

















Comments     Threshold


By kattanna on 11/4/2010 1:39:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote: , which uses BOINC to distribute the workload to test some of these models have amassed over 90 million years worth of CPU time so far. Some of the worlds most powerful supercomputers are used in testing climate models.

yes i know. i currently have multiple CPU's across a few machines running it and other BOINC tasks. i have been an active member for them specifically since july 2005 and for SETI FAR FAR longer. I have nothing against the models per se as they can be useful, but they are not hard evidence as some would claim.

CO2 levels are steadily rising ever since reliable recording of it started in 1960. It's higher than any historical CO2 levels observable through analysing air packs trapped in ice.

and here is where people start to fall into self made traps about how it has "never" been higher.

Estimating past levels of CO2 in the atmosphere for periods older than those sampled by ice cores is difficult and is the subject of continuing research. Most estimates agree that there was a significant decrease of CO2 in the atmosphere from more than1000 ppm at 50 million years ago (during the Eocene) to the range recorded in the ice cores of the past 800,000 years22.

here we clearly have science showing past records far higher, and this is only one example. i can go on with more.

also we are getting more and more current research that is showing temps rising BEFORE CO2 levels have risen

Marine and continental records1 show an abrupt negative shift in carbon isotope values at ~55.8?Myr ago. This carbon isotope excursion (CIE) is consistent with the release of a massive amount of isotopically light carbon into the atmosphere and was associated with a dramatic rise in global temperatures termed the Palaeocene–Eocene thermal maximum (PETM). Greenhouse gases released during the CIE, probably including methane, have often been considered the main cause of PETM warming. However, some evidence from the marine record suggests that warming directly preceded the CIE2, 3, 4, raising the possibility that the CIE and PETM may have been linked to earlier warming with different origins. Yet pre-CIE warming is still uncertain. Disentangling the sequence of events before and during the CIE and PETM is important for understanding the causes of, and Earth system responses to, abrupt climate change. Here we show that continental warming of about 5?°C preceded the CIE in the Bighorn Basin, Wyoming. Our evidence, based on oxygen isotopes in mammal teeth (which reflect temperature-sensitive fractionation processes) and other proxies, reveals a marked temperature increase directly below the CIE, and again in the CIE. Pre-CIE warming is also supported by a negative amplification of d13C values in soil carbonates below the CIE. Our results suggest that at least two sources of warming—the earlier of which is unlikely to have been methane—contributed to the PETM.

more and more research from various none climate scientist per se are starting to say the same thing

We put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the climate will warm. Models and predictions only disagree by how much at this point

and here we get to a funny thing. by that very logic as we continue to put more and more CO2 into the atmosphere the temp should continue to go up every year, yet by the very temp records made and used by the people of the UK's met office, the one at the middle of "climategate" their own records have not shown increasing temps since 1998. only when you use NASA/GISS methods of extrapolating temps northwards from canada to the arctic do we "see" these rising temps you hear about in the media.

and thats without even beginning to talk about GISS having to pull a satellite recently due to people finding it was reporting temps over lake michigan to be almost 400 deg F, yet those temp readings still remain in the records. and there is public record showing faulting sensors on the satellite going back many years.

and these models all simplify the environment often purposely not including various positive and negative feedbacks because they simply dont know how to implement them. yet we are supposed to take at face value models that are incomplete?

One doesn't have to be sensationalist about this.

the problem is that thats all the warming alarmist crowd IS doing.

By FITCamaro on 11/4/2010 11:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
These guys always look at 1960 and beyond. They somehow forget in the early 1900s, there was similar melting to that of the late 90s/early 2000s. I guess we're supposed to believe the extremely small amount of industry in the world compared to today was responsible for it all?

And then it got colder, and then hotter, and then colder, and then hotter again. And now it appears to be getting colder again. It's only early November and its in the 60s here in South Carolina. We're supposed to have temps in the 30s this weekend.

