Wednesday, 6 July 2011

Yet more proof "global warming" is overblown

Many of the global warming doomers claim that if we "don't limit" temperature increases to 2C or less (and thus kill the economy in doing so) then we will possibly end up with runaway global warming. I have always doubted this because the eocene, hot as it was, didn't end up with runaway global warming even though there was MUCH MORE C02 in the atmosphere than today.

Seems that even in the Eocene it wasn't quite the horror story that the ridiculous computer models by the eco-fanatics would suggest:

Hot off the presses from yale university:
""The early Eocene Epoch (50 million years ago) was about as warm as the Earth has been over the past 65 million years, since the extinction of the dinosaurs," Ivany says. "There were crocodiles above the Arctic Circle and palm trees in Alaska. The questions we are trying to answer are how much warmer was it at different latitudes and how can that information be used to project future temperatures based on what we know about CO2 levels?"
Previous studies have suggested that the polar regions (high-latitude areas) during the Eocene were very hot -- greater than 30 degrees centigrade (86 degrees Fahrenheit). However, because the sun's rays are strongest at Earth's equator, tropical and subtropical areas (lower latitude) will always be at least as warm as polar areas, if not hotter. Until now, temperature data for subtropical regions were limited.
The SU and Yale research team found that average Eocene water temperature along the subtropical U.S. Gulf Coast hovered around 27 degrees centigrade (80 degrees Fahrenheit), slightly cooler than earlier studies predicted. Modern temperatures in the study area average 75 degrees Fahrenheit. Additionally, the scientists discovered that, during the Eocene, temperatures in the study area did not change more than 3 to 5 degrees centigrade across seasons, whereas today, the area's seasonal temperatures fluctuate by 12 degrees centigrade. The new results indicate that the polar and sub-polar regions, while still very warm, could not have been quite as hot as previously suggested"


greenJamie said...

yet more proof youre a total moron

Jimi said...

Hey mate
I just wanted to warn you that some doomers have begun to hack-attack debunker sites (of which one of the targets was the anti-doomer block)

Seems like we are starting to bite them where it hurts (their actions speak for themselves)

DB said...


First of all you're a troll so I should have just auto-spammed your comment.

That said, given that you didn't waste time trying to counter-debunk the SCIENCE and just went straight to the name-calling, your comment is good evidence you are a big nosed, squat gnome-faced troll. Good bye and don't darken this doorstep again fool.

Jimi said...

"That said, given that you didn't waste time trying to counter-debunk the SCIENCE and just went straight to the name-calling, your comment is good evidence you are a big nosed, squat gnome-faced troll. Good bye and don't darken this doorstep again fool."

This is pure gold, nothing less! ;)

mrFerox said...


Lets say its certain the Eocene was the warmest the earth has been over the past 65 million years. I would say that without qualification this statement is meaningless. I mean if it took 2 million years to get to this temperature, this would be a gradual enough to allow climate and species to adapt. Move to that temperature quickly, through artificial means of Co2 emissions and natural processes can't adapt in time if this is only over the course of decades. Additionally, the Earth back then was in a much better state. Its not just temperature thats the issue here, but more the amount of H2O in the atmosphere. Monocrop fields aren't as efficient as forests, jungles and swamps. The point I'm making is that you can't just say "oh it was as hot then" and compare it to now, where the natural systems that could handle this are severely degraded.


AFAIK the anti doomer website in question lay unclaimed and open for a year or so.

Jimi said...

I see

also for some reason the page shows me as the poster of the content of the page...what is that about?

DB said...


First of all I think you are green jamie operating under a pseudonym by your style of writing, but since you haven't actually started trolling yet I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

1. The PETM event was a punctuated group of abrupt temperature shifts of less than 100 years each over a less than 10,000 year period and not the two million years as you stated.

2. While it's true that for overall biomass and biodiversity you're better off having a bunch of jungles et cetera, we're talking about human utilizable biomass in order to avoid dieoff. Covering cropland with forests will cause immediate starvation. You and I are not solving the same problems.

3. Since I'm interested in keeping the human population alive it has to be taken into account that we have technology and do not depend 100% on "ecosystem services". Sudden abrupt changes may indeed affect diversity of animal populations and even poorer nations human populations but it's not as if we are animals guided by instinct only. We have a whole bunch of toolsets to deal with maintaining our food supplies and local environment.

Jimi said...

Hi there DB :)

It’s been a while since I last visited your blog and I was wondering how you were doing these days.

Regarding your last statement to mrFerox I think that you may be correct when you suspect him for being greenjamie.

If those two usernames belongs to the same person, then I would say that the person behind them may also be the new "debunker debunker" from the anti-doomer block. My reasons for suspecting this is that a note was posted on that block after I (wrongly) said that the block had been hacked and after mrFerox replied to it.

I hope that you are doing well :) you may want to check out that anti-doomer block cause what he writes there is hilarious (it is a shame that we aren’t allowed to write comments to it

Energyscholar said...

This is an interesting blog. It starts out as dieoff-debunked. However, as the blogger gradually learns more about the topic, and chooses to think more about the topic, I see the posts gradually drift from "this is silly there will be no die off" to "we have a problem, but it will be OK" to "well, we have a serious problem that will hit hard, but we won't ALL die".

This is about what I would expect, having been through the same psychological process myself. There can be little doubt that the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that human population dieoff is very likely within the next few decades, but this is an emotionally crushing and horrible thought. Given that we dislike horrible thoughts and try to avoid thinking them, the standard reaction is to refuse to think these thoughts. For the few humans willing to brave cognitive dissonance and continue thinking about these unpleasant ideas, and willing to gather more evidence, we gradually come to grips with what the evidence implies, even if we never like what it says. This blogger is clearly going through that process.

Think of it as a grieving process: learning about the probability of impending human dieoff is like learning about the death of a loved one. It causes intense grief, which we gradually deal with. One pop psychologist describes five stages of grieving:

1. Denial - limits to growth are not possible, growth will continue forever, the prospect of dieoff is all nonsense!
2. Anger - Why us? We're a nice species, generally kind to puppies and children! It's not fair!!!
3. Bargaining - maybe if we all drive electric cars, turn down the AC, and recycle ...
4. Depression - We're all doomed anyway, so what's the point of going to work today
5. Acceptance - I can't fight it, so I may as well do something useful

To the author: KUDOs for choosing to think about a very difficult topic, and for writing about it. In my opinion that makes you part of the solution. Before one can do something useful, one must acknowledge that we have a predicament. I hope your journey to Acceptance is less turbulent than mine was, and I hope you guide many others to inner peace. Thank you.


Bruce Stephenson

Early contributor to Jay Hansen's discussion group

DB said...


Well thanks for the post but I can`t honestly say that you have paraphrased me correctly.

I haven`t gone through the process you describe.

I quite categorically *don`t* think there is going to be a dieoff in the way you describe and especially not the one from ``.

Read my posts more carefully.

Jimi said...

Ho there mate!

I was wondering how you were doing, it’s been a while since you last slapped some doomer ideas :)

I find the doomer post above to be rather interesting in way, because in my opinion he has missed the point by a long shot. What you are doing is the opposite of what he describe, you (like JD before you) guide people out of the stage where they think their world is doomed (the depression stage) and onto a level where they realize that our future is much more interesting (and much more depressing) than what the doomers would have them think.

Unlike the doomers you don’t try to convince people that they are fucked (if I may use the term) and that they should live with that fact (how can anyone do that really?), rather you inform people that life is worth living and that neither they nor our species are on the brink of mayhem (and unlike the doomers you deploy rational and sourced arguments to prove your points)

The doomer (who have the audacity to call himself “energy scholar” – how very typical) will just have to live with the fact that what you do is both noble and informative, something a great number of people (including myself) is very much grateful for.

I hope you are doing well and that we will soon see more excellent updates on the site!