The real climate change catastrophe

[sandy whitelinger]

Yes, yes. That's very old news, and perhaps all the more worrisome given the "unprecedented" CO2 levels in hundreds of millenia of findings.
Link --> RealClimate: What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
2nd link --> CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

I've read similar stuff.

 

[Alceste]

You imprecations do nothing to increase your relevance. The data presented on long-term temperature readings comes from the Goddard Institute. Do you have a problem with them?

You still have not cited the professional or body of professionals who has interpreted the historical climate data for you, or clarified how you are qualified to interpret the data yourself. Instead you linked to the website of an unqualified, unpublished (in a peer-reviewed journal) and deceased professional naysayer funded by the Heartland Institute.

It isn't MY relevance you should be concerned about. It is the professional qualifications and potential conflicts of interest of those who interpret scientific data for laymen like yourself.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I've read similar stuff.

and?.....:sarcastic

 

[Alceste]

Follow back. Arctic ice cores show that temperature started to rise before CO2 levels rose. This suggested a different cause vs. effect scenario.

The CO2 / climate feedback loop is not in dispute. At about 2 to 3 degrees of warming, it is expected that the thawing tundra and the sea will release enormous quantities of methane into the atmosphere, thus kicking off a rising climate spiral that will be impossible to mitigate. This is the entire reason such drastic emissions reduction measures are being advocated. At 2 degrees, our window of opportunity to have any impact is extremely small, and the need to act is pressing.

Again, I'd like you to provide your sources. In particular, where did you get the idea that there is any doubt in the climate science community as to the interplay between, CO2 concentration, warming temperatures and positive feedback loops?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

and?.....:sarcastic

I'm still reading.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You still have not cited the professional or body of professionals who has interpreted the historical climate data for you, or clarified how you are qualified to interpret the data yourself. Instead you linked to the website of an unqualified, unpublished (in a peer-reviewed journal) and deceased professional naysayer funded by the Heartland Institute.

It isn't MY relevance you should be concerned about. It is the professional qualifications and potential conflicts of interest of those who interpret scientific data for laymen like yourself.

Wasn't this thread's op based on questioning the validity of the consensus of professionals?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The CO2 / climate feedback loop is not in dispute. At about 2 to 3 degrees of warming, it is expected that the thawing tundra and the sea will release enormous quantities of methane into the atmosphere, thus kicking off a rising climate spiral that will be impossible to mitigate. This is the entire reason such drastic emissions reduction measures are being advocated. At 2 degrees, our window of opportunity to have any impact is extremely small, and the need to act is pressing.

Yet it is the cause of warming that is being called into question not the mechanics of it.

 

[Alceste]

Yet it is the cause of warming that is being called into question not the mechanics of it.

No, the cause of the current warming trend is not in question, and neither is the mechanics of it. The exact details* are disputed within the community of qualified professionals, which is exactly as it should be. This shows the peer review process is working as it should. The "mechanics" of CO2 concentrations, atmospheric temperature, ocean acidity, the release of methane trapped in tundra and the sea floor, etc. are well understood, and all the data you linked to contributes to the evidence that they are understood correctly.

* (does the feedback loop kick in at 2 degrees or 2.2? When calculating how much methane results from agricultural activities should we include deforestation or not? Are our instruments working properly? etc.)

 

[Alceste]

Wasn't this thread's op based on questioning the validity of the consensus of professionals?

Based on what? The consensus of Exxon-Mobil ad men?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

BTW - what you are doing by questioning everything and denying the 100% truth is, though very agnostic, quite annoying. you cant prove someone else's argument is void by simple assalting them with possibilities and questions. you seam like one of those screamers that are very stubborn and confuse their lack of understanding for prove of fault. we all make up our own minds though, i guess.

Not at all. I've just begun to seriously study this. I'm working under a few premises. One is based on my part experience that when I seriously study something I often come to a different understanding than what is presented. Two, by asking if people have looked into a contratrian presentation of the conclusions I'm wondering if people are just blindly accepting what is presented, in all aspects of this situation, cause, effect and control.

By asking if others have seriously looked into this I'm probing for their understanding of the situation and what it's based on. It is amusing to see people's varied reaction to this based on their own misunderstanding of my unstated positions.

One of the reasons I'm looking for someone who might be closer to the data is to save me time in my research. For example a friend of mine was involved in a twenty year research project concerning the effect of mercury on development ranging from unborn to adulthood. His findings, to everyone's involved utter surprise was that all of the information on what levels of mercury cause harm was basically wrong. Do I implicitally trust science, no. Do I do my own research, yes. Do i come to my own conclusions, yes.

Do I tend to disregard people who assume superior and condescending attitudes, surely.

 

[Alceste]

Do I tend to disregard people who assume superior and condescending attitudes, surely.

ORLY. Tell me, how does one go about disregarding oneself?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Yes, yes. That's very old news, and perhaps all the more worrisome given the "unprecedented" CO2 levels in hundreds of millenia of findings.
Link --> RealClimate: What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
2nd link --> CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Something I don't see in here is an explanation of why temperatures began to fall while CO2 levels remained higher. The explanation that warming caused a CO2 emmision that then sustained itself due to levels of CO2 seems to contradict this phenomonon. Any explanation?

And to call current findings "unprecedented is disengenuous. Past CO2 readings have been 10%-14% to 1,000% higher during glaciation periods.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

ORLY. Tell me, how does one go about disregarding oneself?

Good one. It's a lot easier to disregard another though.

 

[Alceste]

Still no sources, I can't help noticing.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Still no sources, I can't help noticing.

I'm not your nanny.

 

[Gunfingers]

Try that in court some time.

"Where were you the night of the murders?"
"I was two states in a rocket car at the circus."
"Can you provide documentation corroborating this?"
"I'm not your nanny!"

It's no one else's job to prove your point for you.

 

[Alceste]

I'm not your nanny.

Totally different context. You're demanding sources from everybody else to prove they have thought things through and researched the subject. To refuse to meet your own demands is hypocrisy. I DID give you some sources eventually, and you are still waffling. Why is that? Is it because you haven't actually looked into the issue at all, beyond googling up some dodgy websites that appear to support your preconceptions?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Something I don't see in here is an explanation of why temperatures began to fall while CO2 levels remained higher. The explanation that warming caused a CO2 emmision that then sustained itself due to levels of CO2 seems to contradict this phenomonon. Any explanation?

I don't know. I'm sure that if you could create something that would destroy/suck up all the CO2 in the atmosphere, then you will be a very, VERY rich individual, as will be your great, great, great grandchildren.

And to call current findings "unprecedented is disengenuous. Past CO2 readings have been 10%-14% to 1,000% higher during glaciation periods.

They are called unprecedented in the last 420,000 years per the Vostok ice cores.
Actually, a recent article suggested that current levels are unprecedented in the last 2.1 million years. Link --> Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration Across the Mid-Pleistocene Transition -- Hönisch et al. 324 (5934): 1551 -- Science
Others have suggested ....unprecedented in the last 15 million years.

But the bottom line is two-fold.
1. at those CO2 levels the global temps were very significantly higher than now (and no, that's not a good thing), and the sea levels were also much higher (also NOT a good thing).....and the biosphere of the Earth had millions of years to adapt (evolve) in those conditions, to produce viable plants and animals. We may have only decades or 1-2 centuries (and that is VERY bad).
2. Unlike the right-wing alarmists (Yes. they are the fear-mongers :yes: not the GW advocates) the realists (i.e. left-wing moonbats)tend to be much more fact oriented. We are not talking about a global fire-storm that will burn life from the surface of the Earth.
Even the most extreme of realists will tell you that the worst case scenario is a few to a score degree centigrade alteration. HOWEVER, that will mean subtler yet VERY SIGNIFICANT changes on a global scale.
Consider: The vast majority of the human population of the Earth is currently housed within 20 vertical feet of the current sea-level. - Where are they going to move to?
Crop plants, and therefore farm animals too, lumbar producing forests, etc... are very sensitive to a few degree temperature change carried out over an entire year. As are the populations of plant diseases and insect infestations. -- What will happen when 10%, 20%, or even 50% crop failures start to occur? What will happen when the wheat belt moves from the central U.S. to central Canada? When the optimal growing conditions move from central China up into Siberia?

If you stop thinking like Limbaugh, that GW advocates are predicting flaming death to the whole world. :areyoucra :slap: But instead start seeing the problem in terms of MASSIVE refugee movements. Extensive warfare over decades for optimal living, crop-growing lands. Widespread droughts. Mass extinctions. etc...etc... Then you are starting to grasp the real problems here.

I'm not your nanny.

...
It's no one else's job to prove your point for you.

:clap Sorry Sandy. If you are going to make claims, then you have to back them up. Particularly when you are making claims contrary to many scientific papers shown to refute your viewpoint.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Here's a fun link. Check out historical global temperatures for yourself.

sandy there's a ton of nonsense on the internet and you know it. You can't just post any link to any guy's personal website and expect anyone to waste their time looking at it, no matter how many cool animations or colorful texts litter the page.

FYI it has been well-documented, but it is not yet well-known, that corporations set up false "grassroots" websites. Read the Wall Street Journal article about angryrenter.com (I believe it was 2007).

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Try that in court some time.

"Where were you the night of the murders?"
"I was two states in a rocket car at the circus."
"Can you provide documentation corroborating this?"
"I'm not your nanny!"

It's no one else's job to prove your point for you.

It's your resposibility to pay attention though.