Long-term trends from the oldest ice cores show we're still cooling.
Which has no relevance on the damage that the short term warming we are experiencing (and will continue to experience as a result of the continued addition of CO2 to the atmosphere) will cause.
There was a time that scientists had visions of terraforming and changing the environments of planets. That optimism has been overturned and replaced by an inspid and morbid meme about static climate. And how we must all live in the gutter to enjoy such uniformity.
There was a time that scientists had visions of terraforming and changing the environments of planets. That optimism has been overturned and replaced by an inspid and morbid meme about static climate. And how we must all live in the gutter to enjoy such uniformity.
That's jut not true. We know we're changing the climate now ourselves by the very same people who you rely on for information that showed the climate has changed in the past.
The Greens would tell you we could easily live without rearing huge numbers of cows.
Luckily, as such emissions represent carbon that has only recently been removed from the atmosphere a part of the current carbon cycle, instead of carbon that was locked away for when the earth was a very different place millions of years ago, it's not a problem anyway.
Or did it originally come from the much larger concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere?
SD has already answered this, but I wish to add my incredulity at your continued lack of understanding.
It isn't the greater concentration of CO2 in the past, much hotter, world that counts, so much as the vast period of time over which carbon was drawn down from the atmosphere. It's not that it was all in the atmosphere to begin with - it has been released gradually through volcanism, which is an ongoing (and at times in the remote past, much more vigorous) process.
The question is how sensitive is global temperature to such a release? It may be sensitive but the worrying thing is that climate scientists currently do not have a Scooby Doo.
And yet past temperatures were higher but not through the roof.
Another vague assertion. What do you mean by "through the roof"? Temperatures have been high enough that there was no ice anywhere on the planet. It was a very different world than it is today. And this has happened when the solar luminosity was significantly lower than it is today (unless you are back to denying stellar evolution, as you were when you were complaining about the GEOCARB III model that your graphs used to show ancient atmospheric CO2 levels!).
Are you really not in the least bit curious to learn at least some of the basics of climate science, before attacking it?
There was a time that scientists had visions of terraforming and changing the environments of planets. That optimism has been overturned and replaced by an inspid and morbid meme about static climate. And how we must all live in the gutter to enjoy such uniformity.
Shorter solenoid: "Here's some more stuff that fell out of my head".
Long-term trends from the oldest ice cores show we're still cooling.
No, they don't. That graph is a textbook example of how deniers lie:
Firstly, and most obviously, the central Greenland ice sheet is not the world.
Secondly, and more importantly, the x axis claims to show years "before present (BP)", with "present" as the year 2000. But in fact, BP means "before 1950", in accordance with convention. And then the first data point is 95 years BP, which is 1855.
I've told you all this before. You never learn, and you never stop lying, or spreading other people's lies.
njp is so trapped by the meme he is unable to read further afield.
I'm well aware of the concept of terraforming, solenoid, and why it would not be an easy thing to do. It was more your nonsense about a "static climate", and the idea that scientists want to drive us all into poverty to achieve it.
But keep on hitting everything with your tiny meme hammer. I'm sure it makes a most gratifying sound.
We do, we need to stop emitting CO2 and we have the power to change that.
True, but either you're overlooking some simple biology, or proposing something.. a bit drastic. Have you considered calling the Samaritans, or the police?
Firstly, and most obviously, the central Greenland ice sheet is not the world.
Neither is the Yamal peninsula, or Mount Almagre, home of the Graybill proxies much loved by the Hockey Team. But that's a theme of climate science.. Feel the world's temperature via a few very sparse proxies & then tell yourself it's all teleconnected because you've seen Avatar..
Secondly, and more importantly, the x axis claims to show years "before present (BP)", with "present" as the year 2000. But in fact, BP means "before 1950", in accordance with convention. And then the first data point is 95 years BP, which is 1855.
And what has that to do with the pattern of past warming? Once again you demonstrate your ignorance and seize on something that isn't very relevant. The date issue is known, and if you want to plot your own version you can do so from here-
True, but either you're overlooking some simple biology, or proposing something.. a bit drastic. Have you considered calling the Samaritans, or the police?
Comments
Which has no relevance on the damage that the short term warming we are experiencing (and will continue to experience as a result of the continued addition of CO2 to the atmosphere) will cause.
That's jut not true. We know we're changing the climate now ourselves by the very same people who you rely on for information that showed the climate has changed in the past.
We do, we need to stop emitting CO2 and we have the power to change that.
We cannot stop cows from farting.😃
The Greens would tell you we could easily live without rearing huge numbers of cows.
Luckily, as such emissions represent carbon that has only recently been removed from the atmosphere a part of the current carbon cycle, instead of carbon that was locked away for when the earth was a very different place millions of years ago, it's not a problem anyway.
It isn't the greater concentration of CO2 in the past, much hotter, world that counts, so much as the vast period of time over which carbon was drawn down from the atmosphere. It's not that it was all in the atmosphere to begin with - it has been released gradually through volcanism, which is an ongoing (and at times in the remote past, much more vigorous) process.
So you've just ignored all the science, as usual?
Another vague assertion. What do you mean by "through the roof"? Temperatures have been high enough that there was no ice anywhere on the planet. It was a very different world than it is today. And this has happened when the solar luminosity was significantly lower than it is today (unless you are back to denying stellar evolution, as you were when you were complaining about the GEOCARB III model that your graphs used to show ancient atmospheric CO2 levels!).
Are you really not in the least bit curious to learn at least some of the basics of climate science, before attacking it?
Firstly, and most obviously, the central Greenland ice sheet is not the world.
Secondly, and more importantly, the x axis claims to show years "before present (BP)", with "present" as the year 2000. But in fact, BP means "before 1950", in accordance with convention. And then the first data point is 95 years BP, which is 1855.
I've told you all this before. You never learn, and you never stop lying, or spreading other people's lies.
njp is so trapped by the meme he is unable to read further afield.
But keep on hitting everything with your tiny meme hammer. I'm sure it makes a most gratifying sound.
It didn't imply a static climate at all. That's jut rubbish you've invented for your own political ends.
So what was it saying?
What do you think of the Eel's latest lying nonsense, a few posts ago? Fine by you, is it?
Are there no limits to your incuriosity about science?
It was saying that today's temps are very likely greater than those seen over the last 600 years of ups and downs.
Well quite.
True, but either you're overlooking some simple biology, or proposing something.. a bit drastic. Have you considered calling the Samaritans, or the police?
Neither is the Yamal peninsula, or Mount Almagre, home of the Graybill proxies much loved by the Hockey Team. But that's a theme of climate science.. Feel the world's temperature via a few very sparse proxies & then tell yourself it's all teleconnected because you've seen Avatar..
And what has that to do with the pattern of past warming? Once again you demonstrate your ignorance and seize on something that isn't very relevant. The date issue is known, and if you want to plot your own version you can do so from here-
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
As usual with proxies, or Cowtan & Way-induced warming, beware of real vs sythnetic data..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-30944708
Along with forgetting that sea level rises, like climate change are all perfectly natural..
Your inability to argue the point is noted.