So, sea level was 70 meters higher than today at a point 40 mya. 70 meters relative to what? The shape and positions of the continents are a little different than in the Eocene. Have you considered tectonic changes to the volume of the oceanic basins over this time? or have you assumed that this variable has remained constant. This would be a defensible assumption for the Late Quaternary, but not as far back as the Eocene. And, how is this relevant to a discussion of possible changes of a fraction of a meter over the next century?
The approximatley 6 meter higher stand above today’s level during latest Pleistocene is a more credible basis for discussion and comparison.

Can you give me a reference or a link for the “well-known correlation of CO2 concentration with the glacial cycles that dominated the Quaternary”. What came first, the chicken or the egg? Are you suggesting that the glaciation in the Quaternary has been contolled by CO2 concentration?

China: 90 years worth of energy from methane-ice, apparently. No idea what to believe. That story says it’s ‘better than letting it release through melting’ but would that be true? Burning it will produce co2 which is longer-lasting – and how much co2 would we be talking about from this project?

The emphasis on the short half life of methane seems a bit disingenuous to me. The stat cited is that methane has 23 times the GW power of CO2. But that is over a century. So even if this stuff is released over the period of a century, each molecule will have 23 times the power of a CO2 molecule.”

Over that time.

The numbers here are made up for illustration purposes and I don’t have a calculator to hand…

1000 Methane Molecules. 100 times the power of CO2 but halves in volume every year.

Year 1: 100,000
Year 1 + 2: 100,000 + 50,000
Year 1 + 2 + 3: 100,000 + 50,000 + 25,000
…

Total effect: 200,000 units.

1000 CO2 Molecules 1 times the power of CO2 but halves in volume every 200 years.

Year 1-200: 200,000
Year 1-400: 300,000
…

Total effect: 400,000 units.

Ergo, over 5 years, Methane is much greater than CO2. Over 500 years, CO2 is much greater than Methane.

Which no one has asserted. ”

Ergo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Magnetic flows cause sunspot lows, study shows

Newly reported observations of gas flows on the solar surface may explain why the sun recently had such an extended case of the doldrums.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/57180/title/Magnetic_flows_cause_sunspot_lows%2C_study_shows

I did, perhaps you missed the words “just a portion of”?

“which only proves that the average temperature is by no means a single valued function of CO2 concentration”

Which no one has asserted. Never the less, continued paleoclimate research shows that the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global average temperature continues to get stronger. The miocene is no longer the exception it once was, and now even the ordovician is not looking so anomalous.

The past can never be an exact analogue for the present and future because not all factors and conditions will be duplicated, but Richard Alley’s assertion that CO2 is the control knob is looking stronger and stronger.

If you’ll make the time to read Stefan’s paper here, the 2009 one, you’ll get a clue why your hobbyhorse is way inappropriate here: even if your group is right, much of the problem is at _this_ end of the time span.

Good ideas: putting off burning fossil fuel and possibly finding there isn’t that much to burn later
Bad idea: burning what we have as fast as we are regardless of the future, and that’s a bad idea even if we run out sooner than expected _because_ problem is rate of change. It’s _early_fast_burning_ we need to stop now.

Rate of change and timing of change.

And as jcrabb noted at #103 above, Shakhova puts the amount of carbon in these stores at 1,400 Gts.

Since David presented this is a very potent threat in his book, either he was overstating his case then or is understating it here. I think when it comes down to it the emotional impact of knowing we are at the precipice is too much for all of us. There are many reasons that many people have been unable to accept the overwhelming evidence of AGW, but emotional is a basic one, as it now seems to be here.

We are all denialists now.