On the ‘Suggestions’ page,
Roger Andrews says:
Reading through the RealClimate discussion of the recent Schmittner et al. paper on ice age climate sensitivity (http://www.princeton.edu/~nurban/pubs/lgm-cs-uvic.pdf) I came across the following claim:
“without the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, i.e. the cooling effect of the lower glacial CO2 concentration, the ice age climate cannot be explained.”
Huh?
Thought this might be worth a thread.
=========================================================
The paper isn’t difficult to follow, and gives a useful insight into the current state of play with models which are used to attempt tasks such as trying to determine the climate sensitivity (assuming it is linear), from long time span runs. This one runs from the Last Glacial Minimum in temperature around 23Kyears ago.
Here’s the Abstract:
Assessing impacts of future anthropogenic carbon emissions is currently impeded by uncertainties in our knowledge of equilibrium climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling. Previous studies suggest 3 K as best estimate, 2 to 4.5 K as the 66% probability range, and nonzero probabilities for much higher values, the latter implying a small but significant chance of high-impact climate changes that would be difficult to avoid. Here, combining extensive sea and land surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations, we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.7 to 2.6 K 66% probability). Assuming paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future as predicted by our model, these results imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought.
The authors are clear and open about items which are not covered by their medium-complexity model, such as clouds, and it seems to assume the ocean isn’t sequestering energy over long timescales – one of my pet peeves.
Anyway, lets take a look and get an insight into the way the mainstream is approaching the problem.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
“without the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, i.e. the cooling effect of the lower glacial CO2 concentration, the ice age climate cannot be explained.”
The ice age can be explained by many factors:
a) A variable sun varying its output
b) Changes in Earth’s orbit around the sun – after all there use to be 360 days in a year.
c) Changes in the Earth’s Axial Tilt – remember those quick frozen Mammoths.
d) Nuclear Winter via volcanoes, comets & asteroid impacts – think Carolina Bays
e) Superwave cosmic dust incursion following a Galactic core explosion.
I guess the AGW crowd just want CO2 to be the only catastrophe theory in town…
Just another climate paper to throw on the fire to keep us warm this winter 🙂
Hi MV, well, it’s not just one ice age. They come along regularly every 100Kyr or so for the last 1.5Myr and every 41Kyr before that. So I’m discounting your ‘d’ and ‘e’ theories and stating at the start that the Milankovitch cycles are right in the frame. The question is, do they need any help from co2 as a feedback?
Well, having started this I guess I’d better continue.
I detect the following fatal flaws in the RC argument:
1. It’s now generally accepted that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core records by several hundred years. So if we accept that the ice core CO2 measurements are correct – and we have to accept this or the discussion is moot – CO2 didn’t trigger the last ice age. Something else did.
2. Although CO2 lags temperature it’s still alleged to have contributed to the cooling. But if the cooling caused a decrease in CO2, and if this decrease in CO2 caused even more cooling, then we have a runaway situation that would eventually have turned the earth into a solid block of ice unless another trigger stopped it. Well, some other trigger indeed stopped it, but what was this trigger? We don’t know for sure, but again it certainly wasn’t CO2.
3. We are asked to believe that the last ice age (and presumably its predecessors as well) was caused by a +/- 100ppm drop in CO2, and that changes in albedo, ocean/atmosphere circulation patterns, solar activity etc. had no significant impact.
But to me the biggest flaw is that the results of the Schmittner study – and all other climate sensitivity studies for that matter – are predetermined. They all start with the assumption that temperature is directly dependent on atmospheric CO2. Then they attempt to quantify the level of dependence by comparing temperature changes with CO2 changes, or by using CO2 as a forcing in climate models, which amounts to the same thing. So if there is a positive correlation between temperature and CO2, which there certainly is in the ice core records, they are bound to come with a positive climate sensitivity whether CO2 had any impact on temperature or not. It’s a classic exercise in circular logic.
Hi Rog… none of these are mine… I am not that imaginative 🙂
The e) Superwave theory [Paul A LaViolette – Earth Under Fire] repeats every 26,000 (+ or – 3,000) years… so is possible… and is associated with “high cosmic dust concentrations in ice-age polar ice”… some galactic Superwaves are stronger than other… a lot depends upon how close the galaxy is 🙂
The d) comets and asteroid cluster impacts could well be an repeating (orbiting) event… and could even be associated with Superwave disturbances…
So I would leave d) and e) in the running for now…
Although the Milankovitch cycles are appealing… but they are probably too slow and too weak… and they rely upon everything else staying the same for very long stretches of time… this I find improbable especially as there is real primary evidence (not armchair theories) of: 1) fast frozen mammoths 2) clustered impact craters 3) large impact craters 4) a human calendar of 360 days (and 360 degree geometry/astronomy) and plenty of secondary evidence like nano-diamonds, cosmic dust concentrations etc.
I find the human cultural records supporting a 360 day year [and our 360 degree geometry] very completing evidence that undermines any theory that relies upon Lyell’s Doctrine of Uniformity… that is why I have personally discounted the Milankovitch cycles in this context.
Roger Andrews says: November 30, 2011 at 9:21 pm
A very good summary of the Fatal Flaws… no arguments from me 🙂
But to me the biggest flaw is that the results of the Schmittner study – and all other climate sensitivity studies for that matter – are predetermined. They all start with the assumption that temperature is directly dependent on atmospheric CO2.
That is why I think this is Just another climate paper to throw on the fire to keep us warm this winter
So if there is a positive correlation between temperature and CO2, which there certainly is in the ice core records
Personally, I would not hold the ice core responsible for this correlation… it is far more likely to be a Mann-made style artefact because the science of ice cores really stinks.
@MalagView 4) a human calendar of 360 days (and 360 degree geometry/astronomy) and plenty of secondary evidence like nano-diamonds, cosmic dust concentrations etc.
As we all know SEPTEMBER is the SEVENTH month of the year, October the eighth, November the ninth and December the tenth month of the year (more details in Inmanuel Velikosky´s “Worlds in Collision”
As for the CO2 issue: Did someone open a coke back then?…and/or two many SUVs then? 🙂
MV: well ok, I haven’t read those hypotheses on galactic waves or bonbardment so I’ll reserve judgement. I think you are wrong about Milankovitch cycles being too weak though. The eccentricity changes coupled with the precession of the equinox and obliquity can cause changes of up to 25W/m^2 in latitudinal areas important to oceanic and atmospheric circulation. That’s plenty enough to upset the climate cart.
Many Mediterranean cultures used a 360 day calendar, but they used to put intercalary days in to square up the seasonal shift. So you would get a four ‘quarter days’ every year, plus a big week long knees up every 8 years when Venus and Earth realigned. Read ‘The White Goddess’ by Robert Graves.
Roger: Spot on. Presupposition is the enemy of impartial scientific enquiry.
MV: Please could you drop me an email. Ta.
This one should be near the top of the list of possible ice age causes:
The Milky Way Galaxy’s Spiral Arms and Ice-Age Epochs and the Cosmic Ray Connection
http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages
-Gerry Pease
TB:
I think MV’s theory e) may relate to Nir Shaviv’s galactic spiral arm theory, which you probably already know about, but if not it’s at http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages. (MV, please correct me if I’ve got it wrong.)
“Presupposition is the enemy of impartial scientific enquiry.” Right on. So let’s review the ice core data without making any prior assumptions. We see a close correlation between CO2 and temperature, but the temperature leads the CO2. Logical conclusion? Temperature controls CO2. What does this do to climate sensitivity? It means that we shouldn’t be expressing it as degrees C for a doubling of CO2 at all, we should be expressing it as the increase in ppm CO2 for a fixed increase in temperature, say 1C. And using the Vostok ice core data this works out to about 10ppm.
Based on this simple and objective analysis I say that the earth’s climate sensitivity isn’t X degrees C, it’s 10ppm CO2.
Gerry: I’m with Nir Shaviv on the possibility of cosmic rays influencing the epochs of ice ages, but the question here seems to be more about the regular glacial/interglacial cycles within them.
Roger: Yes, co2 lags temperature at all timescales, but that doesn’t prevent it from acting as a feedback. It can’t be a stronger feedback than the forcing which initiates and terminates interglacials though, or it would runaway as you say. So that sets limits I think.
Sleep for me. More later.
My top two- of ten -guesses on ice age dynamics- processes we do not yet understand and stuff we haven’t thought of .
TB:
“Yes, co2 lags temperature at all timescales, but that doesn’t prevent it from acting as a feedback.”
No, it doesn’t. But you’re implicitly presupposing that it does. I’m just looking at the data, presupposing nothing.
Tallbloke,
An Ice Age is a precipitation event.
Being a precipitation event, interactions of cold air with warm water or cold water to warm air generates different pressure changes.
What happens when heating of the planet stretches the lower atmosphere mostly around the equatorial area?
When the heat leaves, a void is created by centrifugal force that takes time to come back.
The density of warm air is a tighter compressed by confinement to the atmosphere.
Cold air is more denser and compacted.
Roger Andrews says:
December 1, 2011 at 1:14 am; You are absolutely correct.
Eggs do not appear until after the chickens have come home to roost.
Time to get rid of the assumption that CO2 is an atmospheric warming gas of any importance.
Not 6 degrees, not 3 degrees, not 1-1/2 degrees, not even 1/2 degree. Not even enough to actually measure, only assumed to have an effect. Time to discard BS (bad science) and move on. Over 100 years of data and all we get is assumption that CO2 causes warming,no real proof.. pg
Patrick: sensible guess. What we know is overshadowed by what we don’t by a large margin.
Roger: I’m not assuming anything, just admitting the possibility for the sake of exploring the experimental space.
Joe: try to work out your ideas more fully before posting so others can follow them.
PG: If we can show that the Sun’s variability and Earth’s orbital parameters bring about enough change on their own, then the gap into which co2 (or anything else) fits diminishes. This paper is reasonably frankly admitting there’s a whole bunch of stuff not accounted for by their model. It also says som eof those missing things are covered by more complex models. Presumably the more complex model isn’t used because it would take forever to do a 25Kyr run and would go off the rails early on since it’s tuned for a late C19th starting point.
Again, apologies for a poorly worded question, and sorry for the tanget, but:
I seem to recall reading that interglacials last about 10,000 years or so, and that we may be coming towards the end of this one. The question strikes me, then: could this correspond to the Earth’s 23,000 year wobble / nutation? Is this what is referred to as a Milankovich cycle?
on the side: I am learning a Great deal from the conversations on your blog. As a science-fiction writer as well as a geologist I find it Very useful!
The ‘superwave’ theory helps me quite a bit with a short story, of the Earth plunging into a rapid ice age. I understand I am likely stretching the idea severely, but….
Hi Otter,
we did several posts on Milankovitch cycles a while back, have a read. Glad we give you inspiration, your questions are welcome.
Just put milankovitch into the site search top left for links.
TB The eccentricity changes coupled with the precession of the equinox and obliquity can cause changes of up to 25W/m^2 in latitudinal areas important to oceanic and atmospheric circulation. That’s plenty enough to upset the climate cart.
My first big reservations about this whole topic is that an Ice Age needs to start with a Snow Age… it needs a mechanism like David Thomson’s Terracycles that rapidly accumulates snow over land… what that process [trigger] is I have no idea… but it needs to be sometime that is big enough to upset the climate cart. To sustain the Ice Age we need to move into a Drought Age whereby very little summer rain falls on the ice sheet… and then to end the Ice Age rapidly we need to restart interglacial weather with lots of warm summer rain… perhaps it even needs a Deluge Age to kick start the melting.
My guess is that if Milankovitch cycles can reduce insolation by 25 W/m2 then it is a great candidate for sustaining an Ice Age with cold, dry weather… I am just not convinced it is a good mechanism to triggering a Snow Age or a termination Deluge.
My second big reservation about the Milankovitch cycles is that they are only a good candidate for the last few cycles of Ice Ages… go back in the records and the pattern falls apart… which just underlines the problems we encounter following Lyell’s Doctrine of Uniformity… we know that things change over time… we know that shit happens according to the great philosopher Forrest Gump… and the real problem we have is TIMING… what I mean by that, for example, is that an ice core may shows us a sequence of events… but each layer in the ice core does not come with a sticky label that says “vintage 12,000 years BC”… the dating of the ice core is a totally manmade invention… by using volcanic dust we can scratch the surface of the ice core and look back (with some degree of certainty) and identify layers going back maybe 1,000 years… possibly 2,000 years… but we can’t identify missing layers (because they are not there)… and everything beyond 2,000 years ago is pure guesswork… even the theory behind carbon dating relies upon everything staying the same (especially regarding cosmic rays) and the technique has to use an agreed crib sheet to adjust readings to fit their reality… the bottom line is that we have a handle on the SEQUENCE of events but NOT the actual TIMING… this leads to all sorts of inconvenient facts being swept under the carpet… like Greenland glaciers only forming a couple of thousand years ago… like Greenland forests being airbrushed from history (but not looking at what is underneath the ice cap)… and everywhere I look (geology, climate, astronomy, cosmology, history…) I encounter very shaky assumptions based upon Lyell’s Doctrine of Uniformity.
My third big reservation is that the peer review process has corrupted and derailed open scientific rebate [and research] in the last 50 years.. the age of settled science is an oxymoron… inconvenient facts are ignored… alternative views are shutdown… theories are supported by cherry picked references… at the moment I am reading a lot of alternative material because 1) I am interested in all ideas in an open debate and 2) it is the only way to get a handle on the flaws glossed over in the settled science. And there are many inconvenient flaws… like “raised seabeds” for plate tectonics… like “no evolution – just extinctions” for Darwinism… like “men and dinosaurs” in the same fossil layers… like no new fossil records being laid now now… like the “black mats” encountered in geologic layers… like dinosaurs couldn’t survive under our current gravitational conditions… so in the context of ice ages it may be necessary to consider, for example: axial tilt oscillations, magnetic oscillations, expanding earth oscillations, orbital oscillations, length of days oscillations, cosmic ray oscillations, comet impact oscillations, gravitational oscillations, electric universe oscillations, plasma universe oscillations…
Many Mediterranean cultures used a 360 day calendar, but they used to put intercalary days in to square up the seasonal shift. So you would get a four ‘quarter days’ every year, plus a big week long knees up every 8 years when Venus and Earth realigned. Read ‘The White Goddess’ by Robert Graves.
Personally, I see that as confirmation that the number of days in a year actually changed and mankind had to adjust to the new reality… especially as our early records shows mankind spent a lot of time building monuments to help them track the days and seasons… and I personally think that our forefathers could actually count beyond ten… but who really knows… it is all guess work… even if we like to kid ourselves that it is intelligent guesswork.
RA: MV, please correct me if I’ve got it wrong.
The e) Superwave theory is from “Earth Under Fire” by Paul A LaViolette
So I need to add Nir Shaviv’s galactic spiral arm theory to the list…
I guess there are lots of other ideas out there to consider…
PM: processes we do not yet understand and stuff we haven’t thought of.
I think that is pretty much the case… I personally KNOW NOTHING…
But I am having a lot of fun looking at the possibilities…
And I am very thankful that TB tolerates open debate, alternate ideas and speculation.
Yesterday after the yesterday before when I rejected the paper because the first reference is rejected I spent some time digging into the authors of reference 1. (tangled words in AGW parody)
A dire mess turned up, heavy AGW, Carbon, in 1 and 2 CG emails, odd funding (including a 10M spreadsheet). What is the point, we know these people are bad, so I will do nothing.
My guess about the paper which started the article here (where the authors are more innocent) is it plays down the probability of an impending ice age. That has the subtle effect of raising the probability for the AGW brigade.
Getting back to the RC comment that prompted this thread: “without the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, i.e. the cooling effect of the lower glacial CO2 concentration, the ice age climate cannot be explained.”
The problem is that at our current state of knowledge the “ice age climate” cannot be explained, period. (Yes, there are lots of theories, but they’re all speculative. My pet theories certainly are).
So here we are, projecting temperatures, rainfall, floods, droughts, hurricanes, sea level rise etc. hundreds of years into the future, and we still don’t know what causes ice ages.
‘Nuff said, for the moment
Back later
@malagaview says:
December 1, 2011 at 12:14 pm
You might want to read this post by E.M.Smith on his ChiefIO blog. A long examination of historic records of meteor showers and possible climate effects. His premise is that as we pass through debris trails of expended comets at times we encounter dense areas for several passes in a row.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/meteor-showers/
A long post with lots of information in the E.M.Smith tradition. 😉 pg
AG: As we all know SEPTEMBER is the SEVENTH month of the year, October the eighth, November the ninth and December the tenth month of the year (more details in Inmanuel Velikosky´s “Worlds in Collision”
“Worlds in Collision” AND “Eath in Upheaval” are AMAZING books…
I just wish I had read them 50 years ago….
PG: Thanks for the link… sounds like a sensible premise….
There is an amusing problem with the warmist attempts to rename a portion of the Holocene as “The Anthropocene.” They can’t decide whether the name should apply to the last 200 years, the last 8,000 years, or the last 15,000 years!
“The Anthropocene has no precise start date, but based on atmospheric evidence may be considered to start with the Industrial Revolution (late 18th century).[1][4] Other scientists link it to earlier events, such as the rise of agriculture. Evidence of relative human impact such as the growing human influence on land use, ecosystems, biodiversity and species extinction is controversial, some scientists believe the human impact has significantly changed (or halted) the growth of biodiversity.[5] The Anthropocene may have begun as early as 14,000 to 15,000 years before present, based on lithospheric evidence; this has led other scientists to suggest that “the onset of the Anthropocene should be extended back many thousand years”[6]:1; this would be closely synchronous with the current term, Holocene.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene
From
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/03/age-of-man/kolbert-text
“If we have indeed entered a new epoch, then when exactly did it begin? When did human impacts rise to the level of geologic significance?
William Ruddiman, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Virginia, has proposed that the invention of agriculture some 8,000 years ago, and the deforestation that resulted, led to an increase in atmospheric CO2 just large enough to stave off what otherwise would have been the start of a new ice age; in his view, humans have been the dominant force on the planet practically since the start of the Holocene. Crutzen has suggested that the Anthropocene began in the late 18th century, when, ice cores show, carbon dioxide levels began what has since proved to be an uninterrupted rise. Other scientists put the beginning of the new epoch in the middle of the 20th century, when the rates of both population growth and consumption accelerated rapidly.
Zalasiewicz now heads a working group of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) that is tasked with officially determining whether the Anthropocene deserves to be incorporated into the geologic timescale. A final decision will require votes by both the ICS and its parent organization, the International Union of Geological Sciences. The process is likely to take years. As it drags on, the decision may well become easier. Some scientists argue that we’ve not yet reached the start of the Anthropocene—not because we haven’t had a dramatic impact on the planet, but because the next several decades are likely to prove even more stratigraphically significant than the past few centuries.”:-)
Hi Gerry,
Anthropocene:
Is that an abbreviated word for the anthropocentric scene? 😉
TB,
If, by anthropocentric scene you mean “a certain scenic understanding, related to the phenomenon of human action and speech,” I’d say emphatically YES, and the theatrical aspect of that is defined here:-)
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6111708
I once came across a paper with a title so obscure that I had to go to a dictionary to translate it. It turned out to be “the sex life of the brine shrimp”, which is a life-form that lives in the Great Salt Lake in Utah. Anyway, I remember wondering how the author got grants to study things like the sex life of the brine shrimp, which wasn’t exactly a fashionable field of research.
But now it’s no problem. All you need do is write a paper on “the impact of global warming on the sex life of the brine shrimp”, demonstrating therein how the brine shrimp will cease to have a sex life if global warming continues its relentless march, maybe as soon as a week next Thursday. Next thing you know you’re being quoted in the newspapers and interviewed on National Public Radio, and the research grants are flowing in.
And that’s what the anthropocene is all about. Apart from a few superficial chicken-scratches that pale into total insignificance in comparison with the rest of the geologic column, human activities have had no impact whatever on geology. But that isn’t the fault of we geologists. We want our share of the human-impact-on-everything pie too, just like the biologists and botanists. And defining the anthropocene as an official geologic epoch is as good a starting point as any.
There’s even a poem about the Scene:
S&R Poetry: “The Anthropocene Scene,” by Michael C. Rush
Posted on July 31, 2011 by Poetry under S&R Literature, S&R Poetry [ Comments: none ]
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2011/07/31/sr-poetry-the-anthropocene-scene-by-michael-c-rush/
Impelled toward vigor,
we’re demeaned by violence,
by nihilistic philistinism,
by wishful mysticism,
by competing mythologies
of those who cooperate only to copulate,
by individuality stifled with surveillance
and the cynical fratricide of civil war.
What insufferable guests we are in the world!
Go all rococo
in your mental temple,
become unfit
for civil service.
Find wanton acquaintances
and focused friends.
Brook no interference.
Reject no assistance.
Move outweird from the center.
A taboo, once violated,
deflates like a pricked balloon.
Become a person of one,
of few, or of many.
And two to avoid:
the despotic and the neurotic.
Y’all ever consider that the ice cores are not well correlated with Volcanoes? That is, the dust layers that should correlate pretty solidly are too large in number and the ones they think they have id’ed are few.
This would indicate that what they THINK is correct dating by layer is nothing of the sort. I am a devotee of Velikovsky since reading his firts three books recently. Under his, and ideas from others, the glaciers in the Antarctic and Greenland are probably not more than about 10,000 years old meaning there is little we can learn from the for long term climate. There is NOTHING we can learn from them until they quite forcing them to say what they want.
Seriously, if you throw out the glacial record, and long age sediments records that could be contaminated in similar fashion by catastrophic events, what do we have to indicate anything of large import?? Similar to Mann’s work, BUPKUS!!!
Jaworowski and Segalstad don’t go to that extreme, but, basically they can not be used to tell us anything of import on the climate.
Malagaview’s mentioning the flash frozen mammoths is an excellent example. There is simply no known mechanism for this to have happened outside of some event we have no solid evidence for. We can only speculate on a catastrophic event that could cause it. Such an event may have been responsible for laying down what is currently believed to be about a million years of glacial layers.
Gerry, that poem’s rubbish compared to my limericks. 🙂
KK: Considering the depth of the Antarctic ice sheet and the rate of precip there, I doubt it’s only 10Kyr old. Also the sea level rise which would take place. There are settlement remains on the floor of the North Sea, and off India 100m down…
Velikovsky is interesting though. I agree with you that many things are less certain than the paradigm indicates, but we need to careful in attaching significance to alternative viewpoints which are just as or more uncertain.
Often we know so little about something that we can’t even assess how uncertain one idea is relative to another with any certainty.
TB: Considering the depth of the Antarctic ice sheet and the rate of precip there, I doubt it’s only 10Kyr old.
It’s very easy to fall into Lyell’s Doctrine of Uniformity elephant/mammoth trap.
We need to careful in attaching significance to alternative viewpoints which are just as or more uncertain
There is physical evidence regarding fast frozen mammoths and the extend of the last glacial ice sheet.
However, the dating of ice cores is a manmade hypothesis [artefact] that is far from certain.
TB,
Since the whole idea of renaming the current interglacial period the “Anthropocene” seems ludicrous, any poem about it is unlikely to be different. Got a limerick about the Anthropogenic Scene?
Some concerned geologists are keen
On an idea cooked up by Eugene
It’s touted by Stoermer
That we’ve made the world warmer
And started the ‘Anthropocene’.
But the sceptics are beset with a doubt
That mankind has really the clout:
To change the worlds climate
Takes more than a primate
Burning oil when he’s out and about!
So when talking to these and those ‘ologists
Beware they know not what the knowledge is
‘Cos I have a hunch
They all just a bunch
Of guilt ridden Anthropo ‘pologists.
🙂
Your limerick wins, hands-down! It even suggests what kind of anthropogenic “clout” it might take to start an actual Anthropocene – global thermonuclear war resulting in a very long nuclear winter. It’s still a fearsomely chilling possibility.
Thanks Gerry, I try to write a good limerick. 🙂
Try this google term:
site:wattsupwiththat.com tallbloke limerick
You’ll miss some of the early climategate ones, as i didn’t think of tagging them until later.
Lets hope we don’t get any nuclear style winters, whether human caused or brought about by rumbling Icelandic volcano.
Here’s one I found, from last year’s 8C below average COP16 in Cancun
Down at the shindig in Mex
Lookin’ forward to sand surf and sex
The delegate’s jaws dropped
When Cancun copped
The coolest of Al Gore Effects
🙂
Off topic–I am really happy to have (finally!) found your blog, Tallbloke. I’m embarrassed to have not found it earlier. You have excellent material, a great disposition/handling of different ideas, and really interesting contributors! (Plus I love a good limerick..)
Thank you for investing time in this–it helps all of us, esp. those of us who don’t have extensive formal education in the natural sciences.
Best,
DY
Hi David and welcome. This isn’t ‘conventional’ natural science, but stick around and feel free to question what you read. Thanks for your kind words, it makes me happy to know we are getting our stuff over to a growing number of people.