Carbon in Polar permafrost 'behind ancient global warming'

Very interesting. Finally looking at more than one variable in the climate process.

From the article
"The team used a precise new record taken from Italian rocks to demonstrate how the PETM took place during times when the orbit of the Earth around the sun was titled and was not fully circular."

'not fully circular' aka eccentric. Each time our earth hits it's most eccentric orbit, the earth warms up.

When the earth warms up, it releases sequestered CO2.

Long term positive feedbacks have been a part of the literature from the beginning. The focus has been on the short term feedbacks because they are the 'initial evidence' to convince the public.

This sort of nonsense from FF just illustrates that he doesn't care to read about it, except to pretend it is an example of 'flip flop'. Something he gets from his political jeering.

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

This sort of nonsense from

What time does NobodyYouEverWantToKnow come out to play, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?

Fun Facts wrote:

Very interesting. Finally looking at more than one variable in the climate process.
From the article
"The team used a precise new record taken from Italian rocks to demonstrate how the PETM took place during times when the orbit of the Earth around the sun was titled and was not fully circular."
'not fully circular' aka eccentric. Each time our earth hits it's most eccentric orbit, the earth warms up.
When the earth warms up, it releases sequestered CO2.

And we are now warming the Earth ourselves, and sequestered CO2 is releasing, so...

Northie wrote:

And we are now warming the Earth ourselves, and sequestered CO2 is releasing, so...

How much sequestered CO2 has been released by a global temperature increase of 0.22 - 0.44ºC?

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>How much sequestered CO2 has been released by a global temperature increase of 0.22 - 0.44ºC?

1: Who cares about a .3C warming. THe world has warmed from PRE-AGW conditions about 0.8C to 1C. About a third of the change you expect going from ice age to integlacial conditons so NOT a trivial amount.

2: Most long term feedbacks take centuries so you will have to be patient. In the meantime, methane levels have increases enough to show that there is a significant feedback building up. By the time you can see it easily it will be way too late.

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

1: Who cares about a .3C warming.

Because that's the amount considered to be anthropogenic,

NoFactAllHype wrote:

THe world has warmed from PRE-AGW conditions about 0.8C to 1C.

You always exaggerate, it's 0.74ºC since 1850.

NoFactAllHype wrote:

About a third of the change you expect going from ice age to integlacial conditons so NOT a trivial amount.

"A third" of what?

NoFactAllHype wrote:

2: Most long term feedbacks take centuries so you will have to be patient.

I'm very patient, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.

NoFactAllHype wrote:

In the meantime, methane levels have increases enough

"Have increases enough?"

NoFactAllHype wrote:

to show that there is a significant feedback building up.

Be patient and we'll see.

NoFactAllHype wrote:

By the time you can see it easily it will be way too late.

Didn't people like Paul Ehrlich ET AL warn us of things like that many times over?

Fun Facts wrote:

Very interesting. Finally looking at more than one variable in the climate process.

Are you seriously insinuating that climate scientists have NEVER considered any other varibles until now? LOL! Are you trying to fool yourself or someone else?

crocoduck wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you seriously insinuating that climate scientists have NEVER considered any other varibles until now? LOL! Are you trying to fool yourself or someone else?

Scientist consider many variables, what is input to their computer models is another thing. Any variable input to a computer model must have a specific value that the computer can calculate. This is what is missing.

We know there are clouds, we know they impact climate, what we don't know is how to load that condition into a computer model. How much cloud cover will you have next month where you live, how about next year? Capish?

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
We know there are clouds, we know they impact climate, what we don't know is how to load that condition into a computer model.

Certainly clouds are the biggest unmodelled variable in most GCMs. However, we know that average cloud cover and density are very stable over decades so you don't need a finely modelled cloud input.

This may change as we increase our output of fine particles, aerosols and other factors, but until we we see a distinct change over a period of at least three decades (to eliminate climate cycles), we cannot and need not form a submodel of clouds for climate research.

LessFact knows as much about cloud modelling as he does about ice calving.

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

With calving you don't get more than a small difference in the endpoint. You don't 'calve' a chunk of ice 2.7 square miles in extent.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

The Petermann ice shelf breaks up - ice calving of 28 km from the Petermann floating ice shelf on Greenland, which was 70 km long
http://arctic-roos.org/Members/webadmin/newsb...

steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling wrote:

How much sequestered CO2......

"steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling" never sequesters any BS while pouring out his slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigisms.

crocoduck wrote:

Are you seriously insinuating that climate scientists have NEVER considered any other varibles until now? LOL! Are you trying to fool yourself or someone else?

topix AGW deniers, who have as little education as jr. hi skule, have egos beeg enuf to allow them to say they are smarter than scientists with 10, 12+ years more mathematics & science.

topix AGW deniers are driven by ego.

steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling wrote:

..... knows as much about cloud modelling as.......

"steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling" knows as much BS as in his slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigisms.... an exceptional amount, indeed!

However, he admits to no background in mathematics & science & that is true.

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

This may change as we increase our output of fine particles, aerosols and other factors, but until we we see a distinct change over a period of at least three decades (to eliminate climate cycles), we cannot and need not form a submodel of clouds for climate research.

You (we we) can't keep on putting off making decisions for thirty years, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Certainly clouds are the biggest unmodelled variable in most GCMs. However, we know that average cloud cover and density are very stable over decades so you don't need a finely modelled cloud input.
This may change as we increase our output of fine particles, aerosols and other factors, but until we we see a distinct change over a period of at least three decades (to eliminate climate cycles), we cannot and need not form a submodel of clouds for climate research.

Actually there are many variables that cannot be adequately modelled. Solar activity. Remember cycle 24 was supposed to be stronger than cycle 23. Well for climate scientists, not the solar physicists. So what value was loaded for solar activity, the predictions of the climate scientists who predicted a strong cycle, or the predictions of the solar physicists who predicted a weak cycle?

When will the next El Nino start? Will it be weak or strong? And how about the third El Nino after the next one, when will it start? How many La Ninas will occur between the El Ninos? What will their duration be?

Computer models are making century long predictions, yet we can't adequately input these variables.

Fun Facts wrote:

Actually there are many variables that cannot be adequately modelled. Solar activity. Remember cycle 24 was supposed to be stronger than cycle 23. Well for climate scientists, not the solar physicists. So what value was loaded for solar activity, the predictions of the climate scientists who predicted a strong cycle, or the predictions of the solar physicists who predicted a weak cycle?
When will the next El Nino start? Will it be weak or strong? And how about the third El Nino after the next one, when will it start? How many La Ninas will occur between the El Ninos? What will their duration be?
Computer models are making century long predictions, yet we can't adequately input these variables.

Well put!
Those are comments our alarmist friends don't want to consider.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually there are many variables that cannot be adequately modelled. Solar activity. Remember cycle 24 was supposed to be stronger than cycle 23. Well for climate scientists, not the solar physicists. So what value was loaded for solar activity, the predictions of the climate scientists who predicted a strong cycle, or the predictions of the solar physicists who predicted a weak cycle?
When will the next El Nino start? Will it be weak or strong? And how about the third El Nino after the next one, when will it start? How many La Ninas will occur between the El Ninos? What will their duration be?
Computer models are making century long predictions, yet we can't adequately input these variables.

Still grasping at straws--and creating strawman arguments.

The IPCC and every climatologist worth the title acknowledges that solar forcing has been overwhelmed by human forcing, and the El Nino cycle is strong as ever, with each El Nino dumping more oceanic heat into the atmosphere.

Sure, it would be handy to know more about the future of solar irradiance or the strength of the next El Nino, but the absence of that information in no way changes the basic consensus that we are cooking the climate and that we have a responsibility to stop it before we bring on far worse disasters than we already have.

Meanwhile, the excuses and rationalizations for selfishness by right-wing retirees who like their trucks are just straws in the wind.

Nauseous wrote:

Still grasping at straws--and creating strawman arguments.

Nah, that would be you.

steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling wrote:

'Well put'
Those are comments our...... friends don't want to consider.

I consider the slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig comments of "steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling" worthy of being 'put in a well'.