The worse case---Earth 2100

[RollingThunder]

Percent change. I saw that earlier. Started to compare it to the note about Arctic ice extents.

Obviously, there is a connection between temperature and CO2.

Obviously, the current rise has nothing to do with our position in the glacial timeline.

So, what point are you trying to make?

Why do I think this is another fools errand?

Because you're a fool?

A 7 to 10degC change in temperature during the glacials is accompanied by a CO2 delta of only 200 to 280ppm (40%).. While the Modern Era sees a CO2 change of 280 to 400ppm (43%) Should produce about the same warming by your simple ass climate model..

It's a real shame that you're so retarded, fecalhead, otherwise you'd be able to see the obvious. The 7 to 10 degree temperature increases between the glacial periods and the interglacial periods and the 80-100ppm rise in CO2 levels that produced those temperature increases both happened over thousands of years. Mankind has increased CO2 levels by over 120ppm in only a little over a century. The Earth's temperatures have not yet had time to come into an equilibrium with the drastically increased CO2 levels. The last time in Earth's history that CO2 levels were this high and were sustained at these levels for some time, temperatures were "7 to 10deg" hotter. It just takes some time for temperatures to catch up with the 'forcing' produced by the extra CO2.

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report
UCLA Newsroom
By Stuart Wolpert
October 08, 2009
(excerpts)
You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science. "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years — until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new.

 

[SwimExpert]

That's not what these data indicate

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/temperature-change.jpg

And note that the current CO2 levels would be 100 ppm over the top of this chart

By the way, post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy.

Where the fuck did you get the idea that was my position?

Right here.

 

[SwimExpert]

My goodness, but you must be VERY smart indeed.

Well, since you've asked, I'm in the 99.8% percentile of human intelligence.

It's a true honor to have someone of your intellectual calibre actually spend the time to write back and answer my puerile inquiries.

Puellatine mockery will not help your cause.

So, do you believe the five IPCC reports and the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that AGW is valid are examples of confirmation bias, frequency illusion and/or focalism?

That's exactly what I said, isn't it?

 

[Abraham3]

By the way, post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy.

Where the fuck did you get the idea that was my position?

Right here.

Well, blew that, didn't ya.

For the umpteenth time, my position is that current GHG and temperature levels are primarily anthropogenic, not natural.

Regarding the Quaternary, I'd like to say what I should have said when you first pointed it out: So what?

 

[flacaltenn]

I never said there was. I'm saying that the magnitude of the current change (among other points) makes it ridiculous to suggest that our CO2 is high because some other factor has warmed the planet. This is not a natural cycle.

And it is neither due to TSI.

By the way, in response to your condescension, do get fucked.

That's the response I wanted.. You might be getting it.. The MAGNITUDE of the current temperature change is less than 1/5 of the temperature change during the glacials.. But has almost the SAME CO2 change occuring..

So if today is not a natural cycle --- but the glacials WERE ---- why is the CO2 ratio virtually the same? If CO2 is the only important climate driver --- hows come we don't see a 7 or 10degC change???

Is it because the glacials were largely driven by "OTHER" effects? If so -- what makes you think that today is "unnatural"?

Physics predicts a 1.2degC warming per doubling of CO2.. That's a little more than what we've seen during the last century.. And if NATURAL forces drove the temperature swing HIGHER during the glacials --- then that all makes sense..

OR --- you could tell me whats unnatural about observing a 0.8 degC rise for a 40% increase in CO2??? You think it should be MORE than that? I'll cop to the fact that man may have contributed some to that rise. But it's demonstrably LESS of an effect than the NATURAL forces applied during the glacials..

OR --- maybe the OP is a big steaming pile and we shouldn't be drawing conclusions about whether CO2 is HIGHER than it's been for the past 400,000 yrs??

OR MAYBE --- it takes 10,000 yrs for a 40% CO2 increase to send the climate into a 10degC over-drive ???

CLEARLY CO2 didn't drive the climate during those glacial epochs.. And OBSERVATION is that our trivial 0.8degC rise (or so) is NOT unexpected.. But CO2 is NOT gonna drive the climate into meltdown as predicted by AGW.. Because if it COULD do that --- it would have done it during the glacial epochs.. Or there is an unknown multi-millenial delay to the effect that we don't see coming.

 

[SwimExpert]

our position in the glacial timeline.

You're reflecting the kind of failed and faulty thinking that caused scientists in the 60s and 70s to believe that the next glacial period was going to start any day now.

VERY few scientists in the 60s and 70s were concerned about the next glacial period, though the temperature trend from 1941 to 1979 would tend to support just such a hypothesis.

I thought you were better informed than that. The "Coming Ice Age" of the late 60s and early 70s was mass media sensationalism and is now the sole demesne of global warming deniers trying to run down mainstream science.

Is that what you do? Run down mainstream science? Are you smarter than all of them?

Wait a second......you mean to tell me that major climate change hysteria is linked with mass media sensationalism? Who knew!?

 

[Abraham3]

My goodness, but you must be VERY smart indeed.

Well, since you've asked, I'm in the 99.8% percentile of human intelligence.

Hmm... well, I actually didn't ask. Your placement wrt to modesty must be equally extreme. And I have to wonder, though, at the 'truthiness' of this statement given you seem to expect us to believe you. Why don't you post an image of your test results with a personal note added for veracity's sake.

It's a true honor to have someone of your intellectual calibre actually spend the time to write back and answer my puerile inquiries.

Puellatine mockery will not help your cause.

I've got to confess, I'm such an ignoramus I've never heard that word. Neither have five dictionaries, two encyclopedias or two search engines.

So, do you believe the five IPCC reports and the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that AGW is valid are examples of confirmation bias, frequency illusion and/or focalism?

That's exactly what I said, isn't it?

No, actually, it is not. You said they were as relevant to AGW as was your statement about the Quaternary. Since the Quaternary's relevance to AGW was never established, neither were your three falsities.

 

[RollingThunder]

However, through all of these, the one factor that seems to be the primary one is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, we see these factors affecting that level, and it is the CO2 level that drives warmng or cooling.

False.

The causal link between CO2 levels and temperatures has been scientifically established. Your unsupported denial of that connection and the scientific research that supports it is about as significant or meaningful as a fart in a hurricane. Denying reality like that just demonstrates how scientifically ignorant, brainwashed and retarded you are, DrownedRat.

 

[orogenicman]

Well, since you've asked, I'm in the 99.8% percentile of human intelligence.

This bodes poorly for the human species.

 

[RollingThunder]

I never said there was. I'm saying that the magnitude of the current change (among other points) makes it ridiculous to suggest that our CO2 is high because some other factor has warmed the planet. This is not a natural cycle.

And it is neither due to TSI.

By the way, in response to your condescension, do get fucked.

That's the response I wanted.. You might be getting it.. The MAGNITUDE of the current temperature change is less than 1/5 of the temperature change during the glacials.. But has almost the SAME CO2 change occuring..

So if today is not a natural cycle --- but the glacials WERE ---- why is the CO2 ratio virtually the same? If CO2 is the only important climate driver --- hows come we don't see a 7 or 10degC change???

Is it because the glacials were largely driven by "OTHER" effects? If so -- what makes you think that today is "unnatural"?

Physics predicts a 1.2degC warming per doubling of CO2.. That's a little more than what we've seen during the last century.. And if NATURAL forces drove the temperature swing HIGHER during the glacials --- then that all makes sense..

OR --- you could tell me whats unnatural about observing a 0.8 degC rise for a 40% increase in CO2??? You think it should be MORE than that? I'll cop to the fact that man may have contributed some to that rise. But it's demonstrably LESS of an effect than the NATURAL forces applied during the glacials..

OR --- maybe the OP is a big steaming pile and we shouldn't be drawing conclusions about whether CO2 is HIGHER than it's been for the past 400,000 yrs??

OR MAYBE --- it takes 10,000 yrs for a 40% CO2 increase to send the climate into a 10degC over-drive ???

CLEARLY CO2 didn't drive the climate during those glacial epochs.. And OBSERVATION is that our trivial 0.8degC rise (or so) is NOT unexpected.. But CO2 is NOT gonna drive the climate into meltdown as predicted by AGW.. Because if it COULD do that --- it would have done it during the glacial epochs.. Or there is an unknown multi-millenial delay to the effect that we don't see coming.

Your ignorant bullshit was debunked in post #81, fecalhead, you're just too retarded to realize that fact.

 

[RollingThunder]

Well, since you've asked, I'm in the 99.8% percentile of human intelligence.

This bodes poorly for the human species.

Well, it would indeed "bode poorly" if SwineExpert's claims could be believed, but, in reality, they are obviously just more evidence of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

 

[bripat9643]

I never said there was. I'm saying that the magnitude of the current change (among other points) makes it ridiculous to suggest that our CO2 is high because some other factor has warmed the planet. This is not a natural cycle.

And it is neither due to TSI.

By the way, in response to your condescension, do get fucked.

There isn't the slightest thing ridiculous about it considering the fact that the Earth has warmed numerous times in the recent past.

 

[SwimExpert]

Your placement wrt to modesty must be equally extreme.

Perhaps. But since the two are mutually exclusive conditions, it's also irrelevant.

And I have to wonder the 'truthiness' of this statement given you seem to expect us to believe you. Why don't you post an image of your test results with a personal note added for veracity's sake.

You're the one who brought it up. When you failed at argumentation, you attempted to retort with false information. When you failed with facts, you resorted to ridicule. Now that you've failed with that, you're responding with more explicit ad hominems that reek of desperation.

I've got to confess, I'm such an ignoramus I've never heard that word. Neither have five dictionaries, two encyclopedias or two search engines.

Of course you haven't. It's not an actual word. Next time before you try using your word-a-day selection in a sentence, you might try looking up its etymology.

No, actually, it is not. You said they were as relevant to AGW as was your statement about the Quaternary. Since the Quaternary's relevance to AGW was never established, neither were your three falsities.

Mea culpa. I forgot that you're one of those spoon fed types. You only know that raw information which has been specifically implanted directly into your brain. No ability to gleam knowledge or understanding on your own.

 

[SwimExpert]

The causal link between CO2 levels and temperatures has been scientifically established. Your unsupported denial of that connection and the scientific research that supports it is about as significant or meaningful as a fart in a hurricane. Denying reality like that just demonstrates how scientifically ignorant, brainwashed and retarded you are, DrownedRat.

The causal mechanism of which you speak is not anywhere near as prevalent or powerful as the interpretation you or Old Rocks present. You seem to think that I lack knowledge or understanding of these things. In fact, the opposite is true. I am more fully and well versed on this subject than the typical lay person.

The effect of CO2 on climate change is neither as pronounced, nor as direct, as you seem to believe. The truth of the matter is that there are a wide range of factors that contribute to climate change. But atmospheric CO2 levels is not a substantial contributor to temperature changes over time. Much more relevant is ocean currents and oceanic CO2 levels. Despite the Al Gore types that yell the loudest, the truth is that scientists do not believe that atmospheric CO2 levels cause temperature changes. Instead, it is one of several feedback mechanisms.

Your thinking also reflects what I call the HSP fallacy (historical significant precision). It refers to the mistaken idea that scientifically studied historical trends can indicate precise information for insignificant scales within the larger field of view. The past 100 years is an insignificant period of time in the overall geological scale. The past few decades is more insignificant. It is absolutely impossible to use measurements of over the past 100 years and call them "unprecedented" regarding the full scale of the earth's existential history. The data scientists are able to acquire regarding historical climate patterns is based on extremely large time frames. The notion that anything that has been recorded over the past 100 years, much less the past 30 years, can be claimed to be unprecedented is an impossible conclusion to draw from the data or logic. We have absolutely no way to know what kinds of changes may have occurred over a 100 year time period a million years ago.

 

[RollingThunder]

Your placement wrt to modesty must be equally extreme.

Perhaps. But since the two are mutually exclusive conditions, it's also irrelevant.

And I have to wonder the 'truthiness' of this statement given you seem to expect us to believe you. Why don't you post an image of your test results with a personal note added for veracity's sake.

You're the one who brought it up. When you failed at argumentation, you attempted to retort with false information. When you failed with facts, you resorted to ridicule. Now that you've failed with that, you're responding with more explicit ad hominems that reek of desperation.

Puellatine mockery will not help your cause.

I've got to confess, I'm such an ignoramus I've never heard that word. Neither have five dictionaries, two encyclopedias or two search engines.

Of course you haven't. It's not an actual word. Next time before you try using your word-a-day selection in a sentence, you might try looking up its etymology.

No, actually, it is not. You said they were as relevant to AGW as was your statement about the Quaternary. Since the Quaternary's relevance to AGW was never established, neither were your three falsities.

Mea culpa. I forgot that you're one of those spoon fed types. You only know that raw information which has been specifically implanted directly into your brain. No ability to gleam knowledge or understanding on your own.

LOLOLOL

Your posts are strong evidence that you're an ignorant moron, DrownedRat.

Your claims that you are a super genius are just more evidence that you're a delusional retard, desperately trying to substantiate your your ignorant denier cult myths with claims of personal expertise because you can't support them with any actual facts or scientific research.

 

[orogenicman]

I never said there was. I'm saying that the magnitude of the current change (among other points) makes it ridiculous to suggest that our CO2 is high because some other factor has warmed the planet. This is not a natural cycle.

And it is neither due to TSI.

By the way, in response to your condescension, do get fucked.

There isn't the slightest thing ridiculous about it considering the fact that the Earth has warmed numerous times in the recent past.

Do you have any evidence that it has done so in the past at the rate in which it is doing so today?

 

[SwimExpert]

Well, since you've asked, I'm in the 99.8% percentile of human intelligence.

This bodes poorly for the human species.

Well, it would indeed "bode poorly" if SwineExpert's claims could be believed, but, in reality, they are obviously just more evidence of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

This is the kind of delicious irony that Hollywood writers just can't make up.

In your intellectual incompetence, you have a pivotal misunderstanding of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Namely, the increasingly common false notion that confidence indicates incompetence, and that humility indicates competence. In reality, however, the Dunning-Kruger effect does not operate as such, even though you individually are committing such a failing by thinking this.

The critical point to note is that there’s a clear positive correlation between actual performance (gray line) and perceived performance (black line): the people in the top quartile for actual performance think they perform better than the people in the second quartile, who in turn think they perform better than the people in the third quartile, and so on. So the bias is definitively not that incompetent people think they’re better than competent people. Rather, it’s that incompetent people think they’re much better than they actually are. But they typically still don’t think they’re quite as good as people who, you know, actually are good. (It’s important to note that Dunning and Kruger never claimed to show that the unskilled think they’re better than the skilled; that’s just the way the finding is often interpreted by others.)

what the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn?t | [citation needed]

So nice try, but no cigar. Next time leave the pop psychology to the Barnes and Noble self help section.

 

[SwimExpert]

Oh, and as for your "swine expert" whip, let's be honest. Everyone loves bacon. And I cook a mean ham. Translated into your language: When I cook ham everyone gets food poisoning.

 

[orogenicman]

Oh, and as for your "swine expert" whip, let's be honest. Everyone loves bacon. And I cook a mean ham. Translated into your language: When I cook ham everyone gets food poisoning.

Being possibly the easiest meat to cook in the modern kitchen, this is obviously not supporting your argument as well as you might think it is.

 

[flacaltenn]

This bodes poorly for the human species.

Well, it would indeed "bode poorly" if SwineExpert's claims could be believed, but, in reality, they are obviously just more evidence of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

This is the kind of delicious irony that Hollywood writers just can't make up.

In your intellectual incompetence, you have a pivotal misunderstanding of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Namely, the increasingly common false notion that confidence indicates incompetence, and that humility indicates competence. In reality, however, the Dunning-Kruger effect does not operate as such, even though you individually are committing such a failing by thinking this.

The critical point to note is that there’s a clear positive correlation between actual performance (gray line) and perceived performance (black line): the people in the top quartile for actual performance think they perform better than the people in the second quartile, who in turn think they perform better than the people in the third quartile, and so on. So the bias is definitively not that incompetent people think they’re better than competent people. Rather, it’s that incompetent people think they’re much better than they actually are. But they typically still don’t think they’re quite as good as people who, you know, actually are good. (It’s important to note that Dunning and Kruger never claimed to show that the unskilled think they’re better than the skilled; that’s just the way the finding is often interpreted by others.)

what the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn?t | [citation needed]

So nice try, but no cigar. Next time leave the pop psychology to the Barnes and Noble self help section.

Nice outreach to the folks who have been leaning hard on D-K studies they dont understand. Bout time someone explained it to them...



We have a large "below the intersect" problem going on here..