."

    The radiative forcing generated by sulphate aerosols is proportional to the rate of burning of sulphur containing fuels. So if this burning follows an exponential growth, then the sulphate aerosol level and the CO2 level both follow an exponential growth path with the ratio of the…

    Read more