Comments on: Humans boosting CO2 14,000 times faster than nature, overwhelming slow negative feedbacks http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/28/human-driven-co2-rise-14000-times-faster-than-nature-overwhelming-the-slow-negative-feedbacks/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:19:29 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Drew http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/28/human-driven-co2-rise-14000-times-faster-than-nature-overwhelming-the-slow-negative-feedbacks/#comment-26640 Drew Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:34:32 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/28/human-driven-co2-rise-14000-times-faster-than-nature-overwhelming-the-slow-negative-feedbacks/#comment-26640 You get a lot of traction out of your continual use of the "denier" moniker, but in the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Many of your so-called deniers are actually the only members of the public who are still willing to consider the real evidence behind all the hype. As a convenient example, let me use the study you just happened to base this blog post on! The study found a "mean long-term trend" of 22 ppmv of CO2 over 610,000 years. What that means is not that CO2 variation in the atmosphere did not vary by more than 22 ppmv. It means what it says it means - that the long-term trend was relatively steady. What you didn't excerpt from that study (or more accurately from the raw data that informed the study) is the fact that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has made dramatic swings in the past 610,000 years, INCLUDING SEVERAL OF MORE THAN 100 ppmv off the mean from that period. Therefore, a study that relies on the "mean long-term trend" to try to argue that natural feedback can only absorb so much over CO2 over this period is flat out inaccurate, and more likely intentionally misleading. Now, quick, deligitimize me by calling me a denier! [<em>JR: I mostly use the word denier for the professional disinformation crowd. I have tried to use the word "doubter" for people, mostly conservatives, who have been duped by them. I apologize if I have not been consistent on that recently. It is, however, the rate of change and the fact that humans are causing the change that make this period different from any other. Many other studies make clear that the natural sinks are being overwhelmed by this rate of change.</em>] You get a lot of traction out of your continual use of the “denier” moniker, but in the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” Many of your so-called deniers are actually the only members of the public who are still willing to consider the real evidence behind all the hype. As a convenient example, let me use the study you just happened to base this blog post on! The study found a “mean long-term trend” of 22 ppmv of CO2 over 610,000 years. What that means is not that CO2 variation in the atmosphere did not vary by more than 22 ppmv. It means what it says it means – that the long-term trend was relatively steady. What you didn’t excerpt from that study (or more accurately from the raw data that informed the study) is the fact that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has made dramatic swings in the past 610,000 years, INCLUDING SEVERAL OF MORE THAN 100 ppmv off the mean from that period. Therefore, a study that relies on the “mean long-term trend” to try to argue that natural feedback can only absorb so much over CO2 over this period is flat out inaccurate, and more likely intentionally misleading. Now, quick, deligitimize me by calling me a denier!

[JR: I mostly use the word denier for the professional disinformation crowd. I have tried to use the word "doubter" for people, mostly conservatives, who have been duped by them. I apologize if I have not been consistent on that recently. It is, however, the rate of change and the fact that humans are causing the change that make this period different from any other. Many other studies make clear that the natural sinks are being overwhelmed by this rate of change.]

]]> By: John McCormick http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/28/human-driven-co2-rise-14000-times-faster-than-nature-overwhelming-the-slow-negative-feedbacks/#comment-11782 John McCormick Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:26:27 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/28/human-driven-co2-rise-14000-times-faster-than-nature-overwhelming-the-slow-negative-feedbacks/#comment-11782 Earl, the [Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum] is beter referred to as the Paleocene-Anthropocene Intergenerational Nightmare (PAIN) That gets the point across. John McCormick Earl,

the [Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum]

is beter referred to as the Paleocene-Anthropocene Intergenerational Nightmare (PAIN)

That gets the point across.

John McCormick

]]> By: Leon http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/28/human-driven-co2-rise-14000-times-faster-than-nature-overwhelming-the-slow-negative-feedbacks/#comment-11734 Leon Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:45:23 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/28/human-driven-co2-rise-14000-times-faster-than-nature-overwhelming-the-slow-negative-feedbacks/#comment-11734 It just should not take longer nowdays It just should not take longer nowdays

]]> By: Earl Killian http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/28/human-driven-co2-rise-14000-times-faster-than-nature-overwhelming-the-slow-negative-feedbacks/#comment-11731 Earl Killian Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:20:18 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/28/human-driven-co2-rise-14000-times-faster-than-nature-overwhelming-the-slow-negative-feedbacks/#comment-11731 Joe, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum offers further confirmation. Didn't it take the planet 100,000 years to swallow the CO2/CH4 that caused that warming? Why should it be any faster today? Joe, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum offers further confirmation. Didn’t it take the planet 100,000 years to swallow the CO2/CH4 that caused that warming? Why should it be any faster today?

]]>