Proof that Max Keiser is WRONG.....................

[Mega]

.............On global warming.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19077439

Gee, i wonder how many V8 Mustangs there were back then?

Am sure he still hang on to his plan that we all become Carbon credit traders.

He pissed that we saw though the scam, but it was easy...once you know Goldman Sacs IS the key player.
Mike

[don]

Re: Proof that Max Keiser is WRONG.....................

Yes, the Carbon Tax is another FIRE fraud.

But Meg, how does the link buttress your point?

Dr Bendle said that as an analogue of modern Earth, the Eocene represents heightened levels of CO2 that will not be reached any time soon, and may not be reached at all if CO2 emissions abate.

However, he said the results from the Eocene could help to shore up the computer models that are being used to estimate how sensitive climate is to the emissions that will certainly rise in the nearer term.

"It's a clearer picture we get of warm analogues through geological time," he said.

"The more we get that information, the more it seems that the models we're using now are not overestimating the [climatic] change over the next few centuries, and they may be underestimating it. That's the essential message."

[BadJuju]

Re: Proof that Max Keiser is WRONG.....................

Since CO2 is rising at about 2-3 PPM each year and we are already at 400, it won't take that long at all to reach it never mind the potential acceleration of it by other non-anthropocene factors.

[c1ue]

Re: Proof that Max Keiser is WRONG.....................

"The more we get that information, the more it seems that the models we're using now are not overestimating the [climatic] change over the next few centuries, and they may be underestimating it. That's the essential message."

Unfortunately his 'essential message' seems to be getting more diluted, not less. Ongoing temperature behavior shows no sign of an upslope for over a decade now, and recent research has shown that *surprise* natural CO2 uptake was double that of (IPCC and climate model) estimation in the past 60 years:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11299.html

Increase in observed net carbon dioxide uptake by land and oceans during the past 50 years

One of the greatest sources of uncertainty for future climate predictions is the response of the global carbon cycle to climate change¹. Although approximately one-half of total CO₂ emissions is at present taken up by combined land and ocean carbon reservoirs², models predict a decline in future carbon uptake by these reservoirs, resulting in a positive carbon–climate feedback³. Several recent studies suggest that rates of carbon uptake by the land^{4, 5, 6} and ocean^{7, 8, 9, 10} have remained constant or declined in recent decades. Other work, however, has called into question the reported decline^{11, 12, 13}. Here we use global-scale atmospheric CO₂ measurements, CO₂ emission inventories and their full range of uncertainties to calculate changes in global CO₂ sources and sinks during the past 50 years. Our mass balance analysis shows that net global carbon uptake has increased significantly by about 0.05 billion tonnes of carbon per year and that global carbon uptake doubled, from 2.4 ± 0.8 to 5.0 ± 0.9 billion tonnes per year, between 1960 and 2010. Therefore, it is very unlikely that both land and ocean carbon sinks have decreased on a global scale. Since 1959, approximately 350 billion tonnes of carbon have been emitted by humans to the atmosphere, of which about 55 per cent has moved into the land and oceans. Thus, identifying the mechanisms and locations responsible for increasing global carbon uptake remains a critical challenge in constraining the modern global carbon budget and predicting future carbon–climate interactions.

Peer reviewed in Nature and all.

Bits of information like this make it seem like the climate model estimations are crap.

Since CO2 is rising at about 2-3 PPM each year and we are already at 400, it won't take that long at all to reach it never mind the potential acceleration of it by other non-anthropocene factors.

Let's see:

Present CO2 level is 395 ppm.

Eocene CO2 levels are estimated to be between 1000 and 4000 ppm.

So in 200 or 300 years, we will approach the bottom of the Eocene CO2 levels.

Of course, all the projections are showing oil, gas, and coal reserve to run out in less than 1/2 that time.

[Ghent12]

Re: Proof that Max Keiser is WRONG.....................

Of course, all the projections are showing oil, gas, and coal reserve to run out in less than 1/2 that time.

And that, of course, is also impossible to know with much certainty. Predictions of meaningful fossil fuel depletion have been wrong for more than half a century, and there is no reason to suspect they will become more accurate with time. The recent "sudden discovery" of reserves in North America is the ultimate example of how baseline economics serve to undermine natural resource depletion predictions.

[c1ue]

Re: Proof that Max Keiser is WRONG.....................

And that, of course, is also impossible to know with much certainty. Predictions of meaningful fossil fuel depletion have been wrong for more than half a century, and there is no reason to suspect they will become more accurate with time. The recent "sudden discovery" of reserves in North America is the ultimate example of how baseline economics serve to undermine natural resource depletion predictions.

Ah, but doesn't iTulip believe in Peak Cheap Oil?

And Peak Cheap Oil pretty much guarantees that present rates of fossil fuel usage will decrease if only because of the negative economic impact of wildly swinging energy prices.

[don]

Re: Proof that Max Keiser is WRONG.....................

just when you thought it was out . . .

[Ghent12]

Re: Proof that Max Keiser is WRONG.....................

Ah, but doesn't iTulip believe in Peak Cheap Oil?

And Peak Cheap Oil pretty much guarantees that present rates of fossil fuel usage will decrease if only because of the negative economic impact of wildly swinging energy prices.

Well cheap is a relative term. It's a question of economic viability, and fossil fuels will always be viable to dig up, it seems.