Global Warming: Policy-Driven Deception

[BlackCat]

OK, firstly, show me the figures that show that, as I haven't seen anything that suggests that to be true, beyond the fact that there was a warm period in the Middle Ages, a cooler one in the 1600's - 1800's, and then warmer in the 20th century.

Ehrmn, you claim that you have read what I have given links to - then, how can you ask such a question ? I even told you where to look.

[Spinko]

However, the educated guess remains the best we have, and as such ought to be at least considered. It is interesting that temperature rise in the second half of the 20th century has tracked the upper envelope of GCM predictions almost exactly in timing and magnitude.

Can you point me to a link about these 1940s GCMs?

(Predictions generally have to be made before the event, not after. )I can predict the stock market very well by the way in the 20th century using my tortured collection of random data.

[Spinko]

Furthermore, of the dozen or so significant feedback loop discoveries over the last 20 years that I'm aware of, only one was negative (I can't recall which one that was at the mo'). This is in line with paleological findings - temperature increases and declines tend to be self-perpetuating, until an outside perturbation changes their direction.

Why do neither El Ninos nor La Ninas set off these catastrophic feedbacks?

[BlackCat]

Furthermore, of the dozen or so significant feedback loop discoveries over the last 20 years that I'm aware of, only one was negative (I can't recall which one that was at the mo'). This is in line with paleological findings - temperature increases and declines tend to be self-perpetuating, until an outside perturbation changes their direction.

Ouch, missed this. Vostok shows that CO2 follows temp rising and that CO2 apparently doensn't have an effect on the temperature drop that follows certain maximums.

[ricketyclik]

Ehrmn, you claim that you have read what I have given links to - then, how can you ask such a question ? I even told you where to look.

I only claimed to have read http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm. I'm not that interested in arguments about what temperatures have actually been in recent history, as the main point is that GG concentration up = temp up.

[ricketyclik]

Can you point me to a link about these 1940s GCMs?

(Predictions generally have to be made before the event, not after. )I can predict the stock market very well by the way in the 20th century using my tortured collection of random data.

No, and you know full well I'm referring to the 90's and 00's. You're just being specious. No more replies to such.

[ricketyclik]

Why do neither El Ninos nor La Ninas set off these catastrophic feedbacks?

The El Nino La Nina phenomenon is local variation within a larger timescale, part of natural, cyclical variation around the current norm, not what we're discussing here.

[ricketyclik]

Ouch, missed this. Vostok shows that CO2 follows temp rising and that CO2 apparently doensn't have an effect on the temperature drop that follows certain maximums.

In some instances temperature increases have been shown to occur before rises in CO2. What you have stated above in fact proves the point that once a direction is established the carbon cycle tends to become a positive feedback loop, until something outside that system changes the direction.

In this particular instance (now) as with many climate changes in the past, we are instigating a major climate change by way of a significant upheaval of the carbon cycle. In terms of timescales, we are generating our own meteorite strike.

[BlackCat]

I only claimed to have read http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm. I'm not that interested in arguments about what temperatures have actually been in recent history, as the main point is that GG concentration up = temp up.

Honestly, beliving such is quite close to this - a scientist from a newly discovered tribe in the amazon that have no clue about the rest of the world have discovered that cars cant make rigt/left turns unless the driver has activated the right/left bulb. Evidence shows clearly that vehichles cant make a turn unless this particular bulb is turned on. Evidence that vehicles has done turns even withouot proper signs can be considered as faults in the bulb - cases where movement has been different than that the bulb says mys be considered ancdotial.

If you don't know what has happened in the past, then how can you say anything about the present ? Cliamte has changed with way larger amounts previously than it's doing now, so how is it that current changes is special ?

[ricketyclik]

Honestly, beliving such is quite close to this - a scientist from a newly discovered tribe in the amazon that have no clue about the rest of the world have discovered that cars cant make rigt/left turns unless the driver has activated the right/left bulb. Evidence shows clearly that vehichles cant make a turn unless this particular bulb is turned on. Evidence that vehicles has done turns even withouot proper signs can be considered as faults in the bulb - cases where movement has been different than that the bulb says mys be considered ancdotial.

If you don't know what has happened in the past, then how can you say anything about the present ? Cliamte has changed with way larger amounts previously than it's doing now, so how is it that current changes is special ?

Let me repeat: The basic science - thermodynamics and meteorology - shows that GG up = temp up. This is just straight physics. You can't get past that.

No one claims that climate hasn't changed in the past or for other reasons, or at greater scales. What the paleological record does show is that if you get a large change in climate - similar to the one forecast due to our emissions - over a very short time scale you get a dramatic drop in biomass.

As for your analogy, you are guilty of it yourself; you are saying because other things change climate, greenhouse gas concentration doesn't. This is flawed logic.

[ricketyclik]

No, and you know full well I'm referring to the 90's and 00's. You're just being specious. No more replies to such.

OK, I was overstepping here and I admit it. The GCM's did NOT forecast the whole second half of the 20th century, they only showed that, within their parameters, if you added the GG you got a match with the rise, and, furthermore, the high end results obtained in the late 80s and early 90s match the outcomes of the 90s and 00s.

[ricketyclik]

ricketyclik, you haven't really answered my question - since 1500 the temperature has risen and has doubled each century - wich mechanism is behind this ? Secondly, this raise goes into the latest century - how can you dismiss this mechanism and say that CO2 is the only source ?

OK, I've had a quick look through you links and I can't see where it's stated that since 1500 the temperature has risen and doubled each century.

Once again, let me underline this point: I am NOT saying that CO2 is the only source. Nor, to my knowledge, is anyone else. This is a strawman technique first dreamed up by Exxon Mobil, similar to their statement that "But CO2 is good, it makes plants grow".

[Felch]

CO2 is good, and it does make plants grow.

I believe that slightly higher temperatures and increased CO2 will be for the long term benefit of the biosphere. Simple biology teaches me that.

[DaShi]

O2 is good for animals. If we had more O2 perhaps it could help some endangered species recover.

[ricketyclik]

CO2 is good, and it does make plants grow.

I believe that slightly higher temperatures and increased CO2 will be for the long term benefit of the biosphere. Simple biology teaches me that.

Oh dear

Yes it is. So is ozone, in the ozone layer. Drinking too much water will kill you, but does anyone suggest you should steer clear of it?

What is at issue here Felch, is that sudden, dramatic increase in CO2 = sudden, dramatic increase in temperature, and from that, dramatic shifts in climatic patterns, leading to the breakdown of existing ecosystems. Yes, some plants that aren't impacted by temperature, rainfall change, disease or insect changes will grow faster, and yes, ultimately the ecosphere will recover, but during the intervening several thousands of years?

We will be in big, big trouble trying to feed ourselves, combating disease spread, population displacements and severe weather events.