Dear SPQR,

What?

Okay, now I'm starting to feel a little sorry for you. You are getting squeaky and it is rather unbecoming.

Do you not know how this works?

Increased CO2 levels drive other factors which provide a positive feedback through mechanisms some of which are less understood than the CO2 contribution. It might be an decrease in Artic ice leading to less sunlight being reflected thus warming oceans which in turn means less CO2 being absorbed by them. Or it might be Artic methane being released as the Permafrost thaws resulting in large quantities of that very potent gas entering the atmosphere. All have the potential to drive up temperatures if CO2 was the only factor.

Hasbeen disagrees that these and other factors with have an influence. Observations say otherwise. The study you quote indicates that the feedback from one or more of these factors may well have been seriously underestimated. Not for one moment does it discount the role CO2 had played back then, nor importantly does it discount the existence of another driver.

You are like a little hamster on a treadmill, you need to hop off and take a proper look around. or you can keep running and we end up calling you cute.

SPQR and Hasbeen appear to hold that feedback mechanisms are anything other than, and unrelated to, CO2 caused warming.

The melting of Arctic ice has caused less reflectance and hence warming at high latitudes. The wind patterns normally caused by a larger differential between low and high latitudes have altered so that winds blow now more commonly directly southward from deep within the Arctic circle bringing extremely cold weather and causing some to herald a coming ice-age.

Meanwhile, ice limits recede further north each season with the North-West passage opening and methane previously locked in permafrost released to the atmosphere as it thaws, feeding back into warming.

The final refuge of Hasbeen and SPQR is to take the "A" out of AGW to claim nature is simply taking its course, without acknowledging its astoundingly fast pace compared with anything hitherto (and why that should be), and that man will adapt.

Man as a species will adapt but massive upheaval in food security, particularly, will mean that many individuals will be sacrificed in the process. The preservation of all DNA is the best strategy to preserve mine, hence I support taking steps necessary to mitigate warming.

Addendum, "a larger differential" means a "larger temperature differential". Uneven heating of the earth's surface causes wind patterns and Arctic warming that is greater than that at lower latitudes therefore affects normal patterns.

@ CSteele,

<< What?>>
¿qué ?

You remind me of Manuel from Fawty Towers –except, Manuel is a lot cluier. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5035TY5RSpg&feature=relmfu

<<Do you not know how this works?>>

Yes, my dear, but it looks like YOU didn’t know how it worked a short time ago, because you were misreading the lines.

Here’s a refresher to jog your memory:[Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 10:58:39 AM]

“Here is an article warning that the historical records show that climate modeling might well be UNDERESTIMATED BY HALF THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF INCREASED CO2 LEVELS on global temperature.”

And, thinking you’d scored a goal your did your little jig:
“Most of your side would be condemning it as ’alarmist’ and burning it in the back yard so it isn't seen by the masses. You instead wave it around claiming it proves black is white.”

But hold the curtain –so accustomed are you to thinking in clichés – that you read something that wasn’t there

And when it was pointed out to you :[Posted by SPQR, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 11:25:48 AM]
“Here's a quote from the article
<< something OTHER THAN carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models>>”

Instead of ‘fessing up, you compounded things by trying to gloss over it, and worse, trying to make it appear that it was someone else’s misunderstanding!

Your latest cover is to try the old *don’t you know about how green house gases work caper?*

Yes, my dear, we are cognizant with the Green House Gases theory.
But the issue at stake at the moment is YOUR CREDIBILITY -- And it’s looking like its non-existent!

AND THAT, MY DEAR, IS WHY THE WARMISTS ARE LOOSING THE PUBLIC!

<<now I'm starting to feel a little sorry for you>>

Well, frankly, my dear, I couldn’t give a damn!
......................................................
@ Luciferase,

“Being a representative of true science & objectivity, Mr Luciferase will I expect, be exposing the above-mentioned warmist shenanigans in a upcoming post...”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/index-general.as

Wooooooooooops!

AND THAT, MY DEAR, IS WHY THE WARMISTS ARE LOOSING THE PUBLIC!
S/R
AND THAT, MY DEAR, IS WHY THE WARMISTS ARE LOSING THE PUBLIC!

Loosing is what CSteele does with the facts!

Luciferase: The final refuge of Hasbeen and SPQR is to take the "A" out of AGW to claim nature is simply taking its course, without acknowledging its astoundingly fast pace compared with anything hitherto (and why that should be), and that man will adapt.

No that was me.

SPQR, if you arguee with 1D10Ts you only bring yourself down to their level.