|
Post by socold on Jan 25, 2010 22:34:28 GMT
glc, The point is that the temperatures of today, compared to ~100 years ago, are trivially different. If the temps were caused entirely by CO2, so what? AGW theory is not about whether or not CO2 is a ghg. AGW theory is about CO2 triggering a cascade of strong positive feedbacks that will cause a climate catastrophe. Since CO2 has in fact, according to the record, made strong swings in history and the climate has not had a runaway tipping point calamity, then there is no reason to believe this will happen during this time of allegedly higher CO2 levels. The 180ppm to 280ppm co2 swing in the ice core records was not even a doubling of co2. It was roughly a 50% increase. If a 50% increase in co2 causes as much as 3C warming, even that is only about half the warming that actually happened in the ice core records. So the ice core records do not disprove that kind of high effect. If you take that rate and quadruple co2 instead of doubling it, you get about 10C warming, which would indeed be a climate catastrophe. In otherwords the ice core records do not show that rising co2 will not result in a climate catastrophe.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 25, 2010 22:39:02 GMT
Chickens cannot lay eggs as they have been observed to hatch from them. Fortunately chickens are not the predominant driver in the system. . . .or we would be up to our eyebrows in chickens. Fortunately natural variation keeps them in check. Yet chickens lay eggs and rising co2 causes warming. Neither chickens coming from eggs or co2 rise following warming refutes either.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 26, 2010 0:55:25 GMT
Yet chickens lay eggs and rising co2 causes warming. Neither chickens coming from eggs or co2 rise following warming refutes either. True. . . . but you can pretty much rule out a 3 hundred foot tall chicken eating Tokyo.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jan 26, 2010 3:03:50 GMT
3C warming socold, where? Is this not the point we have a story of yes 50% increase in CO2 probably resulting largely from humans. We have seen fluctuations in temperatures most recently up and we then claim all the credit. Are the fluctuations in temperature over the last 50 years so different from the more distant past, I think not. We are a bunch of flagallents!
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jan 26, 2010 6:14:48 GMT
Yet chickens lay eggs and rising co2 causes warming. Neither chickens coming from eggs or co2 rise following warming refutes either. True. . . . but you can pretty much rule out a 3 hundred foot tall chicken eating Tokyo.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 26, 2010 11:28:24 GMT
Yet chickens lay eggs and rising co2 causes warming. Neither chickens coming from eggs or co2 rise following warming refutes either. True. . . . but you can pretty much rule out a 3 hundred foot tall chicken eating Tokyo. Could that really happen? Should we set up an authority to investigate the effect of human activity on giant chickens?
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Jan 26, 2010 13:23:05 GMT
True. . . . but you can pretty much rule out a 3 hundred foot tall chicken eating Tokyo. Could that really happen? Should we set up an authority to investigate the effect of human activity on giant chickens? Yes, we'll call it AGWC. Anthropogenic Giant Wild Chickens!
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jan 26, 2010 13:50:20 GMT
And the 3o temp increase did not destroy life on Earth. Since no one, realistically at least, is talking about a 400% increase in CO2, the fallacious linear claim you make about temperatures is moot. However I do find the claims that CO2 has not in fact increased as much as the consensus believes to be intriguing. Not convincing, but intriguing. We already know that CRU, GISS, the IPCC, and basically all players in the AGW promotion community, are perfectly willing to spin and mislead. Why not review the CO2 claims as well?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 26, 2010 22:20:06 GMT
And the 3o temp increase did not destroy life on Earth. Neither will the 3C+ warming we will cause, but I bet it will cause a lot of problems. If New York had been built in the last glacial maximum it would now be under 200 feet of water caused by global warming.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 26, 2010 22:47:24 GMT
And the 3o temp increase did not destroy life on Earth. Neither will the 3C+ warming we will cause, but I bet it will cause a lot of problems. If New York had been built in the last glacial maximum it would now be under 200 feet of water caused by global warming. That stuff happens all the time. Its normal variation. Probably the only reason we don't know what happened to the Western US giant ground sloth is the last bones of it are in indian campfires 300 feet below the surface of the water off the coast of California.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jan 26, 2010 22:50:39 GMT
however it is the goal of all in the AGW tent to set temperature stability as a target.
Talk about a natural global condition!
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jan 27, 2010 3:57:23 GMT
And the 3o temp increase did not destroy life on Earth. Neither will the 3C+ warming we will cause, but I bet it will cause a lot of problems. If New York had been built in the last glacial maximum it would now be under 200 feet of water caused by global warming. socold, That is easily the dumbest thing written, astrology included, on this blog. And in 20,000 years, the Sahara will be a fertile savanna. So what about the last glacial max? We would have built NY, NY someplace else. Do you think that someone will only permit people to build where we now build? In the last glacial max, SF bay was an estuary, and the golden gate was a great river outflow. And cypress swamps grew where the S. Texas barrier islands and scrub country are now. BFD.
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Jan 27, 2010 4:21:37 GMT
If New York had been built in the last glacial maximum it would have been on top of an ice sheet.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 27, 2010 15:45:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Jan 27, 2010 18:37:45 GMT
trbixler, this is a great thread to discuss the outing of bad temperature measurements and data bases, since they are the foundation of GISS/Hansen's claims about the temperature. Hansen, a guy who backs xenocidal terrorism in the name of climate and environment, should not be in charge of a ktchen skillet, much less something of value, but here he is, controlling the data, controlling the processing of the data, and deciding what it means.
|
|