New Study shows the Climate Models the U.N. used "fundamentally wrong".

[GaryC 7]

The thing is Gary - you aren't any more qualified to discuss the science on this issue than anyone else. It isn't a subject that can be debated with rhetoric and a quick revert to google and a slew of dodgy websites.

Playing the victim is just silly and tired.

And watching people attack something they also don't know anything about is silly and tired.

Well... where is the article in question? Surely that's a reasonable question.

You're no less biased than the people you're complaining about. You've established a rigid view on the subject and are in lockstep support of anything that justifies it, no matter if its accurate or not. It doesn't exactly help your argument.

Here is the letter abstract of the study.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/nc...bs/ngeo578.html

[The_Dude 1,142]

You should have known Dano. As soon as anything comes out to contradict their religion they go into attack mode. Smear the middleman, smear the orginizations they are associated with, ignore the conclusions and focus on anything they can to discredit. Anything but rethink their views.

Come on Gary, you can't post something that is slanted and devoid of any facts as if it were some sort of scientific research.

[GaryC 7]

You should have known Dano. As soon as anything comes out to contradict their religion they go into attack mode. Smear the middleman, smear the orginizations they are associated with, ignore the conclusions and focus on anything they can to discredit. Anything but rethink their views.

Come on Gary, you can't post something that is slanted and devoid of any facts as if it were some sort of scientific research.

Happens all the time from both sides dude. At any rate I found the article in question. Lets leave out Marc Merano now, all he did was reprint a story from Rice uni. Jamming on him about this study makes no sense.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You should have known Dano. As soon as anything comes out to contradict their religion they go into attack mode. Smear the middleman, smear the orginizations they are associated with, ignore the conclusions and focus on anything they can to discredit. Anything but rethink their views.

No, you and Danno should both pull your heads out the sand and realize there are those out there like this schmuck poser, Marc Merano, purposely trying to deceive you.

Yeah, Like Al Gore for one.

Al Gore didn't invent Global Warming. Marc Merano made that sh!t up. He's paid by the oil companies to purposely to try and confuse the public by misrepresenting scientific reports such as the one he pretends to be reporting on. The real threat of Global Warming doesn't depend on Al Gore's testimony.

[GaryC 7]

You should have known Dano. As soon as anything comes out to contradict their religion they go into attack mode. Smear the middleman, smear the orginizations they are associated with, ignore the conclusions and focus on anything they can to discredit. Anything but rethink their views.

No, you and Danno should both pull your heads out the sand and realize there are those out there like this schmuck poser, Marc Merano, purposely trying to deceive you.

Yeah, Like Al Gore for one.

Al Gore didn't invent Global Warming. Marc Merano made that sh!t up. He's paid by the oil companies to purposely to try and confuse the public by misrepresenting scientific reports such as the one he pretends to be reporting on. The real threat of Global Warming doesn't depend on Al Gore's testimony.

Al Gore has been lining his pockets promoting GW. Anyone can see that. He has a vested interest in keeping the hysteria alive. He is the other side of the coin.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

This is quite interesting. Note how they use the term retreat when they refer to ice melting. This global warmin shite startied 60000 years ago! Thats about oh mmmmmm huhhhhh 59800 years before the combustion engine or anyother co2 emitting devices.

The Niagara Escarpment was covered with a sheet of ice 2 - 3 kilometers thick (Wisconsin Glacier) 23,000 - 12,000 years ago.

The last glacial ice age occurred during three distinct periods of time during the past 65,000 years. The glacier originated east of Hudson Bay in northern Quebec and Labrador. This great glacier was known as "the Wisconsin Glacier".

The early Wisconsin Glacier covered the Niagara District and most of the northern North America 65,000 years ago. This glacier remained for a period of approximately 15,000 years before retreating 50,000 years ago.

The middle Wisconsin Glacier advanced again over the Niagara District 40,000 years ago. It remained for approximately 8,000 years before retreating 32,000 years ago.

The late Wisconsin Glacier advanced again 20,000 years ago. It remained for approximately 8,000 years before beginning its final retreat 12,000 years ago.

The plain of the lowest beach was 122 - 153 meters (400 - 500 feet) above present Lake Ontario (Lake Iroquois).

As the Glacier retreated, the water levels slowly lowered forming four lakes:

Glacial Lake Algonquin - ( area including Lake Superior, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron)

Glacial Lake Warren - small (Lake Erie)

Glacial Lake Iroquois - small (Lake Ontario)

Glacial Lake Tonawanda - area western New York

http://www.niagarafrontier.com/origins.html#d

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You should have known Dano. As soon as anything comes out to contradict their religion they go into attack mode. Smear the middleman, smear the orginizations they are associated with, ignore the conclusions and focus on anything they can to discredit. Anything but rethink their views.

No, you and Danno should both pull your heads out the sand and realize there are those out there like this schmuck poser, Marc Merano, purposely trying to deceive you.

Yeah, Like Al Gore for one.

Al Gore didn't invent Global Warming. Marc Merano made that sh!t up. He's paid by the oil companies to purposely to try and confuse the public by misrepresenting scientific reports such as the one he pretends to be reporting on. The real threat of Global Warming doesn't depend on Al Gore's testimony.

Al Gore has been lining his pockets promoting GW. Anyone can see that. He has a vested interest in keeping the hysteria alive. He is the other side of the coin.

[HAL 9000 96]

What I find hilarious is assuming that that supposed Paleocine-Eocine shift has anything synonimous with the modern observations being modeled today. Seems a bit... scientifically biased to do so.

Plus, if you notice the carbon data pooled to model that 55 million-year old phenomenon, it does so assuming natural contributing factors only- since artificial (industrial) ones would be understandably absent. This lets the aliens present on Earth at the time off the hook way too easy. But seriously- they themselves model the pooled carbon ratios at a 'steady' level for their time analyzed. When you do that... you clamp any potential variability that can exist in the system, and to this date I have no idea how you could stabilize a global concentration of anything and then turn around to observe its increase in another part of the model.

They also, even under the model they use, give CO2 credit as a greenhouse gas responsible for up to a 3.5 degree C increase. Notice that fact.

The suggestion that other greenhouse gases may also contribute is not new and acceptable and OBVIOUS. What do we want to read here? Methane? Water vapor?

OK.

Lets also keep in mind, on top of there being causality, we also have a likely sequence of events that some mistake to be CO2 trailing other greenhouse gases and therefore rule it out as a causal factor when in fact, causality can be very easily spread out across the mixture of gases and ALL interweave sequential activity upon all others due to ALL having the ability to absorb heat energy.

Finally, the authors of that study are being responsible in covering all their proposed causal factors and is why they get published in a Nature Publishing Group journal. Hoorah!

THIS IN NO WAY gives Marc Morano or any other paid/unpaid naysayer the license to misquote this work, furthering scientific misunderstanding yet again.

[GaryC 7]

You should have known Dano. As soon as anything comes out to contradict their religion they go into attack mode. Smear the middleman, smear the orginizations they are associated with, ignore the conclusions and focus on anything they can to discredit. Anything but rethink their views.

No, you and Danno should both pull your heads out the sand and realize there are those out there like this schmuck poser, Marc Merano, purposely trying to deceive you.

Yeah, Like Al Gore for one.

Al Gore didn't invent Global Warming. Marc Merano made that sh!t up. He's paid by the oil companies to purposely to try and confuse the public by misrepresenting scientific reports such as the one he pretends to be reporting on. The real threat of Global Warming doesn't depend on Al Gore's testimony.

Al Gore has been lining his pockets promoting GW. Anyone can see that. He has a vested interest in keeping the hysteria alive. He is the other side of the coin.

Yeah? So what? The gist of this is there is no threat. Only those that have a vested financial interest like Al Gore and the government are keeping this imagined threat alive. Yet if someone you see as having a vested interest in debunking GW gets trashed to reduce their credibility. You want to follow the money for anyone opposed to the GW scare, I invite you to follow the money for those that want to advance it.

[HAL 9000 96]

That isn't what the article says... the threat is still quite... real.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Global warming is not all bad:

[GaryC 7]

That isn't what the article says... the threat is still quite... real.

It says this:

We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.

I read that as most of the warming came about because of things OTHER than CO2. Just like today.

[HAL 9000 96]

That isn't what the article says... the threat is still quite... real.

It says this:

We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.

I read that as most of the warming came about because of things OTHER than CO2. Just like today.

We can read it any way we want and the evidence they themselves analyze is quite clear. Besides... the specific analysis is one where the temp went upwards to 9 degrees C. a CO2 contribution of up to 3.5 degrees C is hardly unsubstantial. In statistical terms, that's quite a significant contribution to the whole (almost 40%).

Plus, like its been stated ad hominem, its not that CO2 is the ONLY greenhouse gas, its that its one that contributes, and NOW (very different set of causal factors in very different proportions NOW versus the one analyzed in this paper) is much more important, significant, and substantial (again, part of the whole) given the direct input of this gas on artificial drivers.

Dannologic again, has failed.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That isn't what the article says... the threat is still quite... real.

Nuh-uh!

[GaryC 7]

That isn't what the article says... the threat is still quite... real.

It says this:

We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.

I read that as most of the warming came about because of things OTHER than CO2. Just like today.

We can read it any way we want and the evidence they themselves analyze is quite clear. Besides... the specific analysis is one where the temp went upwards to 9 degrees C. a CO2 contribution of up to 3.5 degrees C is hardly unsubstantial. In statistical terms, that's quite a significant contribution to the whole (almost 40%).

Plus, like its been stated ad hominem, its not that CO2 is the ONLY greenhouse gas, its that its one that contributes, and NOW (very different set of causal factors in very different proportions NOW versus the one analyzed in this paper) is much more important, significant, and substantial (again, part of the whole) given the direct input of this gas on artificial drivers.

Dannologic again, has failed.

How can you say that so confidantly? Where is your evidence to back up such a claim? From what I understand the human contribution to the total CO2 in todays air is 3%. One good volcano can dwarf the human output for a whole year. Our contribution to a minor greenhouse gas like CO2 is not significant. I have yet to see any study that says otherwise. If there is one please point it out.

I got my numbers from here:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html