It has never been my understanding of science that a lack of alternatives constitutes proof. Thank you for clarifying this. Here’s another “proof” you might like:

1. We exist
2. We didn’t will ourselves to exist
3. We don’t know who did
4. Therefore God

So keep preaching mate – doomsday is a’comin.

1. What peer reviewed publication gives experimental evidence for a rise of X,Y or Z degrees in global surface temperature for at doubling of atmospheric CO2? (So far, no paper found).
2. What change in global atmospheric CO2 is needed to change the acidity of the oceans by 0.1 pH unit? (So far, no paper found with a clear, unambiguous statement).

Without answers to these, one can scarcely make progress on any issues raised at realclimate, with its CO2-centricity.

Spare us the juvenile philosophy Jan and make with the rebuttal – alas you don’t seem to have any.

“you want evidence – there is no absolute proof and you know that”

I did not give you a simple ‘No’ and you know it that it’s your trollness that causes you to keep on with that lie.

All your references to my supposed trollness is turnspeak).

http://www.israellycool.com/2005/03/13/turnspeak-101/

Now where is that tardis?

The Deccan traps being a different period – well you must be a genius to work that out. Yes it was “another” “possible” (suggest, probably, maybe, plausible) example.

As for other periods being warmer – gee Jan – ever thought about rate of change being an issue?

As far as error bars are concerned – ever thought about checking the “error bars” on the glacial CO2 lags. Plus or minus 600 years on 800. If you want “consistency” at least be consistent looking for error.

Loulergue, L et al. (2007) New constraints on the gas age-ice age difference along the EPICA ice cores, 0–50 kyr. Climate of the Past, 3, 527-540.

Here we bring new constraints to test a firn densification model applied to the EPICA Dome C (EDC) site for the last 50 kyr, by linking the EDC ice core to the EPICA Dronning Maud Land (EDML) ice core, both in the ice phase (using volcanic horizons) and in the gas phase (using rapid methane variations). We also use the structured 10Be peak, occurring 41 kyr before present (BP) and due to the low geomagnetic field associated with the Laschamp event, to experimentally estimate the 1ag during this event. Our results seem to reveal an overestimate of the lag by the firn densification model during the last glacial period at EDC. Tests with different accumulation rates and temperature scenarios do not entirely resolve this discrepancy. Although the exact reasons for the lag overestimate at the two EPICA sites remain unknown at this stage, we conclude that current densification model simulations have deficits under glacial climatic conditions. Whatever the cause of the 1age overestimate, our finding suggests that the phase relationship between CO2 and EDC temperature previously inferred for the start of the last deglaciation (lag of CO2 by 800±600 yr) seems to be overestimated.

Finding suggests that the phase relationship between CO2 and EDC temperature inferred at the start of the last deglaciation (lag of CO2 by 800±600 yr) is overestimated and that the CO2 increase could well have been in phase or slightly leading the temperature increase at EDC.

What’s that – in phase or leading !!

And I know you hate real world measurements preferring to stick to your physics lecture notes but the measurements on longwave have been made old son (as tediously previously discussed) so you can theorise all you like. So if you want to argue sensitivity at least look in the right spots like cloud feedbacks.

You’ve also been counseled on bands before too and obviously haven’t listened.

And disappointingly completely ignored the point that the most analogous interglacial terminates early if CO2 does nothing. Sorry it didn’t terminate early!

So all in all no answers from dear Jan – just more obfuscation. Presented with multiple lines of evidence all we get is “nuh”.

Which is why I didn’t bother in the first instance responding to you screaming for “proof” as I figured your trolliness would kick in and we’d just end up with “nuh” as the rebuttal. Actually I don’t think there’s anything that would satisfy you as you’ll always hide behind the sophists’ defence of no such thing as “absolute proof” – so that’s really helpful for either farmers making decisions about future investments or governments trying to decide policy.

That’s more your style Luke but let’s look at on paper near the beginning:

A *possible* trigger for the initiation of the PETM…

and at the end:

“We *suggest* … triggered the PETM event, *probably* via the release of 12C-enriched methane …”

I’ve highlighted the operative words with asterisks do you understand what it means? When did ’suggest’ change to ‘assert’, and, ‘possibly’ and ‘probably’ change to ‘definitely’ in meaning. I suggest it was a genuflection to AGW theory necessary for the funding but I don’t know for sure.

Just so you do understand.

Did you notice also that it was just as hot 5 million years later with no proposed volcanism or mass extinctions?

Did you also notice that the second article that you offered had to do extinction of dinosaurs 10 M years earlier and really had nothing to do with PETM. This is speculation too but what is interesting is volcanism of a massive scale like the one that is thought to have triggered PETM, yet there is no similar rise in temperature.

In sort people are still guessing about these events even if there is some evidence that the so called GHGs rose around and over the 20,000 years the measurement of the time has error bar 600,000 years years wide. It’s impossible to *know* exactly what the relationship is but more recent studies are quite clear, and they are not at the fuzzy limit of measurability like the PETM. The 800 year lag seen consistently in later times would be buried deep within the error bars as would any lead.

Then you still have the incoherent claims of a 3.7 W/m^2 and ~3K +/- 1.5K for a doubling of CO2 that has yet to be proved.

Not to mention an equally incoherent claim that of the 33K due to GHG 9K is due CO2 for a ~3K +/- 1.5K /2xCO2. Hint for the increment from 1 ppmv to 350 ppmv the concentration doubles 8.45 times so it would have to be 25.4K NOT 9K leaving 7.6K for the major GHG water.

Then there is the added problem that regardless of concentration the maximum portion of up welling radiation CO2 can absorb is around 8% because that is the portion of energy in the band.

There are all these things screaming your hypothesis is nonsense and yet you still believe it.

I mean what are you going to invoke – a Sun that suddenly goes berserk for 20,000 years.

And our analogous MIS11 stade terminates early with just insolation.

Stop bolshing and start arguing.

Only trouble is the warming comes first.

Perhaps you need a TARDIS.

The only thing that would satisfy you is a Tardis.

Your response was pathetic and not entirely unexpected in the case you answered at all. It was wordy though I’ll give you that.

You didn’t get a simple ‘no’ you got my reasons for saying ‘no’ as well. I had already looked a the ‘facts’ the suppositions and hypotheses before. It really hasn’t got beyond that so it does not in any wise give us any reason to suppose that:

“At some point some point greenhouse feedback *will* kick in.” Emphasis mine.