How bad could climate become?

[Katzndogz]

How bad?

Let's see. The Sahara Desert used to be a wooded savannah. The Ice Age killed most of life on earth. The Medieval Warm Period got pretty warm, it enabled exploration to expand. Agriculture started on previously ice bound areas.

None of that had anything to do with polluting the atmosphere and activities of mankind. So, whatever the climate does, it has nothing to do with us.

No, the ice age did not kill most of the life on earth. In fact, the last period of extinction, not counting the ongoing extinction event, took place when there was a very rapid climate change, the Younger Dryas, warm to cold, 12.9 thousand years ago, and cold to warm, 11.6 thousand years ago.

What Caused the Younger Dryas Cold Event?

This was especially true on the North American continent. We lost all of the mammoths and mastodons, in North America, horses, camels, and a couple of specie of bison.

As for your other rather idiotic arguement, since nobody was killed by a gun prior to 500 AD, guns cannot kill you.

Guns are not a natural, repeated, cyclical occurrence. Warming and cooling IS.

 

[Whereisup]

A couple of additional points.

One reason climate change is difficult to predict is that it is impossible to predict what people and nations will decide to do. Everyone might reduce energy use, or a really large number of wind and solar power facilities might be built, or not.

The heating effect of CO2 in the atmosphere for the most part isn't a prediction from history.

The amount of heat a volume of air retains with changing amounts of CO2 is actually measured in the laboratory. That very precise data is then is that of how the increasing heat retained as CO2 increases will affect the climate. There are very complex computer models. Then, to be safe, scientists issue a public prediction on the conservative, low side.

The boiling pot analogy leads to a prediction that sometimes places would be colder than normal because the air in the atmosphere would be on average moving more quickly, so sometimes cold air would be blown further south than when the air was moving less quickly.

For practical purposes, however, it is averages which count.

Jim

 

[westwall]

Fact:
A rise in CO2 follows a rise in temperature, not the other way around.

Fact: You fail hard at logic, making the stupid assumption that the present must act like the past, even if conditions are wildly different now.

But then, we've learned not to expect common sense from any denialist, as they can only parrot the dogma of their fringe political cult. Once you see someone ranting about the socialist menace, you know 100% that you're dealing with a cultist.

When a gas increases it's temperature it can hold more elements in it such as oxygen, CO2 water vapor etc.

Um ... you think oxygen and CO2 levels go up with temp? Wow.

Look up the PRINCIPLE OF UNIFORMITARIANISM sometime. It is a foundational axiom of science.

 

[westwall]

How bad?

Let's see. The Sahara Desert used to be a wooded savannah. The Ice Age killed most of life on earth. The Medieval Warm Period got pretty warm, it enabled exploration to expand. Agriculture started on previously ice bound areas.

None of that had anything to do with polluting the atmosphere and activities of mankind. So, whatever the climate does, it has nothing to do with us.

No, the ice age did not kill most of the life on earth. In fact, the last period of extinction, not counting the ongoing extinction event, took place when there was a very rapid climate change, the Younger Dryas, warm to cold, 12.9 thousand years ago, and cold to warm, 11.6 thousand years ago.

What Caused the Younger Dryas Cold Event?

This was especially true on the North American continent. We lost all of the mammoths and mastodons, in North America, horses, camels, and a couple of specie of bison.

As for your other rather idiotic arguement, since nobody was killed by a gun prior to 500 AD, guns cannot kill you.

What ongoing extinction event there olfraud? How many NEW species have been discovered in that last 5 years? C'mon, don't be coy...how many? Extinction events are the opposite of new species being discovered. Species die out at a prodigious rate in a extinction event. How many species have provably gone extinct in the last 100 years?

 

[westwall]

A couple of additional points.

One reason climate change is difficult to predict is that it is impossible to predict what people and nations will decide to do. Everyone might reduce energy use, or a really large number of wind and solar power facilities might be built, or not.

The heating effect of CO2 in the atmosphere for the most part isn't a prediction from history.

The amount of heat a volume of air retains with changing amounts of CO2 is actually measured in the laboratory. That very precise data is then is that of how the increasing heat retained as CO2 increases will affect the climate. There are very complex computer models. Then, to be safe, scientists issue a public prediction on the conservative, low side.

The boiling pot analogy leads to a prediction that sometimes places would be colder than normal because the air in the atmosphere would be on average moving more quickly, so sometimes cold air would be blown further south than when the air was moving less quickly.

For practical purposes, however, it is averages which count.

Jim

A total dodge. Your claim is that CO2 causes the world to warm up. The cold hard facts are that CO2 lags planetary temperatures by hundreds of years. Since that little problem arose you have been doing nothing but spewing out ever more incredible stories about how CO2 is STILL the bad guy when all evidence says you are WRONG.

 

[Whereisup]

As far as I know, there is no evidence that CO2 doesn't cause air to retain more heat, and there is no evidence that CO2 build-up lags climate warming by centuries. If by any chance I am wrong, then present the evidence here.

By evidence, I don't mean just someone you read claiming the above. I mean real actual data; real actual measurements, with references to the publications which were presenting the real actual data.

Jim

 

[flacaltenn]

As far as I know, there is no evidence that CO2 doesn't cause air to retain more heat, and there is no evidence that CO2 build-up lags climate warming by centuries. If by any chance I am wrong, then present the evidence here.

By evidence, I don't mean just someone you read claiming the above. I mean real actual data; real actual measurements, with references to the publications which were presenting the real actual data.

Jim

There is clear historical evidence of CO2 lagging temperature.. See for instance what happened during the series of Ice Ages... Blue is temp, Red is CO2 below..

Now even I want to downplay that because it is a proxy study with limited time resolution. The more important evidence is that your AGWarming theory SAYS that CO2 lags temperature as one of the mighty (disputed) feedback parts of the theory..

Which is the difference between my skeptical views of AGW and what you've been told to believe. The effect of CO2 BY ITSELF --- is miminal.. This is backed by the physical equations of the power for CO2 to warm the surface.. It is generally agreed that this is on the order of only 1.1degC for the current doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560ppm (which is not yet completed).. So what AGW theory actually says that I disagree with is that a small increase in temperature due to CO2 warming will magically MULTIPLY into runaway warming.

If we were to be considering the effect of CO2 warming ALONE --- it would hardly make the news..

YOU are told to believe that the Earth climate system is SOOOOO fragile -- that a "Trigger" of a couple degrees will destroy our "optimal" climate.. THAT'S what has NOT been proven and why there is a skeptical community..

 

[Whereisup]

Our data from many thousands of years ago actually isn't very good. Nobody was measuring those things then and leaving written articles or journals with the exact numbers.

Even if the data is anywhere near what happened. the situation was much different during the ice ages than it is now. Then, there were massive areas of ice reflecting light and heat back into space, and various odd effects from partial melting.

What we need to focus on is the world as it is now.

The methane hydrate melting is an added problem which hasn't been studied long enough for precise predictions. However, there is a positive feedback loop because the warming from methane melting will cause the methane hydrate to melt faster.

Even before adding that, just the increased CO2 from fossil fuels is already increasing the amount of flooding and of the most powerful hurricanes and tornadoes, and we have only had a small temperature rise so far. With further temperature increases, we will have more of those and will lose farmland and crops even faster, not to mention buildings destroyed, etc.

The danger that seems to be there is too serious to play political games with. We need to become sure.

I would suggest you go to the university websites of the best universities in the United States, like Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Cal Tech, etc. The best universities have many geniuses on their faculties. Then go to departments like atmospheric science, environment, etc. There, go to the webpages of the professors in those departments. The professors' webpages will have lists of their articles they have published. Find articles, especially recent articles, on CO2 and global warming.

Then, you can go to a major university library to read the articles in the journals by these top professors about CO2 and global warming.

You might also look for articles on methane hydrates.

I might be right, but there is no reason for you to trust that I am right. However, I think you can trust the results discovered by genius professors at the best universities.

Jim

 

[westwall]

Our data from many thousands of years ago actually isn't very good. Nobody was measuring those things then and leaving written articles or journals with the exact numbers.

Even if the data is anywhere near what happened. the situation was much different during the ice ages than it is now. Then, there were massive areas of ice reflecting light and heat back into space, and various odd effects from partial melting.

What we need to focus on is the world as it is now.

The methane hydrate melting is an added problem which hasn't been studied long enough for precise predictions. However, there is a positive feedback loop because the warming from methane melting will cause the methane hydrate to melt faster.

Even before adding that, just the increased CO2 from fossil fuels is already increasing the amount of flooding and of the most powerful hurricanes and tornadoes, and we have only had a small temperature rise so far. With further temperature increases, we will have more of those and will lose farmland and crops even faster, not to mention buildings destroyed, etc.

The danger that seems to be there is too serious to play political games with. We need to become sure.

I would suggest you go to the university websites of the best universities in the United States, like Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Cal Tech, etc. The best universities have many geniuses on their faculties. Then go to departments like atmospheric science, environment, etc. There, go to the webpages of the professors in those departments. The professors' webpages will have lists of their articles they have published. Find articles, especially recent articles, on CO2 and global warming.

Then, you can go to a major university library to read the articles in the journals by these top professors about CO2 and global warming.

You might also look for articles on methane hydrates.

I might be right, but there is no reason for you to trust that I am right. However, I think you can trust the results discovered by genius professors at the best universities.

Jim

There are VERY few geniuses in the academic world. Very few. The overwhelming majority are average intelligence. No one in climatology has exhibited anything but average intellect.

Nice try but you are far out of your realm here.

Nice that you admit the historical record isn't great...but what we DO have refutes your claims in their entirety.

 

[flacaltenn]

Our data from many thousands of years ago actually isn't very good. Nobody was measuring those things then and leaving written articles or journals with the exact numbers.

Even if the data is anywhere near what happened. the situation was much different during the ice ages than it is now. Then, there were massive areas of ice reflecting light and heat back into space, and various odd effects from partial melting.

What we need to focus on is the world as it is now.

The methane hydrate melting is an added problem which hasn't been studied long enough for precise predictions. However, there is a positive feedback loop because the warming from methane melting will cause the methane hydrate to melt faster.

Even before adding that, just the increased CO2 from fossil fuels is already increasing the amount of flooding and of the most powerful hurricanes and tornadoes, and we have only had a small temperature rise so far. With further temperature increases, we will have more of those and will lose farmland and crops even faster, not to mention buildings destroyed, etc.

The danger that seems to be there is too serious to play political games with. We need to become sure.

I would suggest you go to the university websites of the best universities in the United States, like Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Cal Tech, etc. The best universities have many geniuses on their faculties. Then go to departments like atmospheric science, environment, etc. There, go to the webpages of the professors in those departments. The professors' webpages will have lists of their articles they have published. Find articles, especially recent articles, on CO2 and global warming.

Then, you can go to a major university library to read the articles in the journals by these top professors about CO2 and global warming.

You might also look for articles on methane hydrates.

I might be right, but there is no reason for you to trust that I am right. However, I think you can trust the results discovered by genius professors at the best universities.

Jim

That's OK that you are that trusting. You do know that up until the 60s, doctors were writing prescriptions to asthmatics for cigarettes --- dontcha?

Actually -- I'm pretty sure that I said NOTHING in that previous post that any of those "experts" would disagree with.. The amount of warming due to CO2 ALONE is generated agreed upon by skeptic and warming experts alike.

Your theory really does rely on the fact that the minimal warming from CO2 acts as a trigger to cause cataclysmic damage to a very fragile Climate system..

Look it up --- that's the way that AGWarming theory is built. It's built to MAGNIFY the heating effects of CO2 into some imagined disaster..

Try "global warming" + trigger + "without feedbacks"

 

[Whereisup]

Actually, any professor is more intelligent than average as it's not that easy to get through graduate school. Still, many of them have an IQ of 130 or so. But only the most intelligent people become professors at Harvard, MIT, etc. There are actually not that many professors in those few universities.

Of course, even with an IQ of 180 or so, the universe is still too complex for someone to just understand it. We have to work century after century slowly adding to knowledge.

Nevertheless, someone with an IQ of 180 is going to understand more than someone with an IQ of 100. In addition, most of our politicians and most corporate executives are way below an IQ of 180.

Note that IQ isn't the best of concepts because many different skills go into it. But it is an approximation that most people sort of understand.

Jim

 

[jon_berzerk]

Imagine a Chicago 1995 heat wave occurring every year? But with temperatures of 110f!

2-3 thousand people dying.

That's 8+ more of warming by 2100.

Europe Cold Snap Kills More Than 650 In Eastern Europe, Officials Say

 

[jon_berzerk]

Imagine a Chicago 1995 heat wave occurring every year? But with temperatures of 110f!

2-3 thousand people dying.

That's 8+ more of warming by 2100.

Winter kills: Excess Deaths in the Winter Months

108,500 Deaths in the US in 2008; 36,700 in England and Wales Last Winter; 5,600 in Canada (2006); 7,000 in Australia (1997-2006 Average); Thousands in Other Developed Countries

Spoiler: read on

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/winter-kills-excess-deaths-in-the-winter-months/

 

[flacaltenn]

We got a new "spoiler toy" ??? Cooool...

 

[jon_berzerk]

We got a new "spoiler toy" ??? Cooool...

yeah you got to try it out