Dear SPQR,

Dang! You have got me. I'm just too slow on the pick up. You have stripped the wool from my eyes and shown me the light my friend and for that I will be most grateful.

You see I was under the misapprehension that it was the Milankovitch Cycles that were responsible for the interglacial periods and that as warming progressed positive feedback mechanisms kicked in, increased levels of CO2 being one of them, and they in turn became drivers for other processes which elevated temperatures until met with negative feedback mechanisms which created some form of equilibrium.

I further thought that because humans, through the industrial age, have pumped billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere the physical properties of which were creating Milankovitch like promptings on our climate, and that there would be other positive feedback mechanisms that would combine to drive the temperatures higher than what we would have seen caused by the presence of CO2 alone.

But the study you have quoted shows me just how wrong I have been.

It says...

Err...

Um...sorry SPQR, I might need a little help here.

Dang I'm so stupid sometimes.

What should I be saying now?

Gosh...it was so clear a moment ago...

Oh please Mr SPQR, if you would be so kind as to fill in the rest I would be eternally in your debt.

Csteele,

Models are great, aren't they ?

But out in the real world, if I can drag you back into that for a moment, let's see if I've got this right: temperatures have risen about 0.7 degrees C in sixty years, and sea-levels have risen two inches or 5 cm in a century.

Was that it ?

Bully,

One 'highest maximum' today out of eight capital cities over the twelve years 2000 to 2011 (i.e. 96 readings).

Cheers,

Joe

Double dang!
That fella in front put his hat back on again - and now I can't tell which one is Larry, Curly, Moe or Shemp.

It's a great skeptic vaudeville act - best movie I've seen in ages.

@ CSteele,

I think I’ll leave it there. It goes against my principles to hit someone when their down. Particularly when they’re showing signs of damage from having smashed themselves on the head with their racket too many times. See you at the next tournament. Thank you linespersons, thank you ballpersons.


@ Poirot ,
You reeeeally have to stop smoking that stuff!

Cheers to Jayb & Loudmouth.

Oh well, all good things must come to an end.

Although I'm a bit disappointed that the pie fight scene didn't reach its potential.

SPQR,

You don't seem to have the hang of pie tossing. It's advisable to fill your pies with with something substantial. That way you obtain a superior splatter effect. Tossing pies filled with whipped spleen scraped from the bottom of denialist sites is never going to do the job.

SPQR,

Between you and me, i wonder if you can ever get a straight answer from an alarmist: 0.7 degrees, and 2 inches, in sixty years - is that it ? Is that what we are supposed to be worried about ?

Two inches ? I do recall a poor Fijian woman at the Copenhagen junket weeping that all of her mountain-strewn islands were about to be flooded. Did anybody reassure her that no dear, only the bottom two inches would be likely to get wet over the next hundred years or so ? Opportunism knows few bounds, I suppose.

So what is the truth ? Another two inches by 2070, or vast stretches of coast-lines swamped ? Another 0.7 degrees C (if nogovernment ever does anything about any of it) by 2070, or will we all be frying by 2050 ? All glaciers melted by 2035, i.e. in 23 years, or another the snow-line retreats by no more than 100 metres up the mountains ?

Meanwhile, of course, the rivers and coasts are getting more polluted, land is becoming more degraded, while we f@rt around worrying about a couple of inches of sea. Are environmentalists barking up the wrong tree, and why-level ?

Cheers,

Joe