Can you believe the chutzpah? The thing that gets me about climate Chicken Littles is the way they repeat bogus claims ad nauseum as if true…this comment from Gareth Renowden at Hot Topic tonight illustrates ignorance on this point:
"In deep time, there have been periods when CO2 has been higher than now (how much higher is a matter of study), but lots of CO2 is inevitably associated with a warmer planet."
Invariably?? The blue line is temperature, the black line is CO2:
I defy anyone, including Renowden, to find a pattern in the historical record that proves CO2 is "invariably" associated with a warmer planet. It will be especially hard for him as the ice cores all show CO2 rise lags temperature increase by several hundred years, not precedes it.
Keep telling it often enough, Gareth, and the sycophants at Hot Topic will keep believing you.
UPDATE 29 October:
Colin (CTG over at Hot Topic) makes another incorrect statement as a definitive assertion this morning when he says:
"…there has been no significant change in the sun's activity over the last 50 years, during which time the earth has warmed significantly"
Colin then gets all holier-than-thou:
"So you are saying, let's ignore all the scientific evidence that points to CO2 being the cause of the recent warming, and pretend that there is some scientific evidence that it is the sun?
"Why stop there? Why not pretend that there is some scientific evidence that it is Godzilla that is causing the warming? That might actually be more credible than "it's the Sun, stupid".
Sigh. If only Hot Topic's diehard warmies had actually read Air Con, because if they had they would have seen this study:
"A Doubling Of The Sun's Coronal Magnetic Field during the Last 100 Years", Lockwood et al, Nature, Vol 399, 3 June 1999 pages 437-439", referenced Air Con page 82
That genuine peer-reviewed study boldly states there has been a 230% increase in the solar magnetic field in the past century "which may influence global climate change". More damning for CTG and Hot Topic the study states the majority of that solar increase (140%) has taken place in the past 50 years (since 1964 in fact), coinciding with CTG's claimed temperature rise.
Memo to Hot Topic: If I keep handing you guys bullets, pretty soon you will run out of feet.
UPDATE 2, still October 29
And still it continues. In responding to the initial post here, Renowden accuses me of not sourcing the graph I used in Air Con and above:
And he whips out the chart you see above (click on the thumbnail to be taken to the source). It features (without credit to source) on page 34 of Air Con.
OK, I'll admit the link wasn't clear, but it was there, referenced through the more extensive paleoclimate discussion on pages 31 through 37 of Air Con. Not only was Scotese's work acknowledged at footnote 33, so was the originator of the graph (Geocraft) at footnote 35, and the Geocarb III paper of Berner at footnote 36. Because the graph itself refers to Scotese and Berner, I saw no need to repeat the credits a fourth time.
Read the book properly next time Gareth.
As for his appeals to Royer that CO2 drove ancient climate, others disagree:
"A proper analysis, which avoids this bootstrapping and considers a more realistic pH correction, shows that the global temperature sensitivity to CO2 is still relatively small. Such a conclusion is supported by six additional paleoclimate sensitivity analyses (Shaviv, 2004)."
Recent Comments