Global Warming: Policy-Driven Deception

[BlackCat]

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.

Easy now, It's just my assesment of the facts, but try take a look at fig 5 and 7 on http://www-personal.umich.edu/~shaopeng/annurev00.pdf

I really dont care if it noticed in the paper - I just look at the data and make my own conclusions. To be honest, I'm a bit curious why the trend hadnø't been noticed since its obvious. This goes two ways - it could be disregarded due to "reason explained" or it could have been "worth further study". Well, neither has been chosen. It's actually a bit strange.

[Felch]

The planet won't just recover, it will probably be a lot better. During the Eocene the planet was a paradise, with temperate polar regions and the first fossil records of modern mammals like bats and primates. There will be short term dislocation, but I think that the end result will be a better world. Isn't it about time that we stop worrying about the short term benefits and look at the long term results?

[ricketyclik]

Yes, I can see what you mean. My guess is that the 17th was coming out of the little ice age, as were 18th and 19th but combined with a stepping up of international clearing for agriculture brought about by European colonialism and finally increases in both clearing and emissions resulting from the onset of the industrial revolution in late 1700's.

But I stress I don't know, I'm only guessing.

[ricketyclik]

The planet won't just recover, it will probably be a lot better. During the Eocene the planet was a paradise, with temperate polar regions and the first fossil records of modern mammals like bats and primates. There will be short term dislocation, but I think that the end result will be a better world. Isn't it about time that we stop worrying about the short term benefits and look at the long term results?

I've no doubt that in the long term the planet will be better off, but at the expense of an initial biomass crash - that means you, me and our kids Felch.

[BlackCat]

Yes, I can see what you mean. My guess is that the 17th was coming out of the little ice age, as were 18th and 19th but combined with a stepping up of international clearing for agriculture brought about by European colonialism and finally increases in both clearing and emissions resulting from the onset of the industrial revolution in late 1700's.

But I stress I don't know, I'm only guessing.

Beware padowan, the dark force don't want you to think

You say that way before CO2 could have an impact, humans stilll have such - please explain - I'm pretty sure that there are NO scientists that will say that humans had any influence before indu. (just to be clear, they actual could have, but noone know how).

[ricketyclik]

Beware padowan, the dark force don't want you to think

You say that way before CO2 could have an impact, humans stilll have such - please explain - I'm pretty sure that there are NO scientists that will say that humans had any influence before indu. (just to be clear, they actual could have, but noone know how).

There is an hypothesis that the old cycle of 2,000 years of relative balminess every 10,000 years or so during this glacial period in which we live was broken 10,000 years ago with the discovery of agriculture. The clearing involved might have been just enough to prevent tipping back into the usual cold, holding the balminess, resulting in the golden age of homo sapiens. This in turn resulted in the industrial revolution, and that progressed things beyond that golden equilibrium - a bit of a feedback loop in itself.

This links in with climatologists claiming earlier last century that were overdue for an ice age, and that the world was about to freeze.

[Kidlicious]

I've no doubt that in the long term the planet will be better off, but at the expense of an initial biomass crash - that means you, me and our kids Felch.

Felch has kids?!

[Wernazuma III]

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 ?

That's an inane statement. What do you try to say with "doubled"?:
1500: 300 Kelvin
1600: 600 K
1700: 1200K
...
2000: 9500K ?

What's with the LIA after the MWP? (oh, such abbr.s are fun)

[ricketyclik]

To be fair, BC is referring to temperature change, and in the reference he cites, it does seem to be there.

[HalfLotus]

Couple invests $60,000 in 'environmentally' friendly renovation, gets $20 carbon credit.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5625057e-1...nclick_check=1

Suckers!

[Berzerker]

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.

and a thicker atmosphere cuts down on skin cancers, cataracts, etc...

[ricketyclik]

and a thicker atmosphere cuts down on skin cancers, cataracts, etc...

Doesn't change the fact that it causes warming.

[notyoueither]

Turn up the heat! said Sam McGee.

[DaShi]

It's too hot. Pump some sulfur dioxide up there like that book said.

[Berzerker]

Doesn't change the fact that it causes warming.

I certainly hope so