Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

Let me put it like this. I ask you to design a building in an earthquake prone area. In the last 40 years there has been 2 magnitude 4 earthquakes. 500, 1000 and 15000 years ago there were magnitude 9 earthquakes. Would you say the magnitude 9 earthquakes should be ignored because the area was not populated then, and nobody was injured?

My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.

The obvious failure in the analogy being that we can't see earthquakes coming.

We obviously can. Why else would we design earthquake safe buildings in earthquake prone regions?

[anonymous-user]

ludo said:

deeps said:

Gandahar said:

A few years back when Antarctic sea ice extent was high the scientific concensus was that the Antarctic was guarded from climate change by the southern ocean and its winds.

Interesting. The letters B and S spring to mind. By the way, I'm not doubting what you said at all.

Looks to me like the chance of an interesting discussion of the science here has dropped to zero and it is just the usual content-free partisan blog rhetoric. Too dull for me.

Quite right.

This is the science thread deeps. You’re obviously talking rubbish so please shut up with your nonsense and let people who actually have a clue talk.

It would be great if the same idiots don’t ruin this thread as well as the renewables one.

[ludo]

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

Let me put it like this. I ask you to design a building in an earthquake prone area. In the last 40 years there has been 2 magnitude 4 earthquakes. 500, 1000 and 15000 years ago there were magnitude 9 earthquakes. Would you say the magnitude 9 earthquakes should be ignored because the area was not populated then, and nobody was injured?

My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.

The obvious failure in the analogy being that we can't see earthquakes coming.

We obviously can. Why else would we design earthquake safe buildings in earthquake prone regions?

The problem is that we didn't design civillisations or agriculture to cope with the climate change we are likely to see as a result of fossil fuel emissions.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

The science is quite clear. We are living in a relatively cool interglacial period, and the highest quality data we have indicates that the current rate of change of temperature is unremarkable.

Unless anyone can provide data to the contrary.

Human civilisation and agriculture didn't exist in previous interglacials, so what is the relevance of previous interglacials being warmer?

What is the relevance of your question? Humans live on planet earth. We should expect our climate to have periods of extremely rapid change, over large temperature amplitudes.

We evolved in previous interglacial periods. When life was tough, and much warmer than today.

Do you expect a constant climate?

The existence of human beings as a species is in no danger whatsoever AFAICS from climate change, and I don't know of any scientific body that claims it is. Thus the temperature of previous interglacials is utterly irrelevant AFAICS.

IIRC the Neanderthals were on their way to extinction before modern humans established themselves in Europe, they didn't survive into the interglacial.

Kawasicki said:

Do you expect a constant climate?

Of course I don't and you know perfectly well that I don't, so that is just cheap rhetoric, rather than a genuine scientific question. That sort of thing is best left to the politics thread.

So, what is the relevance of previous interglacials being warmer to the risks associated with current climate change, as for example set out by the IPCC reports?

Let me put it like this. I ask you to design a building in an earthquake prone area. In the last 40 years there has been 2 magnitude 4 earthquakes. 500, 1000 and 15000 years ago there were magnitude 9 earthquakes. Would you say the magnitude 9 earthquakes should be ignored because the area was not populated then, and nobody was injured?

My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.

You need to do more reading I think. There are reasons (or at least theories) why previous epochs have been different to the current one. Your reasoning appears to be that because those other climatic periods happened means we should expect those conditions to re-occur at any moment, like they're completely random and spontaneous events (like earthquakes). For instance the previous inter-glacial is thought to have been warmer than the current one due to the specific orbital cycles that created that interglacial period which were different to the orbital cycles that created the Holocene, so why should we expect temps to suddenly become like the previous inter-glacial? Similarly there are likely good reasons why the climate was so unstable during the last glacial period - reasons that no longer bear on the climate of the Holocene in the same way (eg. ice sheet dynamics).

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 23 March 15:50

[Kawasicki]

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

Let me put it like this. I ask you to design a building in an earthquake prone area. In the last 40 years there has been 2 magnitude 4 earthquakes. 500, 1000 and 15000 years ago there were magnitude 9 earthquakes. Would you say the magnitude 9 earthquakes should be ignored because the area was not populated then, and nobody was injured?

My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.

The obvious failure in the analogy being that we can't see earthquakes coming.

We obviously can. Why else would we design earthquake safe buildings in earthquake prone regions?

The problem is that we didn't design civillisations or agriculture to cope with the climate change we are likely to see as a result of fossil fuel emissions.

We also didn’t design them to cope with another ice age.

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

The science is quite clear. We are living in a relatively cool interglacial period, and the highest quality data we have indicates that the current rate of change of temperature is unremarkable.

Unless anyone can provide data to the contrary.

Human civilisation and agriculture didn't exist in previous interglacials, so what is the relevance of previous interglacials being warmer?

What is the relevance of your question? Humans live on planet earth. We should expect our climate to have periods of extremely rapid change, over large temperature amplitudes.

We evolved in previous interglacial periods. When life was tough, and much warmer than today.

Do you expect a constant climate?

The existence of human beings as a species is in no danger whatsoever AFAICS from climate change, and I don't know of any scientific body that claims it is. Thus the temperature of previous interglacials is utterly irrelevant AFAICS.

IIRC the Neanderthals were on their way to extinction before modern humans established themselves in Europe, they didn't survive into the interglacial.

Kawasicki said:

Do you expect a constant climate?

Of course I don't and you know perfectly well that I don't, so that is just cheap rhetoric, rather than a genuine scientific question. That sort of thing is best left to the politics thread.

So, what is the relevance of previous interglacials being warmer to the risks associated with current climate change, as for example set out by the IPCC reports?

Let me put it like this. I ask you to design a building in an earthquake prone area. In the last 40 years there has been 2 magnitude 4 earthquakes. 500, 1000 and 15000 years ago there were magnitude 9 earthquakes. Would you say the magnitude 9 earthquakes should be ignored because the area was not populated then, and nobody was injured?

My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.

You need to do more reading I think. There are reasons (or at least theories) why previous epochs have been different to the current one. Your reasoning appears to be that because those other climatic periods happened means we should expect those conditions to re-occur at any moment, like they're completely random and spontaneous events (like earthquakes). For instance the previous inter-glacial is thought to have been warmer than the current one due to the specific orbital cycles that created that interglacial period which were different to the orbital cycles that created the Holocene, so why should we expect temps to suddenly become like the previous inter-glacial? Similarly there are likely good reasons why the climate was so unstable during the last glacial period - reasons that no longer bear on the climate of the Holocene in the same way (eg. ice sheet dynamics).

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 23 March 15:50

I think you are massively overestimating our scientific knowledge of how the climate functions. I think you should also do more reading.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

The science is quite clear. We are living in a relatively cool interglacial period, and the highest quality data we have indicates that the current rate of change of temperature is unremarkable.

Unless anyone can provide data to the contrary.

Human civilisation and agriculture didn't exist in previous interglacials, so what is the relevance of previous interglacials being warmer?

What is the relevance of your question? Humans live on planet earth. We should expect our climate to have periods of extremely rapid change, over large temperature amplitudes.

We evolved in previous interglacial periods. When life was tough, and much warmer than today.

Do you expect a constant climate?

The existence of human beings as a species is in no danger whatsoever AFAICS from climate change, and I don't know of any scientific body that claims it is. Thus the temperature of previous interglacials is utterly irrelevant AFAICS.

IIRC the Neanderthals were on their way to extinction before modern humans established themselves in Europe, they didn't survive into the interglacial.

Kawasicki said:

Do you expect a constant climate?

Of course I don't and you know perfectly well that I don't, so that is just cheap rhetoric, rather than a genuine scientific question. That sort of thing is best left to the politics thread.

So, what is the relevance of previous interglacials being warmer to the risks associated with current climate change, as for example set out by the IPCC reports?

Let me put it like this. I ask you to design a building in an earthquake prone area. In the last 40 years there has been 2 magnitude 4 earthquakes. 500, 1000 and 15000 years ago there were magnitude 9 earthquakes. Would you say the magnitude 9 earthquakes should be ignored because the area was not populated then, and nobody was injured?

My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.

You need to do more reading I think. There are reasons (or at least theories) why previous epochs have been different to the current one. Your reasoning appears to be that because those other climatic periods happened means we should expect those conditions to re-occur at any moment, like they're completely random and spontaneous events (like earthquakes). For instance the previous inter-glacial is thought to have been warmer than the current one due to the specific orbital cycles that created that interglacial period which were different to the orbital cycles that created the Holocene, so why should we expect temps to suddenly become like the previous inter-glacial? Similarly there are likely good reasons why the climate was so unstable during the last glacial period - reasons that no longer bear on the climate of the Holocene in the same way (eg. ice sheet dynamics).

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 23 March 15:50

I think you are massively overestimating our scientific knowledge of how the climate functions. I think you should also do more reading.

A rather empty comment. Try to be more substantial.

[deeps]

ludo said:

The problem is that we didn't design civillisations or agriculture to cope with the climate change we are likely to see as a result of fossil fuel emissions.

It appears to me that this thread is dominated by statements of true belief.

[deeps]

El stovey said:

Quite right.

This is the science thread deeps. You’re obviously talking rubbish so please shut up with your nonsense and let people who actually have a clue talk.

It would be great if the same idiots don’t ruin this thread as well as the renewables one.

I shall politely ask you, obviously, to get off your high horse.

I'm not trying to prevent "people who actually have a clue" from talking, yet you express a wish to silence me. Hmmm.

[deeps]

gadgetmac said:

I think you’ll find that Loony’s comment was in response to Robinessex’s not before it.

It’ll be a tough one for you in particular to wrap your head around but a response FOLLOWS and doesn’t precede.

Thought you weren't posting here? Who brought up the BBC first?

[deeps]

P.S.

LoonyTunes said:

Just thank your lucky stars he's not posting daily links to the BBC's Science webpage on here and adding his own criticisms after each one.

[durbster]

deeps said:

ludo said:

The problem is that we didn't design civillisations or agriculture to cope with the climate change we are likely to see as a result of fossil fuel emissions.

It appears to me that this thread is dominated by statements of true belief.

Deeps, could you please go back to attempting to drive traffic to a propaganda blog in the politics thread. You clearly have nothing to add here.

[Flibble]

Kawasicki said:

I think you are massively overestimating our scientific knowledge of how the climate functions. I think you should also do more reading.

So the answer is to throw our hands up and say, it's all chaotic so let's plan for nothing?

[Kawasicki]

Flibble said:

Kawasicki said:

I think you are massively overestimating our scientific knowledge of how the climate functions. I think you should also do more reading.

So the answer is to throw our hands up and say, it's all chaotic so let's plan for nothing?

No, exactly the opposite. First, remain calm, the climate only appears chaotic, because of a huge lack of knowledge. We should continue to learn how our climate works, in an honest way, without political influence. We should look at what has happened in the past, and even if we don’t understand why certain changes occurred, we should expect similar changes in the future, and plan accordingly.

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

The science is quite clear. We are living in a relatively cool interglacial period, and the highest quality data we have indicates that the current rate of change of temperature is unremarkable.

Unless anyone can provide data to the contrary.

Human civilisation and agriculture didn't exist in previous interglacials, so what is the relevance of previous interglacials being warmer?

What is the relevance of your question? Humans live on planet earth. We should expect our climate to have periods of extremely rapid change, over large temperature amplitudes.

We evolved in previous interglacial periods. When life was tough, and much warmer than today.

Do you expect a constant climate?

The existence of human beings as a species is in no danger whatsoever AFAICS from climate change, and I don't know of any scientific body that claims it is. Thus the temperature of previous interglacials is utterly irrelevant AFAICS.

IIRC the Neanderthals were on their way to extinction before modern humans established themselves in Europe, they didn't survive into the interglacial.

Kawasicki said:

Do you expect a constant climate?

Of course I don't and you know perfectly well that I don't, so that is just cheap rhetoric, rather than a genuine scientific question. That sort of thing is best left to the politics thread.

So, what is the relevance of previous interglacials being warmer to the risks associated with current climate change, as for example set out by the IPCC reports?

Let me put it like this. I ask you to design a building in an earthquake prone area. In the last 40 years there has been 2 magnitude 4 earthquakes. 500, 1000 and 15000 years ago there were magnitude 9 earthquakes. Would you say the magnitude 9 earthquakes should be ignored because the area was not populated then, and nobody was injured?

My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.

You need to do more reading I think. There are reasons (or at least theories) why previous epochs have been different to the current one. Your reasoning appears to be that because those other climatic periods happened means we should expect those conditions to re-occur at any moment, like they're completely random and spontaneous events (like earthquakes). For instance the previous inter-glacial is thought to have been warmer than the current one due to the specific orbital cycles that created that interglacial period which were different to the orbital cycles that created the Holocene, so why should we expect temps to suddenly become like the previous inter-glacial? Similarly there are likely good reasons why the climate was so unstable during the last glacial period - reasons that no longer bear on the climate of the Holocene in the same way (eg. ice sheet dynamics).

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 23 March 15:50

I think you are massively overestimating our scientific knowledge of how the climate functions. I think you should also do more reading.

A rather empty comment. Try to be more substantial.

Earthquakes aren’t completely random/spontaneous. They may appear so, but that is just due to a lack of knowledge.

Ok, so you seem to think there are good reasons for major climatic changes, I agree, but I think we probably don’t understand the climate nearly as much as you seem to think we do. A quick question, a really easy one for knowledgeable climate scientists, no doubt...When does the next ice age begin?

[gadgetmac]

deeps said:

gadgetmac said:

I think you’ll find that Loony’s comment was in response to Robinessex’s not before it.

It’ll be a tough one for you in particular to wrap your head around but a response FOLLOWS and doesn’t precede.

Thought you weren't posting here? Who brought up the BBC first?

I’m trying not to post here but rather read what’s being posted by those with more knowledge than myself and it’s being spoilt by the usual suspects with their zero science input.

3 or 4 people have now asked you to go away as you are hindering the development of the thread. Please do so, as we all tire of reading this kind of input on both the Politics thread and the Science thread.

[durbster]

Kawasicki said:

Flibble said:

Kawasicki said:

I think you are massively overestimating our scientific knowledge of how the climate functions. I think you should also do more reading.

So the answer is to throw our hands up and say, it's all chaotic so let's plan for nothing?

No, exactly the opposite. First, remain calm, the climate only appears chaotic, because of a huge lack of knowledge. We should continue to learn how our climate works, in an honest way, without political influence. We should look at what has happened in the past, and even if we don’t understand why certain changes occurred, we should expect similar changes in the future, and plan accordingly.

This sounds very much like, "I don't understand it therefore nobody does".

The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

The science is quite clear. We are living in a relatively cool interglacial period, and the highest quality data we have indicates that the current rate of change of temperature is unremarkable.

Unless anyone can provide data to the contrary.

Human civilisation and agriculture didn't exist in previous interglacials, so what is the relevance of previous interglacials being warmer?

What is the relevance of your question? Humans live on planet earth. We should expect our climate to have periods of extremely rapid change, over large temperature amplitudes.

We evolved in previous interglacial periods. When life was tough, and much warmer than today.

Do you expect a constant climate?

The existence of human beings as a species is in no danger whatsoever AFAICS from climate change, and I don't know of any scientific body that claims it is. Thus the temperature of previous interglacials is utterly irrelevant AFAICS.

IIRC the Neanderthals were on their way to extinction before modern humans established themselves in Europe, they didn't survive into the interglacial.

Kawasicki said:

Do you expect a constant climate?

Of course I don't and you know perfectly well that I don't, so that is just cheap rhetoric, rather than a genuine scientific question. That sort of thing is best left to the politics thread.

So, what is the relevance of previous interglacials being warmer to the risks associated with current climate change, as for example set out by the IPCC reports?

Let me put it like this. I ask you to design a building in an earthquake prone area. In the last 40 years there has been 2 magnitude 4 earthquakes. 500, 1000 and 15000 years ago there were magnitude 9 earthquakes. Would you say the magnitude 9 earthquakes should be ignored because the area was not populated then, and nobody was injured?

My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.

You need to do more reading I think. There are reasons (or at least theories) why previous epochs have been different to the current one. Your reasoning appears to be that because those other climatic periods happened means we should expect those conditions to re-occur at any moment, like they're completely random and spontaneous events (like earthquakes). For instance the previous inter-glacial is thought to have been warmer than the current one due to the specific orbital cycles that created that interglacial period which were different to the orbital cycles that created the Holocene, so why should we expect temps to suddenly become like the previous inter-glacial? Similarly there are likely good reasons why the climate was so unstable during the last glacial period - reasons that no longer bear on the climate of the Holocene in the same way (eg. ice sheet dynamics).

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 23 March 15:50

I think you are massively overestimating our scientific knowledge of how the climate functions. I think you should also do more reading.

A rather empty comment. Try to be more substantial.

Earthquakes aren’t completely random/spontaneous. They may appear so, but that is just due to a lack of knowledge.

Ok, so you seem to think there are good reasons for major climatic changes, I agree, but I think we probably don’t understand the climate nearly as much as you seem to think we do. A quick question, a really easy one for knowledgeable climate scientists, no doubt...When does the next ice age begin?

That's a good question to ask, I recommend you look into it.

Here's a short paragraph from the IPCC AR4 on the matter:


6.4.1.8 When Will the Current Interglacial End?

There is no evidence of mechanisms that could mitigate the current global warming by a natural cooling trend. Only a strong reduction in summer insolation at high northern latitudes, along with associated feedbacks, can end the current interglacial. Given that current low orbital eccentricity will persist over the next tens of thousand years, the effects of precession are minimised, and extremely cold northern summer orbital configurations like that of the last glacial initiation at 116 ka will not take place for at least 30 kyr (Box 6.1). Under a natural CO2 regime (i.e., with the global temperature-CO2 correlation continuing as in the Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores), the next glacial period would not be expected to start within the next 30 kyr (Loutre and Berger, 2000; Berger and Loutre, 2002; EPICA Community Members, 2004). Sustained high atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, comparable to a mid-range CO2 stabilisation scenario, may lead to a complete melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet (Church et al., 2001) and further delay the onset of the next glacial period (Loutre and Berger, 2000; Archer and Ganopolski, 2005).

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

Flibble said:

Kawasicki said:

I think you are massively overestimating our scientific knowledge of how the climate functions. I think you should also do more reading.

So the answer is to throw our hands up and say, it's all chaotic so let's plan for nothing?

No, exactly the opposite. First, remain calm, the climate only appears chaotic, because of a huge lack of knowledge. We should continue to learn how our climate works, in an honest way, without political influence. We should look at what has happened in the past, and even if we don’t understand why certain changes occurred, we should expect similar changes in the future, and plan accordingly.

This sounds very much like, "I don't understand it therefore nobody does".

The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.

Your post sounds very much like “we have a robust understanding of our climate”. When did that happen?

Climate scientists have expected pretty much everything to happen, they have supported alarmism in both cooling and warming directions. No matter what actually happens in the future, there is a scientific theory in place to support it.

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

The science is quite clear. We are living in a relatively cool interglacial period, and the highest quality data we have indicates that the current rate of change of temperature is unremarkable.

Unless anyone can provide data to the contrary.

Human civilisation and agriculture didn't exist in previous interglacials, so what is the relevance of previous interglacials being warmer?

What is the relevance of your question? Humans live on planet earth. We should expect our climate to have periods of extremely rapid change, over large temperature amplitudes.

We evolved in previous interglacial periods. When life was tough, and much warmer than today.

Do you expect a constant climate?

The existence of human beings as a species is in no danger whatsoever AFAICS from climate change, and I don't know of any scientific body that claims it is. Thus the temperature of previous interglacials is utterly irrelevant AFAICS.

IIRC the Neanderthals were on their way to extinction before modern humans established themselves in Europe, they didn't survive into the interglacial.

Kawasicki said:

Do you expect a constant climate?

Of course I don't and you know perfectly well that I don't, so that is just cheap rhetoric, rather than a genuine scientific question. That sort of thing is best left to the politics thread.

So, what is the relevance of previous interglacials being warmer to the risks associated with current climate change, as for example set out by the IPCC reports?

Let me put it like this. I ask you to design a building in an earthquake prone area. In the last 40 years there has been 2 magnitude 4 earthquakes. 500, 1000 and 15000 years ago there were magnitude 9 earthquakes. Would you say the magnitude 9 earthquakes should be ignored because the area was not populated then, and nobody was injured?

My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.

You need to do more reading I think. There are reasons (or at least theories) why previous epochs have been different to the current one. Your reasoning appears to be that because those other climatic periods happened means we should expect those conditions to re-occur at any moment, like they're completely random and spontaneous events (like earthquakes). For instance the previous inter-glacial is thought to have been warmer than the current one due to the specific orbital cycles that created that interglacial period which were different to the orbital cycles that created the Holocene, so why should we expect temps to suddenly become like the previous inter-glacial? Similarly there are likely good reasons why the climate was so unstable during the last glacial period - reasons that no longer bear on the climate of the Holocene in the same way (eg. ice sheet dynamics).

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 23 March 15:50

I think you are massively overestimating our scientific knowledge of how the climate functions. I think you should also do more reading.

A rather empty comment. Try to be more substantial.

Earthquakes aren’t completely random/spontaneous. They may appear so, but that is just due to a lack of knowledge.

Ok, so you seem to think there are good reasons for major climatic changes, I agree, but I think we probably don’t understand the climate nearly as much as you seem to think we do. A quick question, a really easy one for knowledgeable climate scientists, no doubt...When does the next ice age begin?

That's a good question to ask, I recommend you look into it.

Here's a short paragraph from the IPCC AR4 on the matter:


6.4.1.8 When Will the Current Interglacial End?

There is no evidence of mechanisms that could mitigate the current global warming by a natural cooling trend. Only a strong reduction in summer insolation at high northern latitudes, along with associated feedbacks, can end the current interglacial. Given that current low orbital eccentricity will persist over the next tens of thousand years, the effects of precession are minimised, and extremely cold northern summer orbital configurations like that of the last glacial initiation at 116 ka will not take place for at least 30 kyr (Box 6.1). Under a natural CO2 regime (i.e., with the global temperature-CO2 correlation continuing as in the Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores), the next glacial period would not be expected to start within the next 30 kyr (Loutre and Berger, 2000; Berger and Loutre, 2002; EPICA Community Members, 2004). Sustained high atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, comparable to a mid-range CO2 stabilisation scenario, may lead to a complete melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet (Church et al., 2001) and further delay the onset of the next glacial period (Loutre and Berger, 2000; Archer and Ganopolski, 2005).

Great, interesting, but it doesn’t have the date I was looking for. I would have thought that was pretty easy to estimate for climate scientists. Basic stuff, surely?