Another Nail In The Warmist's Coffin

[nat4900]

Bet you don't recognize that your post actually indicted you.

That "conclusion" is just based on your biased interpretation.

 

[jc456]

The evidence for WHAT? That we've had a tiny 0.5DegC blip in temperature in your lifetime? WE ALL agree to that. It happened. The scientific debate is whether this is unusual (it is not) and what fraction of that warming MIGHT be due to man's emissions, and how hot it MIGHT get in the next 50 years.

Want to tackle those REAL issues? Or are you stuck on what the questions actually are?

Since we ALL (well, maybe not all given the imbecility of some) AGREE that regardless of the "level" we ARE poisoning our planet's atmosphere, then the real argument is at what level is the poisoning lethal and irreversible?

but what can't be agreed upon is if CO2 causes disastrous climate. Anyone who can't agree there is pollution in the air are just fruitcakes. Now back to the CO2 man breathes affects weather discussion. Appreciate the commercial break.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bet you don't recognize that your post actually indicted you.

That "conclusion" is just based on your biased interpretation.

It is eminently simple to show which of us is biased.....

Had there been any warming in the last decade or two?

Care to answer?

 

[007]

Freeman John Dyson...]theoretical physicist and mathematician, known for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering. Dyson is a member of the Board of Sponsors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists."
Freeman Dyson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


1. Global Warming?
"Basically, he doesn’t buy it. The climate models used to forecast what will happen as we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere are unreliable, Dyson claims, and so, therefore, are the projections. In an interview withYale Environment 360,...

2. ... Dyson contends that since carbon dioxide is good for plants, a warmer planet could be a very good thing. And if CO2 does get to be a problem, Dyson believes we can just do some genetic engineering to create a new species of super-tree that can suck up the excess.

3. Dyson is harder to dismiss, though, in part because of his brilliance. He’s on the faculty at the Institute for Advanced Study, where as a young physicist he hobnobbed with Albert Einstein...

4. In his interview withYale Environment 360, Dyson also makes numerous assertions of fact — from his claim that warming today is largely confined to the Arctic to his contention that human activities are not primarily responsible for rising global temperatures —



5. Syukuro Manabe, right here in Princeton, was the first person who did climate models with enhanced carbon dioxide and they were excellent models. And he used to say very firmly that these models are very good tools for understanding climate, but they are not good tools for predicting climate. I think that’s absolutely right. They are models, but they don’t pretend to be the real world. They are purely fluid dynamics. You can learn a lot from them, but you cannot learn what’s going to happen 10 years from now.



6. .... the most serious of almost all the problems is the rising sea level. But there again, we have no evidence that this is due to climate change. A good deal of evidence says it’s not. I mean, we know that that’s been going on for 12,000 years, and there’s very doubtful arguments as to what’s been happening in the last 50 years and (whether) human activities have been important. It’s not clear whether it’s been accelerating or not. But certainly, most of it is not due to human activities.

....what I would call part of the propaganda — to take for granted that any change is bad."
Freeman Dyson Takes on <br/>the Climate Establishment by Michael D. Lemonick: Yale Environment 360

... and then there's this... SHOCK CLAIM: World is on brink of 50 year ICE AGE and BRITAIN will bear the brunt

 

[flacaltenn]

The evidence for WHAT? That we've had a tiny 0.5DegC blip in temperature in your lifetime? WE ALL agree to that. It happened. The scientific debate is whether this is unusual (it is not) and what fraction of that warming MIGHT be due to man's emissions, and how hot it MIGHT get in the next 50 years.

Want to tackle those REAL issues? Or are you stuck on what the questions actually are?

Since we ALL (well, maybe not all given the imbecility of some) AGREE that regardless of the "level" we ARE poisoning our planet's atmosphere, then the real argument is at what level is the poisoning lethal and irreversible?

Well --- I suddenly like you better.. THOSE are the issues that are NOT settled. And the only relevent evidence would be directed to THOSE questions. Am I denier because I believe that man's emissions have been severely OVER rated and the general ignorance of climate system as a whole has caused an UNDER estimation of natural effects and cycles.??

Are you aware that the oceans and land emit 20 TIMES MORE CO2 every year than man does? It's all a natural cycle of CO2.. Of the 5% charged to man --- this carbon cycle SINKS about 1/2 of man's emissions of CO2 into the oceans and forests.. Leaving about 2.5% of the CO2 to be even CHARGED to mankind. And a lot of that is BS.

For instance -- man gets charged for domestic cattle (a big source) when actually the number of deer and buffalo roaming the planet was MUCH higher before domesticated farming. We also get charged for forest fires, land use, and host of other questionable book-keeping. I dont' deny that CO2 is rising. But increasing temps by themselves cause CO2 to naturally rise. So -- if ya calm down -- look at the simple ass assertions that are being made in GW theory -- it would be a better investment in understanding the questions --- rather than turning this into an Inquisition where NOBODY is allowed to voice an opinion because a whole colony of propaganda knumbed drones is claiming the settled and the debate is over.

Academics are being investigated McCarthy style. French weathermasters are being disciplined by their employer for writing a book, Colleagues are being black-balled and banned from publications --- And i get up every morning and hear 2 armies of droids arguing about everything but the FACTS and the SCIENCE?

Not funny -- GW movement is the biggest perversion of independent science since the birth of nuclear science and all the secrecy and political motives associated with that. Wake up...

We NEED DEBATE.. We need open communications and less threats and political involvement.. There's a HUGE mountain of propaganda that has been generated to support this farce. Time to cut it down..

 

[flacaltenn]

The evidence for WHAT? That we've had a tiny 0.5DegC blip in temperature in your lifetime? WE ALL agree to that. It happened. The scientific debate is whether this is unusual (it is not) and what fraction of that warming MIGHT be due to man's emissions, and how hot it MIGHT get in the next 50 years.

Want to tackle those REAL issues? Or are you stuck on what the questions actually are?

Since we ALL (well, maybe not all given the imbecility of some) AGREE that regardless of the "level" we ARE poisoning our planet's atmosphere, then the real argument is at what level is the poisoning lethal and irreversible?

but what can't be agreed upon is if CO2 causes disastrous climate. Anyone who can't agree there is pollution in the air are just fruitcakes. Now back to the CO2 man breathes affects weather discussion. Appreciate the commercial break.

Well that's the point isn't it? You cannot call something a pollutant that exists in heavier concentrations in a human breath than it does in the air if it's a trace gas in tiny concentrations. Cannot call it a pollutant if every year the oceans and the land pump out 20 times more than man naturally. And you cannot call it a pollutant just because it's a GreenHouse gas. Because water vapor is the DOMINATE greenhouse gas and I don't think you want to call that "a pollutant" .. The propaganda mill has manufactured this equivalence between CO2 and pollution. And used it to recruit the folks who WON'T weigh the evidence or read the debate.

Just ONE species -- the lowly termite --- pumps out about 5 to 10% of mans emissions of GH gases (CO2 and methane) every year. CO2 is the natural result of combustion engines in lifeforms..

 

[Wuwei]

Are you aware that the oceans and land emit 20 TIMES MORE CO2 every year than man does? It's all a natural cycle of CO2.. Of the 5% charged to man --- this carbon cycle SINKS about 1/2 of man's emissions of CO2 into the oceans and forests.. Leaving about 2.5% of the CO2 to be even CHARGED to mankind. And a lot of that is BS.

That is the type of presentation that attempts to diminish the problem but doesn't get to the heart of the matter. Atmospheric CO2 is estimated to be around 270 ppm in 1750, and is now almost 400 ppm.

I will assume your statistics are correct that man causes 5% of the yearly CO2 emission and of that, half is absorbed. So man's contribution is only 2.5%. Am I to understand that the considerable gain of CO2 in the atmosphere from the years 1750 to 2015 is coming only from that 2.5%? If not, is there another explanation? Do you doubt that the historical figures for CO2 are correct?

 

[flacaltenn]

Freeman John Dyson...]theoretical physicist and mathematician, known for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering. Dyson is a member of the Board of Sponsors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists."
Freeman Dyson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


1. Global Warming?
"Basically, he doesn’t buy it. The climate models used to forecast what will happen as we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere are unreliable, Dyson claims, and so, therefore, are the projections. In an interview withYale Environment 360,...

2. ... Dyson contends that since carbon dioxide is good for plants, a warmer planet could be a very good thing. And if CO2 does get to be a problem, Dyson believes we can just do some genetic engineering to create a new species of super-tree that can suck up the excess.

3. Dyson is harder to dismiss, though, in part because of his brilliance. He’s on the faculty at the Institute for Advanced Study, where as a young physicist he hobnobbed with Albert Einstein...

4. In his interview withYale Environment 360, Dyson also makes numerous assertions of fact — from his claim that warming today is largely confined to the Arctic to his contention that human activities are not primarily responsible for rising global temperatures —



5. Syukuro Manabe, right here in Princeton, was the first person who did climate models with enhanced carbon dioxide and they were excellent models. And he used to say very firmly that these models are very good tools for understanding climate, but they are not good tools for predicting climate. I think that’s absolutely right. They are models, but they don’t pretend to be the real world. They are purely fluid dynamics. You can learn a lot from them, but you cannot learn what’s going to happen 10 years from now.



6. .... the most serious of almost all the problems is the rising sea level. But there again, we have no evidence that this is due to climate change. A good deal of evidence says it’s not. I mean, we know that that’s been going on for 12,000 years, and there’s very doubtful arguments as to what’s been happening in the last 50 years and (whether) human activities have been important. It’s not clear whether it’s been accelerating or not. But certainly, most of it is not due to human activities.

....what I would call part of the propaganda — to take for granted that any change is bad."
Freeman Dyson Takes on <br/>the Climate Establishment by Michael D. Lemonick: Yale Environment 360

... and then there's this... SHOCK CLAIM: World is on brink of 50 year ICE AGE and BRITAIN will bear the brunt

Same idiots who are calling folks deniers and stifling debate will in 50 years DENY that scientists were warning about forecasting a new mini ice age.. They've done so in the past.

 

[nat4900]

Are you aware that the oceans and land emit 20 TIMES MORE CO2 every year than man does? It's all a natural cycle of CO2.. Of the 5% charged to man --- this carbon cycle SINKS about 1/2 of man's emissions of CO2 into the oceans and forests.. Leaving about 2.5% of the CO2 to be even CHARGED to mankind. And a lot of that is BS.

There are still two flaws in the "denier's" argument.....

First, we can't simply state that since the ocean emits a larger amount than man, then we simply throw our hands up and give up....It is tantamount to my NOT picking up for recycling an empty plastic bottle, surmising that China or India is a much bigger polluter.

Second, there is a HUGE industry just waiting to be exploited in reversing the percentage of man's pollution to more than mitigate what we've done since the industrial revolution.

 

[flacaltenn]

Are you aware that the oceans and land emit 20 TIMES MORE CO2 every year than man does? It's all a natural cycle of CO2.. Of the 5% charged to man --- this carbon cycle SINKS about 1/2 of man's emissions of CO2 into the oceans and forests.. Leaving about 2.5% of the CO2 to be even CHARGED to mankind. And a lot of that is BS.

That is the type of presentation that attempts to diminish the problem but doesn't get to the heart of the matter. Atmospheric CO2 is estimated to be around 270 ppm in 1750, and is now almost 400 ppm.

I will assume your statistics are correct that man causes 5% of the yearly CO2 emission and of that, half is absorbed. So man's contribution is only 2.5%. Am I to understand that the considerable gain of CO2 in the atmosphere from the years 1750 to 2015 is coming only from that 2.5%? If not, is there another explanation? Do you doubt that the historical figures for CO2 are correct?

Wouldn't question our ability to ESTIMATE current CO2 levels at all.. They have risen. But now -- we have satellites up that can look at seasonal and regional variations that we've never seen before. It's actually fascinating to see what amounts to 20ppm changes move around the globe.

When the claims are made however, that CO2 levels have not BEEN this high in (take your pick) 2000, 10,000 years --- there really is NOT ample evidence for that statement. Because when you use proxy records for the entire globe -- you get diff results than looking at some of the more accurate SINGLE studies. THOSE studies are the ones capable retaining the temporal resolution to even SEE the natural variance in the historical levels of CO2.

Bottom line is ---- we've yet to reach the first Doubling of CO2 conc. since Indust. Era began. Would hit that at 560ppm or so. Probably not there til 2040 or so. . And from basic atmos physics, we get about 1.1degC/ Doubling. That IS about the observed amount of warming !!! Far below the estimates involving the "magic multipliers" of climate sensitivity numbers and speculated "positive feedbacks".. And the NEXT doubling -- to get the NEXT degree due to whatever cause would be at 1160ppm. When do you think we'd likely hit that mark??

 

[jc456]

Are you aware that the oceans and land emit 20 TIMES MORE CO2 every year than man does? It's all a natural cycle of CO2.. Of the 5% charged to man --- this carbon cycle SINKS about 1/2 of man's emissions of CO2 into the oceans and forests.. Leaving about 2.5% of the CO2 to be even CHARGED to mankind. And a lot of that is BS.

There are still two flaws in the "denier's" argument.....

First, we can't simply state that since the ocean emits a larger amount than man, then we simply throw our hands up and give up....It is tantamount to my NOT picking up for recycling an empty plastic bottle, surmising that China or India is a much bigger polluter.

Second, there is a HUGE industry just waiting to be exploited in reversing the percentage of man's pollution to more than mitigate what we've done since the industrial revolution.

so what is the HUGE industry?

 

[flacaltenn]

Are you aware that the oceans and land emit 20 TIMES MORE CO2 every year than man does? It's all a natural cycle of CO2.. Of the 5% charged to man --- this carbon cycle SINKS about 1/2 of man's emissions of CO2 into the oceans and forests.. Leaving about 2.5% of the CO2 to be even CHARGED to mankind. And a lot of that is BS.

There are still two flaws in the "denier's" argument.....

First, we can't simply state that since the ocean emits a larger amount than man, then we simply throw our hands up and give up....It is tantamount to my NOT picking up for recycling an empty plastic bottle, surmising that China or India is a much bigger polluter.

Second, there is a HUGE industry just waiting to be exploited in reversing the percentage of man's pollution to more than mitigate what we've done since the industrial revolution.

Again -- it's not pollution. But yes -- we should look at the increases in CO2 and estimate an effect. The amount the oceans and land REABSORB every year is probably just as important as the amount that man or termites are pumping out every year. That's just one area of important study with no definite answers yet.

My belief is that man-made CO2 adds a bit to the Natural climate changes, but no where NEAR the hysteria and the hype that been invented and fed to the media and politicians to use as a weapon for other enviro causes like pollution or to justify MASSIVE monetary redistribution between the rich and poor countries of the world.

All you have to do is look at the desperation of the GW activists as their initial estimates start to fail and nature continues to make liars of predictions of doom.. The TRUTH is bit farther down the road. And DEBATE and unfettered science is MY biggest objective here.

 

[Wuwei]

Wouldn't question our ability to ESTIMATE current CO2 levels at all.. They have risen. But now -- we have satellites up that can look at seasonal and regional variations that we've never seen before. It's actually fascinating to see what amounts to 20ppm changes move around the globe.

When the claims are made however, that CO2 levels have not BEEN this high in (take your pick) 2000, 10,000 years --- there really is NOT ample evidence for that statement. Because when you use proxy records for the entire globe -- you get diff results than looking at some of the more accurate SINGLE studies. THOSE studies are the ones capable retaining the temporal resolution to even SEE the natural variance in the historical levels of CO2.

Bottom line is ---- we've yet to reach the first Doubling of CO2 conc. since Indust. Era began. Would hit that at 560ppm or so. Probably not there til 2040 or so. . And from basic atmos physics, we get about 1.1degC/ Doubling. That IS about the observed amount of warming !!! Far below the estimates involving the "magic multipliers" of climate sensitivity numbers and speculated "positive feedbacks".. And the NEXT doubling -- to get the NEXT degree due to whatever cause would be at 1160ppm. When do you think we'd likely hit that mark??

You missed the point.. You are reading way too much into my post. I was not claiming what doubling might do or that there are not seasonal or positional dependencies, nor "magic multipliers"

I was just puzzled why there is such a large rise in CO2 from 1750 levels when man's contribution is presumably 2.5% per year. Do you have an explanation?

 

[jc456]

Wouldn't question our ability to ESTIMATE current CO2 levels at all.. They have risen. But now -- we have satellites up that can look at seasonal and regional variations that we've never seen before. It's actually fascinating to see what amounts to 20ppm changes move around the globe.

When the claims are made however, that CO2 levels have not BEEN this high in (take your pick) 2000, 10,000 years --- there really is NOT ample evidence for that statement. Because when you use proxy records for the entire globe -- you get diff results than looking at some of the more accurate SINGLE studies. THOSE studies are the ones capable retaining the temporal resolution to even SEE the natural variance in the historical levels of CO2.

Bottom line is ---- we've yet to reach the first Doubling of CO2 conc. since Indust. Era began. Would hit that at 560ppm or so. Probably not there til 2040 or so. . And from basic atmos physics, we get about 1.1degC/ Doubling. That IS about the observed amount of warming !!! Far below the estimates involving the "magic multipliers" of climate sensitivity numbers and speculated "positive feedbacks".. And the NEXT doubling -- to get the NEXT degree due to whatever cause would be at 1160ppm. When do you think we'd likely hit that mark??

You missed the point.. You are reading way too much into my post. I was not claiming what doubling might do or that there are not seasonal or positional dependencies, nor "magic multipliers"

I was just puzzled why there is such a large rise in CO2 from 1750 levels when man's contribution is presumably 2.5% per year. Do you have an explanation?

actually he addressed your point quite well. Why not just state what it is you're reaching for.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wouldn't question our ability to ESTIMATE current CO2 levels at all.. They have risen. But now -- we have satellites up that can look at seasonal and regional variations that we've never seen before. It's actually fascinating to see what amounts to 20ppm changes move around the globe.

When the claims are made however, that CO2 levels have not BEEN this high in (take your pick) 2000, 10,000 years --- there really is NOT ample evidence for that statement. Because when you use proxy records for the entire globe -- you get diff results than looking at some of the more accurate SINGLE studies. THOSE studies are the ones capable retaining the temporal resolution to even SEE the natural variance in the historical levels of CO2.

Bottom line is ---- we've yet to reach the first Doubling of CO2 conc. since Indust. Era began. Would hit that at 560ppm or so. Probably not there til 2040 or so. . And from basic atmos physics, we get about 1.1degC/ Doubling. That IS about the observed amount of warming !!! Far below the estimates involving the "magic multipliers" of climate sensitivity numbers and speculated "positive feedbacks".. And the NEXT doubling -- to get the NEXT degree due to whatever cause would be at 1160ppm. When do you think we'd likely hit that mark??

You missed the point.. You are reading way too much into my post. I was not claiming what doubling might do or that there are not seasonal or positional dependencies, nor "magic multipliers"

I was just puzzled why there is such a large rise in CO2 from 1750 levels when man's contribution is presumably 2.5% per year. Do you have an explanation?

OK.. That's a good question. I suppose that 2.5% accumulates to some appreciable number. After all we're only talking about 120ppm.. One thing know is that rising temperature will naturally increase CO2 in the atmos. The oceans generally sink less with a hotter surface and decomposition and life blossoms with increases in temp.. Remember the AVERAGE temp of the globe is about 50degF (IIRC) --- So many places that didn't support life at those temps will support it with a warming. And in the late 18th century --- we were emerging from 2 "mild" little coolings. So temperatures rose then and despite some of the really bad science that claims otherwise -- the earth's climate zones don't change and adapt on an annual schedule. There could be decades to catch up with climate changes.

Have you ever seen the SEASONAL variations of CO2 level at places like Mauna Loa where it's measured? There's a big ole sinewave sitting on top of this climbing average.. Equivalent to maybe a DECADE of man's emissions. That tells you that JUST the annual variation in CO2 levels is pretty big compared to the rate of rise.

Now there are studies that CLAIM to have fingerprinted the "EVIL" CO2 in the atmos and traced that to man's emissions. But it wouldn't hold up in court or aggressive debate. Because of the proxy (variant of carbon dating) used has severe overlap between the signatures of the 2 isotopes AND because the ANCIENT carbon that that they WANT to attribute to man -- is indistinguishable from the ancient carbon that's stored in the ocean depths and recycles to the surface constantly..

If I have time -- I'll pull up some of those temporally accurate CO2 proxies and show you some WICKEDLY high natural variances over the past millennium without ANY help from man...

 

[jc456]

has someone identified every living thing that emits CO2?

 

[Wuwei]

One thing know is that rising temperature will naturally increase CO2 in the atmos. The oceans generally sink less with a hotter surface and decomposition and life blossoms with increases in temp.. Remember the AVERAGE temp of the globe is about 50degF (IIRC) --- So many places that didn't support life at those temps will support it with a warming.

Aren't those explanations considered “accelerations”? If not, then what is an acceleration?

Have you ever seen the SEASONAL variations of CO2 level at places like Mauna Loa where it's measured? There's a big ole sinewave sitting on top of this climbing average.. Equivalent to maybe a DECADE of man's emissions. That tells you that JUST the annual variation in CO2 levels is pretty big compared to the rate of rise.

I'm very aware of the very regular seasonal variations at Mauna Loa. The amplitude may have been a decade variation in1958 but is now only equivalent to about 4 years. Anyway, I don't see how that has any bearing on the long term climate when it is just a sort of oscillating equilibrium.

Now there are studies that CLAIM to have fingerprinted the "EVIL" CO2 in the atmos and traced that to man's emissions. But it wouldn't hold up in court or aggressive debate. Because of the proxy (variant of carbon dating) used has severe overlap between the signatures of the 2 isotopes AND because the ANCIENT carbon that that they WANT to attribute to man -- is indistinguishable from the ancient carbon that's stored in the ocean depths and recycles to the surface constantly..

If I have time -- I'll pull up some of those temporally accurate CO2 proxies and show you some WICKEDLY high natural variances over the past millennium without ANY help from man...

No need to put up more charts, they have been beat to death here. The wild variations in historic climate and mass species extinctions are mostly attributed to some huge trigger like a super volcano or a large asteroid. I don't see how a deep history has much bearing on today's climate. The whole controversy is whether the rising CO2 is a different sort of climatic trigger.

 

[mamooth]

Why this escalating denier hysteria? As I keep pointing out, it's because their cult is collapsing. And the evidence bears it out. This latest poll shows them losing 70-16, with the trend decidedly against them.

http://closup.umich.edu/files/ieep-nsee-2015-fall-climate-belief.pdf

You'll note the denier cult reached its zenith after they blindsided everyone with their utter depravity by faking the Climategate pseudoscandal and getting their conservative mainstream media pals to play along. Since then, it's been all downhill. The evidence just kept piling up against them. Their media pals stopped returning their calls, after being shamed by the rational people. Around the world, every other conservative political party bailed on them. Even the Republican Party, not wanting to be embarrassed, is getting hesitant to mention denialism outside of rallies of the most diehard faithful.

And, worst of all for deniers, scientists are no longer defenseless. They now understand the depths deniers will stoop to, so they won't be surprised again. They now fight back and win. Deniers can't use their sleaze tactics any more, and they know it, and without that sleaze, they've got nothing.

 

[jc456]

Why this escalating denier hysteria? As I keep pointing out, it's because their cult is collapsing. And the evidence bears it out. This latest poll shows them losing 70-16, with the trend decidedly against them.

http://closup.umich.edu/files/ieep-nsee-2015-fall-climate-belief.pdf

You'll note the denier cult reached its zenith after they blindsided everyone with their utter depravity by faking the Climategate pseudoscandal and getting their conservative mainstream media pals to play along. Since then, it's been all downhill. The evidence just kept piling up against them. Their media pals stopped returning their calls, after being shamed by the rational people. Around the world, every other conservative political party bailed on them. Even the Republican Party, not wanted to be embarrassed, is getting hesitant to mention denialism outside of rallies of the most diehard faithful.

And, worst of all for deniers, scientists are no longer defenseless. They now understand the depths deniers will stoop to, so they won't be surprised again. They now fight back and win. Deniers can't use their sleaze tactics any more, and they know it, and without that sleaze, they've got nothing.

hysteria? You should perhaps look up what that word means. I see that the lack of evidence as the biggest nail in a coffin. And to date, you have not posted up any evidence to support a CO2 increased bad weather, climate claim. EVA!!!!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

One thing know is that rising temperature will naturally increase CO2 in the atmos. The oceans generally sink less with a hotter surface and decomposition and life blossoms with increases in temp.. Remember the AVERAGE temp of the globe is about 50degF (IIRC) --- So many places that didn't support life at those temps will support it with a warming.

Aren't those explanations considered “accelerations”? If not, then what is an acceleration?

Have you ever seen the SEASONAL variations of CO2 level at places like Mauna Loa where it's measured? There's a big ole sinewave sitting on top of this climbing average.. Equivalent to maybe a DECADE of man's emissions. That tells you that JUST the annual variation in CO2 levels is pretty big compared to the rate of rise.

I'm very aware of the very regular seasonal variations at Mauna Loa. The amplitude may have been a decade variation in1958 but is now only equivalent to about 4 years. Anyway, I don't see how that has any bearing on the long term climate when it is just a sort of oscillating equilibrium.

Now there are studies that CLAIM to have fingerprinted the "EVIL" CO2 in the atmos and traced that to man's emissions. But it wouldn't hold up in court or aggressive debate. Because of the proxy (variant of carbon dating) used has severe overlap between the signatures of the 2 isotopes AND because the ANCIENT carbon that that they WANT to attribute to man -- is indistinguishable from the ancient carbon that's stored in the ocean depths and recycles to the surface constantly..

If I have time -- I'll pull up some of those temporally accurate CO2 proxies and show you some WICKEDLY high natural variances over the past millennium without ANY help from man...

No need to put up more charts, they have been beat to death here. The wild variations in historic climate and mass species extinctions are mostly attributed to some huge trigger like a super volcano or a large asteroid. I don't see how a deep history has much bearing on today's climate. The whole controversy is whether the rising CO2 is a different sort of climatic trigger.

From the empirical point of view -- we observed no real accelerations due to feedbacks and multipliers on the climate sensitivity. In fact -- most of that magic has been drastically REDUCED in the lit for past 10 years. Carbon cycle deviations COULD contribute to accelerations in the temp above and beyond what CO2 ALONE is capable of doing. But in the cases I suggested -- a warmer ocean surface would just as much inhibit CO2 release as it would possibly inhibit CO2 take-up. Because it's the UP-Welling COLD water that is saturated with CO2. They were predicting the end of the oceans' capacity for absorbing the "excess" CO2 for decades.. They STILL don't know, but ocean uptake and release hasn't appeared to change much. IN FACT -- if previously ice-covered polar seas are melted open -- that area is an IMPROVED carbon sink. Probably better than a dense forest and an example of a NEGATIVE feedback on ice melting.

Let's just put up a higher accuracy estimate of the natural variability in the CO2 conc.. anyways. Since we're here.

Stomatal proxy record of CO2 concentrations from the last termination suggests an important role for CO2 at climate change transitions | Margret Steinthorsdottir - Academia.edu

A new stomatal proxy-based record of CO2 concentrations ([CO2]), based on Betula nana
(dwarf birch)leaves from the Hässeldala Port sedimentary sequence in south-eastern Sweden, is presented. The recordis of high chronological resolution and spans most of Greenland Interstadial 1 (GI-1a to 1c, Allerød pollenzone), Greenland Stadial 1 (GS-1, Younger Dryas pollen zone) and the very beginning of the Holocene(Preboreal pollen zone). The record clearly demonstrates that i) [CO2] were signifcantly higher thanusually reported for the Last Termination and ii) the overall pattern of CO2 evolution through the studiedtime period is fairly dynamic, with significant abrupt fuctuations in [CO2] when the climate moved frominterstadial to stadial state and vice versa.

Convieniently compared for you next to the barren resolution of an longer ice core record. The concept that CO2 was a pristine level in past Holocene history is just not in evidence. Except in the GLOBAL hockey stick studies using too much filtering and too few spatial samples to produce anything other than a flat-line..

There are swings present for at least 80 maybe 100 ppm.. PLenty of studies from around the globe that jive with this THROUGHOUT the recent Holocene..

And you DON'T need a volcano or meteor strike to effect mild to significant climate events. You have the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval WP, The Little Ice Age as examples of climate change on a par with out recent observations..