At WUWT, one thing we pride ourselves in is helping visitors learn about the issues and the science, even if those visitors should already know what these things mean. Take for example, Michael Tobis proprietor of “Only In it for the Gold” and “Planet3.0”, both heavily pro-warming sites. Readers may remember Mr. Tobis from his famous F-word Fusillade.
Mike came to WUWT to ask a simple question, and of course, we are always happy to help him out.
Original comment asking to define “CAGW” here.
Honestly, I thought most everyone (especially the bloggers) in this debate knew this term, but apparently not. So, this post will make sure everyone does now.
CAGW is an abbreviation for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming
For more abbreviations, see our WUWT Glossary Page
Again, you should read up on Maurice Strong’s thoughts on the matter.
Babsy says:
February 2, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Dr. Zeebe stated in the commentary you cited that ‘a large mass of carbon was released into the Earth’s surface reservoirs, and and temperatures rose by 5-9 degrees C in a few thousand years’. How did he establish the carbon release was prior to the warming? We know that warming Diet Coke drives the CO2 out of solution. It is entirely possible that the carbon came before the warming(and he has no way of knowing) as he made several references to the uncertainty in the ‘proxies’ (the uncertainties are still significant)
My bad!! I meant to write “It is entirely possible that the carbon came” *AFTER* the warming…
re post by: Michael Tobis says: February 1, 2012 at 6:59 pm
I seriously doubt there is any reasonable scientific support for that claim. What is your basis for the statement?
Plus, as the 2011 fire was apparently started by trees falling on electrical lines which gave off sparks igniting dry grass and litter, where were the electrical lines to provide similar opportunity for fires over the past 10,000 years?
Rational Debate says (February 3, 2012 at 1:46 pm): “I seriously doubt there is any reasonable scientific support for that claim. What is your basis for the statement?”
I did a real quick search and found this about the Lost Pines Forest at Wikipedia:
“It is thought to have originated as part of a much larger pine forest that shrank in size during the last glacial period of the Pleistocene era.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Pines_Forest
Wiki says the Pleistocene ended about 12,000 years ago. This or something like it may be the basis of MT’s claim. Of course, the continued existence of the forest over millenia says nothing about how many times it burned down, partially or completely, and grew back. I doubt this particular forest has been investigated in enough detail to settle the issue, but it would be an unusual forest indeed to have gone 10,000 years without a major fire.
Fire and its use in managing loblolly pines:
http://www.forestencyclopedia.net/p/p160
Modern history of the Lost Pines Forest, including the factoid that loblolly pines live about 3-400 years:
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ryl04
So far MT’s claim seems to be the usual long-on-hype-but-short-on-facts climate alarmism.