Recent Heat Spike Unlike Anything in 11,000 Years

Here is how you can tell the difference. If you are talking about a place or person, you are attacking the messenger, or launching a personal attack.

If we are talking about science we will be discussing data, and its interpretation.

See now if you had once mentioned what it was this co-author supposedly critisized(Still haven't sourced this), then that would be different.

Of course that isn't what you are here for is it?

 

The properties of CO2 in the atmosphere have been explained to you several times. But gee, those properties DISAGREE with your convictions, so they don't exist.

No, CO2 has the properties of CO2, and nothing else. And a 40% increase in CO2 is quite important. Consider, for example, photosynthesis. Or don't, since actual consideration is "asinine", right?

 

I believe that if you had read my link you would have read Dr. Judith Cury criticizing the conclusions of the BEST study that she was once a part of. Instead you have no clue what I am talking about and are totally confused

You are hopeless you demand links and when they are given you don't read then.

 

I see nobody has the guts to touch it.

 

The link you refuse to provide?

What kind of game are you playing here?

You can not win this. Everytime I get tired of running in circles with you, I just have to take it back to you refusing to post a source.

Then you will try and explain why you are refusing to post the source, and anyone reading this will interpret this as you fearing the truth.

I'm almost starting to question who it is that is paying you to post.

Is the point to make your argument look foolish?

 

I posted a link to Dr. Curry's criticism in this very thread. I suggest you start reading. You are making yourself look the fool.

 

Where?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!

 

You couldn't expose a nudist colony.

 

Does your buddy need help?

 

So now after I provided a source you insist I provide it again.

You are hopeless.

 

I won't stoop to loling because I dont want to come off as an obnoxious jackass.

 

I'm not sure you know what a straw man is.

Your argument seems to be that since the CO2 levels appear to be a small trace that they are insignificant. I have shown that just because something appears to be a small trace doesn't mean it cannot be dangerous.

The vast, vast majority of scientists do seem to think that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is significant. Do you have any scientific studies that suggest that it is not? I'm afraid your own mathematical calculations do not count, as claiming something is too small to matter clearly isn't an accurate tactic.

Since I highly doubt you actually read the link I posted, here you go.

 

While an ice age would take thousands of years to onset, humans have managed to drastically warm the global climate in a century. You see, the thing that scientists fear most about climate change is the rate of change.

As you can see in the chart, nature caused the climate to gradually cool over ~6000 years. We reversed six millennia of cooling in a little over a century. And at the rate we're going, that is hardly a good thing in any way.

 

So what's the solution? More whining by impotent organizations without the will or power to change the behaviors they whine about? That ought to fix it...

 

Well massive investment in renewable, low to zero emission energy would be a great start.

But I think what really needs to happen are serious conversations about actually enacting change. We need countries to come together and come up with solutions with scientists, not just politicians and economists. The IPCC is great and all, but little ever actually happens from it. The most important solution is a dedication to enacting change.

People are too afraid to move away from oil and coal. It's too comfortable. And the massive oil and coal companies certainly don't want anything to change, and it seems to be their lobbyists who get the most say.

So are you suggesting that scientists should stop doing studies because politicians have little interest in changing the way the world works? They should just stop monitoring the situation because it's "whining"?

There is plenty of "will" in the scientific community. Why else would they put so much time and effort into these massive studies? It just seems that no matter how much evidence is collected and presented, their voices are never really heard. Partly because those invested in continuing doing things the way they are done convince people that it is not real, or that it is not a problem.

 

Because your response is void of any evidence and addressing your asinine post is not worth my time.

 

You ask and offer little. No renewable can simply step in and close the gap. The problem is storage, in today's world energy must be on demand, we can't just halt our lives every time its cloudy or the wind isn't blowing... Granted that is simplistic, I do understand that, but it really does boil down to the lack of storage and ability to produce energy on demand that makes all the current renewables seem rather silly to invest in...

 

With your dodgy proxy reconstructions you have exactly zero chance of spotting rapid rises and falls in past temperature over the space of a couple decades 5000 years ago. It is wholly beyond the science. To discuss 'rates of change' as unique is insane since you can't see them in the past.

Man Made Global Stupidity is 90% agenda and 10% science, IOW, poop.

 

One sign that the economy may be improving somewhat lately is the number of posts appearing on global warming (or global "climate change", agw, whatever...). Or maybe the Democrats and/or Republicans just haven't whipped as much of their bs on us lately so we think to ourselves, "hey, let's do climate stuff again - that'd be fun!".

Sorry. Don't know why I would interrupt with that. Can we put ourselves on ignore?.

 

There is a lot of promising work in energy storage of renewables. I think you need to research the topic a little further. In fact, Texas just opened the largest wind energy storage facility in the United states.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/01/24/largest-wind-energy-storage-facility-in-u-s-fires-up-in-texas/

We shouldn't not invest in renewable energy because it's not running at 100% yet. That's just ridiculous.

 

Are you denying the rapid temperature rise over the last century in comparison with the temperatures over the past 11,000 years? Are you suggesting that this study is not accurate? Exactly what methods and results of this study are you disputing and for what specific reason?

 

I hope they're good swimmers...

 

There's a lot of FAILURE as far as actual output capability, in renewable energy, outside of nuclear and/or hydroelectric power.

 

Yes, and look at the difficulty the Wright brothers had in convincing people that their silly machine was worth investing in.
Look, it may be true that we have difficulty storing energy-at present-and it may also be true that we may have to undergo a sea-change in the way we live-perhaps reverting to a less energy-hungry existence. Man is pretty good at adapting. There's no law that demands everything must be bigger, faster and more complex. One day the V8 will be an amusing exhibition artefact, while people stand around looking at it wondering how their ancestors could have been so wasteful and profligate with scant resources they thought would last forever.

 

The "straw man" was you claiming that since miniscule amounts ofr CO2, like .000387, have little provable effect on anything, that must mean that anyone realizing that must be claiming that same TRUTH for other compunds as well.

Forget your OWN BULLCRAP? What you posted:

It is EXACTLY a "Straw Man'.

Spin what nonsense you choose, but the amount of CO2 ANYWHERE in the Earth's gas ring is MINISCULE, and the human produced protion even morseso.

If you can PROVE the thermal effects of less than 400ppm CO2 (.0004)...let's SEE IT.

(Psstt! Before you embarass yourself, you'd best check out what constitutes SCIENTIFIC PROOF, becasue you KNOW that's where I'm coming from.)