CO₂ warms Earth FASTER than previously thought

Temperature rises before CO2

The report confirms that temperatures rise before CO2 rises. So us pumping out more CO2 and increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by tiny amounts is not causing any global rise in temperature.

Sounds more like something external to the Earth is causing the temperatures to rise and this is leading to a rise in CO2. Maybe that external factor is the SUN!

@ 90% of population lives near coast

They always have done. There's plenty of evidence for coastal settlements at various locations now a _long_ way underwater (~300 feet)

On an individual level, rising sea levels are an irritation, but people can always relocate.

Longer term they'll result in settlements being abandoned. See above.

Economically it's unlikely that there'll be much impact. Companies and infrastructure can also migrate, given enough warning (which they have). There are modern cities which _should_ be abandoned and some which are in the process of this being done. It's only a matter of time before New Orleans is lost.

The _real_ unknown is how food resources will be affected. Will enough land become arable to make up for areas lost to sea/desertification, etc. Will there be enough potable water to go around?

Population movements due to such events inthe past have resulted in warfare or local dieoffs. Whilst it's arguable that a malthusian dieback is necessary for survival as a species, history shows that any rapid drop in human population has been outweighed by a following growth spike as survivors breed to replace lost numbers.

Whatever happens, humans will survive. Civilisation will also survive, but not necessarily in current form.

I see that the Reg is suspiciously quiet about NASA's news on Greenland today.

Now wait just a ding-dong minute

I could have sworn that it was proven that CO2 *lags* warming in the atmosphere. Was that study disproved or officially ignored? Not flaming or trolling, I seriously want to know.

Like others have said I think this article is wrong. I've only read the paper's abstract but it seems to be about the lag between temperature and CO2 rise (in that order), and doesn't suggest that "CO2 warms Earth FASTER than previously thought"

Well okay once you go through the feedback warming -> co2 rise -> more warming then yes shortening the first arrow of causality will mean the end result (extra warming) happens sooner. But I think it's a stretch to focus on that and has no obvious bearing on the current CO2 rise which is a result of man, not natural.

CO2 v Water vapor

Why CO2 is irrelevant:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

So how this result invalidating anything about human-caused warming?

If anything, it means it's worse than we expected ... so the CO2 we're adding to the atmophere is likely to cause even more problems than the current models. It invalidates nothing about currently accepted climate research.

Lately there has been some other results (of course NOT reported in any of the one-sided non-scientific "science" reporting on this website) that have indicated that global warming effects have been worse than previously extrapolated, and that tipping point may very well be closer to the current levels, rather than what has been expected 30 years from now.

Even though the warming is worse than the models predicted, the reasons why it is worse are largely due to very difficult to model effects of melting tundra, glaciers, warming land, and oceans releasing additional amounts of methane, nitrous oxides, and dying forests burning away -- all of which make the problem worse, but until they start actually happening, it's rather difficult to calculate how much of a runaway feedback they have. It doesn't invalidate the science itself, as the warming effects HAVE happened pretty much as predicted (not that you would know this by reading anything on THIS website), but now that the warming is beginning to happen in a big way, the positive feedback effects are kicking in at a faster rate than predicted.

That doesn't invalidate the science, it just means that we need to learn more about the many different ways that rising temperatures create these frankly scary runaway effects.

Of course, the incredible heat wave and droughts in most of the US (and exceptional floods and droughts elsewhere) get no mention in this article, just snarky and rather unjustified critiques of well-accepted climate science.

CO2 likely lagged the increase in regional Antarctic temperature

"the increase in CO2 likely lagged the increase in regional Antarctic temperature by less than 400 yr and that even a short lead of CO2 over temperature cannot be excluded.”

They think that the CO2 increase may have occurred only 400 years after it got warmer, but the measurement error is high enough that they can't absolutely prove that the CO2 increase didn't occur before the warming. This is the first paper to cast any doubt on the accepted science that CO2 increases have lways lagged, that is came after warming, not the other way around. It doesn't cast much doubt: Essentially they are saying CO2 increase lagged warming by 400 Years +/- 400years.

This comment was probably inserted to avoid attack from warmists, so they could get their paper published: it just says "this doesn't absolutely disprove AGW."

In nature, CO2 increases always come after warming, as a result of the increase in living things: warming brings an explosion in life, generating more CO2.