Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Brian Smith's avatar

Very well written, and very compelling.

Thanks.

Ken Brook's avatar

Thanks for thought provoking piece.

What’s unusual here is that you’ve spliced together two different climate frames that are usually kept separate: the deep-time equilibrium CO₂–temperature relationship and the modern transient instrumental trajectory. That makes for a striking visual argument, and it is not frivolous. The underlying palaeoclimate literature really does support a strong long-run CO₂–temperature relationship across very long timescales.

But the key caution is that this is not quite an apples-with-apples comparison. The deep-time slope you are using is closer to an Earth system sensitivity relationship, with slow feedbacks such as ice sheets, vegetation and carbon-cycle changes folded in over millennia, whereas the modern record since 1850 is a transient response still catching up. So the “gap” in Figure 2 is physically suggestive, but it should not be read too casually as though one curve directly predicts the other on human timescales.

So I’d say this is a clever and thought-provoking synthesis rather than a knock-down proof. It is strongest as an illustration that modern warming is not just wandering around inside ordinary natural variability. But for formal attribution, the heavier lifting still comes from the instrumental energy-balance, radiative forcing, ocean heat uptake, fingerprint and model–observation literature, not from this overlay alone.

49 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?