The world has never seen such freezing heat

[DaveBrown42]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Dave,

Two things. One, beliefs about global warming (specifically, the degree of anthropogenic global warming) are going to have a very large impact on decisions made that will affect our economy. The pro-AGW forces will willingly hobble the US (and the developed world's) economy by greatly restricting the use of coal, along with other hydrocarbon sources, and by expanding the power of government in energy markets, all based, imo, on a false notion of the degree to which mankind's activities contribute to global warming. Some very well-connected players (the ones who got us into this financial mess) will make out like bandits by setting a market in carbon credits and cap-and-trade schemes, and we will see greater and greater international governmental control, all in the name of "saving the planet." A compliant media will play right along.

As you mention, beliefs about global warming will affect our economy. I'll agree that it's useful, as a big-picture investor, to know what the perception is regarding the issue, and in what ways that perception may or may not be shifting.

Two, for the sake of argument, I'll grant you your inarguable fact that global warming is occurring

You misunderstood my post. I specifically avoided saying which side of the issue I agree with, only that I considered posting what I believe are the inarguable facts, just as many on both sides of this debate are convinced that their facts are inarguable. If my post came across as "I think global warming is real and man-made, but let's not bother discussing it", I apologize as that was not my intent.

Ahhh, here's why this discussion on an economics forum is important.
This isn't really about global warming; it's about how people think, and how they reach conclusions.
...
And like all public forums, there are those who express uninformed opinions based on an emotional need or maybe a political agenda. But that's ok. I really do appreciate ALL the posters here at iTulip. But when it comes to making those life changing decisions, I really need to be able to distinguish the uninformed opinions from the well reasoned, data supported opinions.

A thread like this can be very helpful. ;)

While I agree with this logic, and I have found this thread to be somewhat insightful in that regard, I think that there's a sampling bias of sorts to consider. People who come to Itulip and register on the forums have a strong interest in the subjects that are discussed here (the economy, investing, bubbles, etc), and so it's safe to say that they are probably more well-read than the average person on those issues. But when a topic like this comes up, which is only tangentially connected to the primary focus of this forum, people tend to chime in with strong opinions despite a (relative) lack of knowledge of the issue. The point I'm trying to make is that strong reasoning ability is not enough, one must also have a strong enough interest in the subject to have acquired enough information to apply that reasoning ability correctly.

[politicalfootballfan]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

----nm----

[hugh_lawson]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

I work as a CFD (computational fluid dynamics) analyst building computer models to simulate airflow and heat transfer. I agree that a computer model cannot predict with detailed accuracy the weather over an extended period of time.

But that is a red herring. The great majority of the data proving global warming has been generated with field studies and historical analysis. And, as Al Gore has pointed out, over the past five years no scientific studies of global warming have refuted that it is actually happening.

If anyone knows of one, please point us to it.

Highly detailed (but unsupported) statements refuting global warming are emotionally reassuring. Listening to Larry Kudlow talk about the Goldilocks economy can have the same effect, if you don't pay too much attention to what's really happening.

And the fact that it snowed somewhere yesterday hardly establishes a long-term trend.

[Guest]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Sorry, links to right wing Global denialist blogs with no data supporting their denials, nothing but wild claims, misquotes, and outright lies are not acceptable. Show me a peer reviewed article in an accepted scientific journal and I'll take a look. Ohh, excuse me! There are none! Because all they have is crazy claims and no defendable data.

Been through this more times than I can count, with the same result;
Deniers use the same type of arguments as UFO nuts, flat earth nuts, Big foot witnesses. Thousands of publications in scientific journals and libraries of data on one side, and blurry pictures and Rush Limbaugh on the other.

Ah, the famous "circular logic" of the modern liberal! "any evidence you provide that disproves my theory is invalid. Why is it invalid? Because it is provided by someone who disagrees with my theory! And anyone who disagrees with my theory is in denial! " .....repeat as necessary.

Note I didn't say I think there isn't any man made global warming. But these hysterical arguments trying to silence dissent are downright scary and reminiscent of the glory days of communism. Hmmm, wonder if there's a common thread there? What better way to "stick it" to those capitalists than by taking them down a peg with regulations?

[Guest]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Moved Down.

[Guest]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Brucec42 - with respect, it would be highly constructive to leave politics out of the arguments entirely. This issue seems to be eternally getting sucked into "sociopolitical" stereotypes. I say dump that, and dig around for one or two core issues to argue around. I posted one just above. Look at the very, very long historic data - tree rings may be superficially argued to be tainted evidence because one can claim (disingenuously) that their growth is conditional to a great extent on moisture as well as temp and therefore they provide no useful evidence of temp history.

But side-step that boondoggle for just a moment, and look at CO2 levels across the really long spans of time. That datum, drawn from those same tree rings and ice cores for instance, cannot be fudged much at all.

Look at the CO2 spanning a half million years. What's it doing these days, relative to that long history? Is it acting at all anomalous relative to 500,000 years? Answer is yes, it is running right off the charts, but "global warming debunkers" seem to have studiously avoided this fudge-proof factor. Look at the relationship between temp and CO2, spanning a half million years. Then take up the arduous and ultimately fruitless task of claiming that the two don't have a correlation factor of plus 80%. They do, and the CO2 is soaring a full standard deviation above anything it's done for hundreds of millennia.

The temp is lagging the CO2 rise by an enormous amount, but with an 80% correlation between the two spanning half a million years and beyond, only the most studiedly disingenuous would choose to decline the conclusion staring us in the face from the CO2 spike. Either CO2 must decline precipitously (in the 21st Century with peak oil looming and coal all that's left of the hydrocarbons, a fantastic concept) or the temp must rise precipitously to close that correlative gap.

Go ahead, try to be truly agnostic on this point, and take in that data.

Ah, the famous "circular logic" of the modern liberal! "any evidence you provide that disproves my theory is invalid. Why is it invalid? Because it is provided by someone who disagrees with my theory! And anyone who disagrees with my theory is in denial! " .....repeat as necessary.

Note I didn't say I think there isn't any man made global warming. But these hysterical arguments trying to silence dissent are downright scary and reminiscent of the glory days of communism. Hmmm, wonder if there's a common thread there? What better way to "stick it" to those capitalists than by taking them down a peg with regulations?

[politicalfootballfan]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

----nm----

[mcgurme]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

First, those who wave the Global Warming banner are the ones making extraordinary claims requiring overwhelming changes in global society. These claims include acceptance of numerous assumptions and belief in an array of causal relationships, for it is not simply that one believe in GW, one must believe that man creates Global Warming. The burden of proof rests with those waving this flag, not with those who are unmoved by all the hand-waving.

You bandy about claiming you know what science is about, so then, you must know that the only real proof in science is disproof. One can *never* prove a scientific theory. It is a logical impossibility. One can find mounds and mounds and years of evidence for any given hypothesis... but all it takes is one strong piece of counter-evidence to falsify.

The burden does NOT lie with the proponents of the theory, it lies with the opponents. It is up to those opponents to come up with disproof. In that regard, the denialists come up very short. They have failed dramatically in any real effort to disprove. Disproving a bad theory is not actually that hard. So, with all the money contributed to denialist causes by industry, why haven't they come up with such disproof? Maybe because it doesn't exist?

Secondly, give me another scientist and real science and I'd be happy to engage in a professional scientific discussion, albeit they probably would not engage in such a frivolous conversation, for this is not a scientific discussion, this is religious fervor perpetrated by those on the scientific periphery or by those on the institutional funding wheel.

Rephrase: "albeit they probably would not engage in such a frivolous conversation, for this is not a scientific discussion, this is religious fervor perpetrated by denialists who have a vested economic interest in doing nothing. This is an agenda masquerading as science. The agenda was laid out and is public, and the science is only real to those who can't see that it is not science at all."

Thank you for so potently debunking your own post!

The real issues are those presented in my last post. They are issues related to social engineering, which is the only science relevant here. You are being manipulated and cannot even see it.

.

Oh, those evil scientists, controlled by the puppet masters at the UN. They are out to strangle us all.

Wait - I just remembered - I am one of those scientists. Hmm. This has me wondering, how is it that the evil scheming masters at the UN have taken control of my mind? Are subliminal messages being flashed on my computer screen every 1/30th of a second, saying "global warming is real, you must stop all economic activity and return to the stone age!"? If so, they are not very effective - I still like using things like my computer and ipod just fine.

You don't understand the science because you were not trained in it, but you quote it as if it is your bible.

And what was your training in the science, exactly?

You trust those who are all funded by the same interests, listen to politicians and buy-in to corporate propaganda. The fraud is so large that it's inconceivable.

You hit the nail on the head. Read what you wrote again, and pay extra special close attention to the bolded part.

The science is so bad that its an insult to the area-of-study to even use the word. None of the theories have been proven, causal relationships are leaps of faith, but yet your drum beats louder.

It is funny to have some anonymous poster, who has presented no credentials, in an internet forum, claiming that hundreds of respected scientists have perpetrated such "bad science". With no evidence. Ouch. And worse, failing to actually do anything but spew conspiracy innuendo.

It is refreshing that at least one or two people here are capable of rational argument on the matter. Thank you Lukester and we_are_toast. BTW - I am not a "believer" in global warming. It may be real, it may be not. But the costs of doing nothing if it *is* real are tremendous. The most well-laid out argument regarding this is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

But let's get down the ultimate point of this charade, and let me ask a question to those who want to inflict this agenda on to others. Just how far are you willing to go? Are you willing to sacrifice other human lives in order to reduce man-made CO2? Are you willing to sacrifice your own life? Where does it end, for Carbon taxes will not address the problem-as-defined by the flag-wavers.

Huh? Cap and trade leading to sacrifice of life and limb? Those evil liberal scientist baby killers wanting to destroy us all at the behest of their politician friends at the UN! Now that is a stretch.

You should get out more. Meet one or two scientists and get to know them (real ones, not fake ones put forth as straw men by Rush Limbaugh). Most are highly independent people who have no interest in marching in lockstep to some "hidden agenda" of some malevolent power (or any single agenda at all). No, getting scientists to agree is more like herding cats. So, if you see large scale agreement on something amongst scientists that regards the fate of mankind, well, you should become concerned. Either some malevolent organization has learned how to practice mind control on a wide scale (we'll call it the James Bond scenario), or the consensus means that there is likely some underlying truth that is powerful enough to get all these bull-headed, independent scientists to agree (we'll call it the realist scenario). Which is more likely? I won't bother to answer, because this is at the root of our disagreement, and I'm not going to change your mind regarding how ridiculous it is to believe in the James Bond scenario.

Most scientists do not participate on the forums, because frankly, threads like this get rather silly due to the lack of any kind of logical rigor. I participate, usually as a spectator when time permits, because I like to observe the social dynamic, and hope to occasionally glean some economic insights (which, thanks to EJ and a few other well-informed people, does happen). But when I see a post as far fetched as this, claiming to know something about science but being the farthest thing from it, I feel compelled to chime in to point out how ridiculous it is. I won't change your mind, but I do hope to at least convince a few lurkers out there how far-out these "global warming conspiracy" claims actually are.

[Guest]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Politicalfootballfan - I relish the prospect of you arguing your points with McGurme. A fine piece of diced sushi you will make!

[Guest]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

The burden does NOT lie with the proponents of the theory, it lies with the opponents. It is up to those opponents to come up with disproof. In that regard, the denialists come up very short. They have failed dramatically in any real effort to disprove. Disproving a bad theory is not actually that hard. So, with all the money contributed to denialist causes by industry, why haven't they come up with such disproof?

OK - I've moved this post down here where Politicalfootballfan can "eyeball" it a little better. :rolleyes:

I ... agree that a computer model cannot predict with detailed accuracy the weather over an extended period of time. But that is a red herring. The great majority of the data proving global warming has been generated with field studies and historical analysis. And, as Al Gore has pointed out, over the past five years no scientific studies of global warming have refuted that it is actually happening. If anyone knows of one, please point us to it.

Xtronics posted a seemingly measured comment on this question, but the referenced material has large question marks plastered all over it's methodology. So here's a question for all you beatifically convinced "debunkers" of the warming thesis:

The argument linked to on the xtronics web page evidences a 30 year temp chart around which are draped what are supposed to be trenchant arguments but don't seem to get their teeth into any substantive issue whatsoever. Anyone with a genuinely skeptical approach to this topic knows that taking a 30 year sliver of a secular dataset to develop substantive arguments on global warming is parading a red herring to begin with. You need to be examining 500 year charts out to half million year charts to glean the broadest hints of what may or may not be breaking out of the ecosystem trends. That's the whole point, right?

The fact that a 30 year chart has global warming debunkers nodding their heads in agreement suggests that you don't employ the rudimentary "smell test", which is that while decrying people for being gullible enough to endorse warming you employ cherry picked narrow-sliver 30 year charts to illustrate the temps are going nowhere - which is such an absurdly short data window as to declare your a-priori bias or agenda right at the outset.

Here's a request for one or two of the most complacent ones. Pull up a half million year chart of CO2 levels and offer us a comment on what you see as the relationship between CO2 and temp in those half million year charts. Then offer us a comment on where you see the leading vs. following relationship between CO2 and temp in the 20th Century. Warning: The CO2 rise is shocking, out one full standard deviation past the recurrent CO2 spikes of the previous half million years. You only need to determine one thing from those charts - whether there is indeed a linkage between the CO2 and the temp or not - and when you examine those half million year charts, the two are dancing in lockstep.

What those half million year charts show, is CO2 running right off the charts, with temp dawdling down in the upper reaches of "normal" ranges. The historic correlation between the two across a half million years is at least to visual inspection something north of 85%-90%. Go figure what the temp is going to do to normalize it's secular relationship with the soaring CO2. Meanwhile, we have people posting 30 year charts and publishing their learned speculations on the non-existence of trends within these minuscule time frames. The disingenuous nature of these speculations is therefore shocking to behold.

Go ahead - dig up the CO2 vs. temp half million year charts and post one here with a debunk of this correlation, or the CO2 readings as "meaning anything". I find it stunning that people can take local temp readings in year 2008, note that "it's clearly getting colder", and think they are contributing something short of obscurantism to this issue. To avoid all hints of manipulative editing around the core points, stick to the half million year data and hammer out a consensus as to what the CO2 spike really may mean. I assure everyone here, if they take this as their debating point, the global warming "debunkers" will soon find themselves on the defensive.

DOES ANYONE GRASP WHAT IS SO FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED ABOUT ARGUING POINTS AROUND A 30 YEAR DATASET?

http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm

[ p.s. I see Moe Gamble is back! Welcome back Moe. Long time no see around these pages. ].





THIS IS MORE SERIOUS CHARTING TO GET AT THE MEAT OF THE ISSUE:

CO2 CONCENTR AND TEMP - UNCORRELATED IS A SPECIOUS ARGUMENT.jpg

29 August, 2008 - Friday round-up



Filed under:

• Reporting on climate
• Greenhouse gases
• Climate Science

— gavin @ 7:55 PM http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ng-on-climate/

Blogging has been a little light recently (apologies!), but here are a few pieces that have caught our eye this week.

First up, the Columbia Journalism Review has a two-parter on journalistic coverage of climate change inspired by comments from Jeff Huggins on the Andy Revkin's Dot Earth blog. The key issues CJR addresses are familiar ones to readers here: how to communicate mainstream science in a way that doesn't distort the reality of the consensus on many issues in favour of controversy on more cutting-edge topics. Definitely worth a read, and proof (if such were needed) that commenting on blogs can make a difference to coverage.

Next, the role of CO₂ as a long-term climate forcing. The old CO₂ lead/lag issue keeps making the rounds as a contrarian talking point (and made a brief resurgence here in comments this week) despite the fact that the existence of impact of climate on the carbon cycle in no way invalidates the impact of CO₂ (as a greenhouse gas) on climate. However, there is a nice paper in Nature this week (Lunt et al, 2008) which looks at the various proposed triggers for the onset of the quaternary glaciations at the end of the Pliocene (~3 million years ago). These triggers involve, permanent El Nino events, the closing of the Isthmus of Panama, changes in orbital forcing, tectonic uplift of the Rocky mountains - and long-term decreases in CO₂ as a function of very slow variations in sea floor spreading and chemical weathering. Lunt et al find that only the change in CO2 (400 ppm to 280 ppm) can explain the changes in the ice sheet. None of the other ideas come even close.

Thus, it looks very much like the climate changed radically due to this externally forced drift in CO₂ (and tectonic is external for climate purposes on this timescale). As a corollary, this is an expansion of the idea we discussed a few months back, that the long term changes in the Earth system due to external forcings might be well be larger than the classical (Charney) sensitivity we often talk about.

Third. There has been a lot of discussion on energy futures in the comments - Nature had a good rundown of the scientific constraints on the different prospects. But this video is a quite entertaining discussion of why we just can't get our heads around the issue from Dan Gilbert (h/t GH).

Finally, a commentary on the prospects for continued employment as an Arctic ice expert (h/t Climate Feedback).

[politicalfootballfan]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

----nm----

[politicalfootballfan]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

----nm----

[c1ue]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

The problem a lot of people have is that they see these monstrous numbers associated with CO2 emissions and assume that they must have some equally monstrous effect.

To put this in perspective:

1) in the KUSI link, CO2 in the atmosphere represents 38 out of every 100,000 molecules. So while the 6 billion metrics tons of man-made CO2 released into the atmosphere in 2007 sounds like a lot, on the other hand carbon is still only 0.038% of the atmosphere. The total average mass of the atmosphere is 5 QUADrillion tons, or almost a million times larger than the carbon release in 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere

2) The next argument is that CO2 has a stronger relative effect than anything else including methane and water vapor.

This is called 'Carbon Forcing'.

Basically it is argued that through a long and fantastically complicated chain of events, CO2 winds up doubling the effect of everything else from a warming perspective.

Huh?

Just as a note: water vapor (specifically clouds) can comprise up to 1% of the atmosphere (or up to 26x CO2 levels). Clouds definitely and strongly affect sunlight.

Methane, on the other hand, is much less present than CO2: 0.00017% of atmosphere.

Regardless, it seems odd that CO2 needs a magic multiplier to do its dastardly work.

As I've noted before, if indeed CO2 is some magic multiplier of warming, we should all individually have higher localized temperatures in front of us rather than to the sides or behind as the CO2 in our breath does it magic 'Carbon forcing' dance.

And a surfeit of beans could serve to test the methane hypothesis for the rear quadrant... :rolleyes:

Hell, if CO2 is such a magic multiplier, I should be able to build a laser out of a flashlight using a tube containing 'earth average' atmosphere.

[Guest]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Disproving a bad theory is not actually that hard. So, with all the money contributed to denialist causes by industry, why haven't they come up with such disproof?

Geez. Look at all the piles of crap science studies getting churned out by all these hack atmospheric scientists all working indeendently of each other. The really astonishing thing to behold is how dazzlingly coherent their collective body of work appears to be - of course we know better, that it's really all just crap science compiled by a cabal of hacks who have been bought off by the green mafia in the buereacratic echelons of government. But dang, look at what a convincing sham of diligent and wide ranging scientific inquiry these guys are putting on! :rolleyes:
__________________

1.	Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants Terry L. Root, Jeff T. Price, Kimberly R. Hall, Stephen H. Schneider, Cynthia Rosenzweig, J. Alan Pounds SUMMARY: Over the past 100 years, the global average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 °C and is projected to continue to rise at a rapid rate. Although species have responded CONTEXT: Over the past 100 years, the global average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 °C and is projected to continue to rise at a rapid rate. Although species have responded to climatic changes throughout their evolutionary... Nature 421, 57 - 60 (02 Jan 2003), doi: 10.1038/nature01333, Letter Abstract | Full Text | PDF | Rights and permissions | Save this link
2.	Vector-borne diseases and global warming: are both on an upward swing? Vicki Brower SUMMARY: Scientists are still debating whether global warming will lead to a further spread of mosquitoes and the diseases they transmit CONTEXT: The effects of global warming have long been a focus of scientists' attention, not only since the USA rejected the Kyoto Protocol, which was drafted to curb the emission of so-called greenhouse gases. The potential consequences of... EMBO Reports 2, 755 - 757 (01 Sep 2001), doi: 10.1093/embo-reports/kve193, Full Text | PDF | Rights and permissions | Save this link
3.	The best global warming treaty yet SUMMARY: Disappointment with the draft global warming treaty agreed last week in New York should not get out of hand. What the world needs is a comprehensive deal and a lasting one. Last week was a good s CONTEXT: ...the suddenly dispirited people who have laboured for years, not just weeks, on the design of a draft treaty on global warming should now be asking. The circumstances are easily related: in preparation for next month's conference on... Nature 357, 97 - 98 (14 May 1992), doi: 10.1038/357097a0, Opinion PDF | Rights and permissions | Save this link
4.	Making global warming public property John Maddox SUMMARY: There is a long way to go before the research community concerned with the behaviour of the Earth's atmosphere will win general acceptance of its message that global warming is serious. Less zeal CONTEXT: ...asset is the right to use a splendid tudor manor house in Oxfordshire as a conference centre, has embraced global warming. Last weekend, it invited a group of people from mixed backgrounds (roughly a third each from Britain, the... Nature 349, 189 - 189 (17 Jan 1991), doi: 10.1038/349189a0, News and Views PDF | Rights and permissions | Save this link
5.	Global warming and amphibian losses; The proximate cause of frog declines? (Reply) J. Alan Pounds, MartÃn R. Bustamante, Luis A. Coloma, Jamie A. Consuegra, Michael P. L. Fogden, Pru N. Foster, Enrique La Marca, Karen L. Masters, Andrés Merino-Viteri, Robert Puschendorf, Santiago R. Ron, G. Arturo Sánchez-Azofeifa, Christopher J. Still, Bruce E. Young SUMMARY: Alford et al. question the working model underlying our test for a link between global warming and amphibian disappearances, and Di Rosa et al. criticize our emphasis on a single proximate agen CONTEXT: Alford et al. question the working model underlying our test for a link between global warming and amphibian disappearances, and Di Rosa et al. criticize our emphasis on a single proximate agent, the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium... Nature 447, E5 - E6 (30 May 2007), doi: 10.1038/nature05942, Brief Communication Arising Abstract | Full Text | PDF | Rights and permissions | Save this link
6.	Thermal expansion of sea water associated with global warming T. M. L. Wigley, S. C. B. Raper SUMMARY: The relationship between greenhouse-gas forcing, global mean temperature change and sea-level rise due to thermal expansion of the oceans is investigated using upwelling?diffusion and CONTEXT: The relationship between greenhouse-gas forcing, global mean temperature change and sea-level rise due to thermal expansion of the oceans is investigated using upwelling–diffusion and pure diffusion models. The sensitivities of sea-level... Nature 330, 127 - 131 (18 Nov 1987), doi: 10.1038/330127a0, Article Abstract | PDF | Rights and permissions | Save this link
7.	Public rejects sceptics' line on global warming Colin Macilwain SUMMARY: washington Two-thirds of US voters regard global warming as a serious threat and support an international commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions, even if this leads to higher energy prices, a CONTEXT: washington Two-thirds of US voters regard global warming as a serious threat and support an international commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions, even if this leads to higher energy prices, according to a public opinion poll for the... Nature 389, 531 - 531 (09 Oct 1997), doi: 10.1038/39135, News Full Text | PDF | Rights and permissions | Save this link
8.	Global warming ?could kill most coral reefs by 2100? Peter Pockley SUMMARY: sydney Australian research indicates that global warming ? believed to be responsible for coral bleaching ? may decimate most coral reefs over the next century. CONTEXT: sydney An Australian scientist has identified global warming as the most likely culprit for last year's widespread coral bleaching, and predicts that similar events are likely to occur annually in most tropical oceans within 30-50 years.... Nature 400, 98 - 98 (08 Jul 1999), doi: 10.1038/21955, News Full Text | PDF | Rights and permissions | Save this link
9.	Arctic hydrology during global warming at the Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum Mark Pagani, Nikolai Pedentchouk, Matthew Huber, Appy Sluijs, Stefan Schouten, Henk Brinkhuis, Jaap S. Sinninghe Damsté, Gerald R. Dickens, Expedition 302 Scientists SUMMARY: The Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum represents a period of rapid, extreme global warming ?55 million years ago, superimposed on an already warm world. This warming is associated CONTEXT: The Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum represents a period of rapid, extreme global warming ∼55 million years ago, superimposed on an already warm world. This warming is associated with a severe shoaling of the ocean calcite compensation... Nature 442, 671 - 675 (10 Aug 2006), doi: 10.1038/nature05043, Letter Abstract | Full Text | PDF | Rights and permissions | Save this link
10.	Better news ? perhaps ? on global warming SUMMARY: Evidence is emerging that carbon emissions may have started to fall, in advance of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. If so, containing global warming may turn out to be less painful than has so CONTEXT: ...data are insufficient to provide firm evidence of a clear trend, these findings at least give both sides of the global warming debate a rare opportunity to share the same piece of good news. The EIA, an independent statistics unit in... Nature 400, 487 - 487 (05 Aug 1999), doi: 10.1038/22820, Opinion Full Text | PDF | Rights and permissions | Save this link