Climate Koch up.

[pErvinalia]

Mistermack

You have a point, though I have to say it is a different point.

You asked about why CO2 rises in the past have followed temperature rise, and I explained that. What you have now raised is a quite different question, which is why, in the past, temperature rises have not continued.

I cannot give you a clear answer off the top of my head (though someone else may be able to).

Of course they can't. Some old conservative on the internet is right and the thousands of PhD's in climatology are wrong.

My best guess is that there is a negative feed-back mechanism that kicks in.

I'd suspect that this is the correct answer. Hopefully MacDoc will be along soon to clear this up.

[pErvinalia]

Or perhaps this hypothetical feedback mechanism works in direct proportion to the heating trend? Perhaps this is all a big case of 'maybe', 'perhaps', and what we really need to do is stop panicking and do some science.

I don't get you. You are a rational liberal in everything but this. You want people to do some science?!? What the fuck do you think they are doing now? This isn't a media beatup (it's massively undersold in the media) nor is it a one world government conspiracy. The best science is telling us that there is a good chance of serious climate disruption and attendant disruptions to ecosystem services and food production systems. THE ONLY SMART THING TO DO in a case like this - i.e. where the potential downsides are so serious - is to act as if it is going to occur. Fucken internet armchair experts shit me up the wall. Go and read the actual scientific reports, and then ask yourselves how you can be a rational person in most aspects of your lives, yet when it comes to global warming, it's all of a sudden give yourselves a temporary frontal lobotomy. Fuck.

[pErvinalia]

Mistermack

We have very good modern confirmation in the Space Age of how CO2 affects the atmosphere. Measurements from space tell us how much infra red is emitted from the moon, and measurements from the ground show a lot less infra red. The difference is fully consistent with the degree of infra red that CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb. We have direct measures of increases of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and we can calculate how much extra heat is retained from that level. It is all quite consistent with observed global warming.

AGW is not something that scientists dreamed up. It is the result of vast amounts of research, and is something that all experts in this field agree on. They do sometimes disagree on details, but the overall cause and development of AGW is universally accepted by climate scientists.

No way man. It's a UN-NWO one world government conspiracy. Obama and the Joos (and the Marxists - for Seth). They're all in on it. Mistermack knows though. Thank god for armchair warriors. Where would we be without them?

[pErvinalia]

The greenhouse gas changes in the glacial/interglacial periods was quite small. The greenhouse gas changes in the past 150 years has been massive.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... 4-1-1.html

I quote :

"The average rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 was at least five times larger over the period from 1960 to 1999 than over any other 40-year period during the two millennia before the industrial era. The average rate of increase in atmospheric CH4 was at least six times larger, and that for N2O at least two times larger over the past four decades, than at any time during the two millennia before the industrial era."

The planet may not be greatly responsive to CO2, but when we boost CO2, NH4, and N2O levels to the massive level we have recently, there is a response.

On the sun.
Changes in solar output do, in fact, cause climate variations. This is clearly seen in sunspot cycles, when warming is a result of more solar activity. However, solar activity drops as well as increases. Overall, over the past 150 years, solar activity on average has not increased, and as such has not boosted warmth.

"Two millennia?" Meh. Get back to me in 200 million years.

Nothing wrong with growing tomatoes in Siberia, nothing at all. The discovery of sub-tropical fossil vegetation in the high arctic demonstrates that it's been much, much warmer and yet life continues and flourishes even in a tropical climate.

You are an idiot. How many times does it have to be explained to you that it is the RATE OF CHANGE that is most critical here?

[Seth]

The greenhouse gas changes in the glacial/interglacial periods was quite small. The greenhouse gas changes in the past 150 years has been massive.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... 4-1-1.html

I quote :

"The average rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 was at least five times larger over the period from 1960 to 1999 than over any other 40-year period during the two millennia before the industrial era. The average rate of increase in atmospheric CH4 was at least six times larger, and that for N2O at least two times larger over the past four decades, than at any time during the two millennia before the industrial era."

The planet may not be greatly responsive to CO2, but when we boost CO2, NH4, and N2O levels to the massive level we have recently, there is a response.

On the sun.
Changes in solar output do, in fact, cause climate variations. This is clearly seen in sunspot cycles, when warming is a result of more solar activity. However, solar activity drops as well as increases. Overall, over the past 150 years, solar activity on average has not increased, and as such has not boosted warmth.

"Two millennia?" Meh. Get back to me in 200 million years.

Nothing wrong with growing tomatoes in Siberia, nothing at all. The discovery of sub-tropical fossil vegetation in the high arctic demonstrates that it's been much, much warmer and yet life continues and flourishes even in a tropical climate.

You are an idiot. How many times does it have to be explained to you that it is the RATE OF CHANGE that is most critical here?

So, we'll grow tomatoes in Siberia in the next decade.

Adapt or die.

[Seth]

Oh look, the IPCC fucked up...again:

Environment
Leaked Draft of U.N. Climate Report Suggests Two Decades of Overestimated Global Warming
Jan. 29, 2013 9:30pm Jason Howerton

global-warming-ar5-model-b-620x348.jpg (26.94 KiB) Viewed 368 times

Leaked Draft of U.N. Climate Report Suggests Two Decades of Overestimated Global Warming

(Source: FoxNews.com)

A preliminary draft of a report by the U.N’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was leaked to the public earlier this month and now climate change skeptics are arguing it shows evidence of 20 years of global warming overestimation.

Someone involved with the U.N.’s IPCC review process reportedly leaked the draft and made it available for download online. The report shows that each of the four temperature models the U.N. body has published since 1990 has overestimated the rise in temperature on planet Earth. The report wasn’t actually supposed to be released until 2014.

“Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.

“Their predictions have largely failed, four times in a row… what that means is that it’s time for them to re-evaluate,” he added.

More from Fox News.com:

The IPCC graph shows that the midpoints of the various models predicted that the world would warm by between about 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit and 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit between 1990 and 2012. Actual warming was much less than that: 0.28 F, according the data the IPCC cites.

But that doesn’t mean the IPCC models are wrong, others argue.

“It’s important to keep in mind that there are natural short-term variations in global temperature that happen right alongside human-induced warming,” Aaron Huertas, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, told FoxNews.com.

[…]

The IPCC’s climate report draft also notes that “the model projections … do not fully account for natural variability.”

However, skeptics like Spencer caution that the chart from the report doesn’t mean global warming is a hoax.

“The IPCC’s claim is that they are 90 percent sure that humans have ‘contributed to’ the observed warming. Hell, even I would agree with that innocuous statement,” he said.

The indication, he explained, is that “CO2 is not nearly as strong a climate driver as the IPCC has been assuming.”

“This is the possibility they do not allow to be considered, because it would end all of their policy-changing goals,” he said.

Derp!...

[Blind groper]

Seth

If you look a bit closer to that graph, you may note that all the predictions had error bars attached, and the actual warming was within the margin of error. Not quite, as you call it, a "fuck up."

[pErvinalia]

The greenhouse gas changes in the glacial/interglacial periods was quite small. The greenhouse gas changes in the past 150 years has been massive.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... 4-1-1.html

I quote :

"The average rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 was at least five times larger over the period from 1960 to 1999 than over any other 40-year period during the two millennia before the industrial era. The average rate of increase in atmospheric CH4 was at least six times larger, and that for N2O at least two times larger over the past four decades, than at any time during the two millennia before the industrial era."

The planet may not be greatly responsive to CO2, but when we boost CO2, NH4, and N2O levels to the massive level we have recently, there is a response.

On the sun.
Changes in solar output do, in fact, cause climate variations. This is clearly seen in sunspot cycles, when warming is a result of more solar activity. However, solar activity drops as well as increases. Overall, over the past 150 years, solar activity on average has not increased, and as such has not boosted warmth.

"Two millennia?" Meh. Get back to me in 200 million years.

Nothing wrong with growing tomatoes in Siberia, nothing at all. The discovery of sub-tropical fossil vegetation in the high arctic demonstrates that it's been much, much warmer and yet life continues and flourishes even in a tropical climate.

You are an idiot. How many times does it have to be explained to you that it is the RATE OF CHANGE that is most critical here?

So, we'll grow tomatoes in Siberia in the next decade.

Fail.

Adapt or die.

Social Darwinism. Nazi.

And besides, why not adapt our societies and politics and not die? Wouldn't that be a better solution?

[FBM]

rEv, this is a reminder that this post: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1371533 contains a personal attack on another member in violation of the rules. Please refrain from attacking fellow members and limit your attacks to their ideas that you disagree with. Any subsequent violations may result in further staff action. Thank you.

[pErvinalia]

Geez, I'm racking them up lately! Ok, time for me to get less cranky...

[FBM]

Nothing wrong on bashing ideas, of course, but please be gentle with us fellow hoomuns.

[mistermack]

Well, of course the Sunlight levels affect the climate. It happens every night. But the Milankovitch hypothesis is jut that. It has as many problems as evidence for.
So basically, the cores show NO effect of CO2 levels, in fact it shows that the climate regularly goes in the opposite direction. The TINY milankovitch effect, even if you ignore the problems with it, shouldn't negate the CO2 effect.

On the sun.
Changes in solar output do, in fact, cause climate variations. This is clearly seen in sunspot cycles, when warming is a result of more solar activity. However, solar activity drops as well as increases. Overall, over the past 150 years, solar activity on average has not increased, and as such has not boosted warmth.[/

Variations in total solar irradiance were too small to detect with technology available before the satellite era......There are no direct measurements of the longer-term variation, and interpretations of proxy measures of variations differ.

So I don't know where you got your fact from.

"Two millennia?" Meh. Get back to me in 200 million years.

Nothing wrong with growing tomatoes in Siberia, nothing at all. The discovery of sub-tropical fossil vegetation in the high arctic demonstrates that it's been much, much warmer and yet life continues and flourishes even in a tropical climate.

I think you'll find that continental drift was mainly responsible for that kind of thing.

[Seth]

The greenhouse gas changes in the glacial/interglacial periods was quite small. The greenhouse gas changes in the past 150 years has been massive.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... 4-1-1.html

I quote :

"The average rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 was at least five times larger over the period from 1960 to 1999 than over any other 40-year period during the two millennia before the industrial era. The average rate of increase in atmospheric CH4 was at least six times larger, and that for N2O at least two times larger over the past four decades, than at any time during the two millennia before the industrial era."

The planet may not be greatly responsive to CO2, but when we boost CO2, NH4, and N2O levels to the massive level we have recently, there is a response.

On the sun.
Changes in solar output do, in fact, cause climate variations. This is clearly seen in sunspot cycles, when warming is a result of more solar activity. However, solar activity drops as well as increases. Overall, over the past 150 years, solar activity on average has not increased, and as such has not boosted warmth.

"Two millennia?" Meh. Get back to me in 200 million years.

Nothing wrong with growing tomatoes in Siberia, nothing at all. The discovery of sub-tropical fossil vegetation in the high arctic demonstrates that it's been much, much warmer and yet life continues and flourishes even in a tropical climate.

You are an idiot. How many times does it have to be explained to you that it is the RATE OF CHANGE that is most critical here?

So, we'll grow tomatoes in Siberia in the next decade.

Fail.

What, don't you like tomatoes? How about bacon? We can raise hogs in Yellowknife.

Adapt or die.

Social Darwinism.

Yeah? So what? I thought you "rationalists" were all scientific and junk and understood that Darwinism is good for the species. Letting the weak and genetically inferior die off because they cannot adapt to a changing climate is natural good sense. What's crazy is artificially supporting the genetically inferior and diseased and ALLOWING THEM TO BREED more dependent-class mouths to feed. That just debases the currency of the human genome.

Now, I'm not one for eugenics or genocide, but if nature takes out the weak of the species because they cannot adapt, well, so be it. After all, since there's no God and no such thing as absolute morality, and since "nature" and "science" rule every thought you have, how could you possibly rationally object to allowing the genetically inferior to die off as nature intends?

Or are you just another hypocrite?

Nazi.

Pimply-faced basement-dwelling underpants-wearing dweeb.

And besides, why not adapt our societies and politics and not die? Wouldn't that be a better solution?

Nah. I'm not going to die just because the ski industry in Colorado ceases to exist, and I don't give a fuck about idiots who live in Bangladesh or New Orleans because if you're too stupid to move out of the flood plain or above sea level, then you deserve whatever happens to you.

And why "adapt" anything at all when there is no proof that we're doing anything that's causing the alleged "problem" and even less proof that if we are, anything that we can possibly do will have exactly zero effect on preventing what's allegedly occurring from occurring anyway?

Adapting our societies and politics is not about preventing "global climate change" it's about one-world government taking control of the economy and people of the entire planet, and I'd rather the entire human race die of thirst in agony leaving a dessicated and lifeless planet than allow global socialism to take hold.

[pErvinalia]

You didn't even mention Marxists in that post. Although you did more than make up for it with mention of the "one-world government".

[FBM]

The Problem with Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism's philosophical problems are rather daunting, and fatal to it as a basic theory (though some have applied similar ideas). First, it makes the faulty assumption that what is natural is equivalent to what is morally correct. In other words, it falls prey to the belief that just because something takes place in nature, it must be a moral paradigm for humans to follow.
This problem in Social Darwinist thinking stems from the fact that the theory falls into the "naturalistic fallacy", which consists of trying to derive an ought statement from an is statement. For example, the fact that you stubbed your toe this morning does not logically imply that you ought to have stubbed your toe! The same argument applies to the Social Darwinists' attempt to extend natural processes into human social structures. This is a common problem in philosophy, and it is commonly stated that it is absolutely impossible to derive ought from is (though this is still sometimes disputed); at the very least, it is impossible to do it so simply and directly as the Social Darwinists did. (See also Evolution and Ethics.)

Social Darwinism vs. Darwinism

Many negative reactions to Darwinism come from the confusion of Darwinism as a scientific theory with Social Darwinism as an ethical theory. In reality, the two have very little in common, aside from their name and a few basic concepts, which Social Darwinists misapplied. Unfortunately, much of today's opposition to the application of Darwinian thinking to human behavior comes from a fear of Social Darwinism and its implications for many of today's moral codes. However, Social Darwinism in its basic (and extremist) forms are based on a logical fallacy, and do not really follow from Darwinian thinking in any way.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml