Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
It looks like global warming could cause a damaging rise in ocean acidity levels.

I found this statement from Dredd interesting:

Quote: The fact is today's temperatures have been eclipsed for thousands of years and on thousands of occasions prior to man's existence.

So what about during man's existence? More importantly (for me), since the Industrial Revolution? Is there a tipping point where all the CO2 and other chemicals we made from the IR til the present, could have actually affected the overall temperature change(s) on the Earth? Is your and Eelco's argument, that such thing could not exist at all? Or that it is possible but no such data conclusively exists?

edit: corrected sentence

It's my contention that Earth's temperatures have varied far warmer and far colder for millenia when man's input was impossible. It is further my contention that there is nothing remarkable in the Earth's climate in the past 100 years, that nothing substantial demarcates it from the thousand and thousands of other fluctuations in it's past.

I do not contend that mankind can not and has not effected the climate, only that it is exceedingly unlikely.

However, were I to look for causes for climate change, if it somehow came to pass. I would argue that terraforming is a far more likely cause, as we know that poor resource use and land management can cause local weather shifts, ala the dustbowls and desertification.

Even in those scenarios the climate has proved far heartier and more stable than the humans who rely on it.

In those thousands of years, volcanoes were very active and had many instances meteorites hitting the Earth. So in that time, the temperature probably did fluctuate and cause floods, ice ages, droughts, and other natural catastrophes. But in the age of the Industrial Man we've not had much of that. Instead we've created machines which produced tonnes of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere, oceans and lands for well over 100 years. I think the effect of man-made gases is far more likely to cause the fluctuations we see now.

Well, I respect your right to your opinion but frankly putting forward volcanoes and meteorites doesn't even come close to accounting for the reality.
For example, the vast majority of the last 10,000 years the earth has been warmer than it is today.

AGW is speculative theory at best. I respect your right to believe in it but the case isn't very compelling in my opinion.

Renewable energy sources and solutions to man made waste are quantifiable problems that we should all address. I don't need to believe in the boogey man to agree with that.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
It looks like global warming could cause a damaging rise in ocean acidity levels.

I found this statement from Dredd interesting:

Quote: The fact is today's temperatures have been eclipsed for thousands of years and on thousands of occasions prior to man's existence.

So what about during man's existence? More importantly (for me), since the Industrial Revolution? Is there a tipping point where all the CO2 and other chemicals we made from the IR til the present, could have actually affected the overall temperature change(s) on the Earth? Is your and Eelco's argument, that such thing could not exist at all? Or that it is possible but no such data conclusively exists?

edit: corrected sentence

It's my contention that Earth's temperatures have varied far warmer and far colder for millenia when man's input was impossible. It is further my contention that there is nothing remarkable in the Earth's climate in the past 100 years, that nothing substantial demarcates it from the thousand and thousands of other fluctuations in it's past.

I do not contend that mankind can not and has not effected the climate, only that it is exceedingly unlikely.

However, were I to look for causes for climate change, if it somehow came to pass. I would argue that terraforming is a far more likely cause, as we know that poor resource use and land management can cause local weather shifts, ala the dustbowls and desertification.

Even in those scenarios the climate has proved far heartier and more stable than the humans who rely on it.

In those thousands of years, volcanoes were very active and had many instances meteorites hitting the Earth. So in that time, the temperature probably did fluctuate and cause floods, ice ages, droughts, and other natural catastrophes. But in the age of the Industrial Man we've not had much of that. Instead we've created machines which produced tonnes of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere, oceans and lands for well over 100 years. I think the effect of man-made gases is far more likely to cause the fluctuations we see now.

Well, I respect your right to your opinion but frankly putting forward volcanoes and meteorites doesn't even come close to accounting for the reality.
For example, the vast majority of the last 10,000 years the earth has been warmer than it is today.

AGW is speculative theory at best. I respect your right to believe in it but the case isn't very compelling in my opinion.

Renewable energy sources and solutions to man made waste are quantifiable problems that we should all address. I don't need to believe in the boogey man to agree with that.

Again your looking at geological events on geological time scales and human events on human timescales.

In the Historical Perspective link even though it cuts off the most important data you can still see that the rise/run of 1800-1900 is significant even if the total change is small compared to past events.

Quote: Original post by nickak2003

Quote: Original post by Eelco


Thank you for your *ahem* informed opinion, but long term CO2 concentrations are governed by geological processes; emission by vulcanoes and reaction with minerals to form carbonate rocks.

O I didnt mention that the rising co2 is changing the ocean PH. Faster than organisms will be able to cope with it.

The ocean's surface PH is dropping to a value not seen for millions of years. Many super volcanoes lately?

*O i didnt c alpha's post...

AGAIN..CO2 IS EVIL.

Yeah, CO2 is changing ocean pH. Faster than organisms will be able to cope with it? Perhaps some; but the ocean has seen crazier things than this. Like, ten times higher CO2 concentrations. One would expect the ocean's ecosystem overall to be fairly robust to such changes, having seen many of them, and it still being full of species from billions of years ago. There are lots of species that do better in less alkaline seawater. Not everyone can win.

Would that be at the times where 90% of the said species died?

Quote: Original post by oliii
Would that be at the times where 90% of the said species died?

Not that I know of, although I do know ice ages tend to have that effect.

So far it seems they have bigger fish to fry; like, not ending up in our frying pans.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
It looks like global warming could cause a damaging rise in ocean acidity levels.

I found this statement from Dredd interesting:

Quote: The fact is today's temperatures have been eclipsed for thousands of years and on thousands of occasions prior to man's existence.

So what about during man's existence? More importantly (for me), since the Industrial Revolution? Is there a tipping point where all the CO2 and other chemicals we made from the IR til the present, could have actually affected the overall temperature change(s) on the Earth? Is your and Eelco's argument, that such thing could not exist at all? Or that it is possible but no such data conclusively exists?

edit: corrected sentence

It's my contention that Earth's temperatures have varied far warmer and far colder for millenia when man's input was impossible. It is further my contention that there is nothing remarkable in the Earth's climate in the past 100 years, that nothing substantial demarcates it from the thousand and thousands of other fluctuations in it's past.

I do not contend that mankind can not and has not effected the climate, only that it is exceedingly unlikely.

However, were I to look for causes for climate change, if it somehow came to pass. I would argue that terraforming is a far more likely cause, as we know that poor resource use and land management can cause local weather shifts, ala the dustbowls and desertification.

Even in those scenarios the climate has proved far heartier and more stable than the humans who rely on it.

Based on your remarks here, it's my contention that you are a denialist. But maybe you are still reachable. Please read the IPCC report. They conclude that it's 5% unlikely. For what it's worth, terraforming is part of the problem, only it's usually called deforestation.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
For all your focus on which years are examined, you have missed the obvious flaw in the conclusion you claim to agree with. Hall says things about CO2 in his conclusion that the body of his post doesn't support. The body of his post is about temperatures, not CO2, yet he concludes with bold attack on CO2. If the intent was to refute the claim "that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend" he should have stated it up front instead of meandering over some recollection that only his wife and close friends care about. Instead he examines temperature trends during the Holocene and even though the trends suggest to him that we are more likely heading towards an ice age, he doesn't attempt to explain the recent uptick, he just assumes that CO2 has nothing to do with it.

He didn't attack Co2 nor make the claim you pretend. He stated that scientists that conclude that Co2 is the only reasonable cause of global warming is nonsensical.

Since the earth has been warmer than it is today for thousands and thousands of years prior to the industrial age, and any number of times that doesn't seem that far a reach.

If you're comfortable with your position you should be able to state his without hyperbole. It seems you are not.

Go back an read his entire post. He uses those graphs to claim "the current warming trend simply represents a return to the mean." In other words, nothing to be concerned about (move-along). Then he says this doesn't mean that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, this doesn't mean it isn't warming, this doesn't mean we shouldn't develop clean energy. In other words, he's not as insane as we might think. Then he says it means "that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend" is "probably poppycock" - not that it is poppycock. He doesn't take the hard stance that you have assigned to him. He also doesn't provide sufficient information to reach any conclusion about the causes of the recent warming trend. He asserts that those charts show that the recent warming trend can be accounted for with something besides "human-emitted CO2", that it's not CO2 alone, that presumably the trend can be accounted for with reference to the natural fluctuation over the eons. The problem is that his temperature charts say nothing about what causal mechanisms account for the temperature trends they depict. Yet he leaps from those charts to state his preconception about what didn't cause recent trends. It's rubbish for fools. Thanks for wasting my time.

Well, I'm glad you actually read it this time before commenting.

I actually read it before my first comment.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: He doesn't take the hard stance that you have assigned to him.

He states it's probably poppycock, I rephrased to nonsensical. What a leap!

You're the one that completely mistated his position.

How so? Where? Show me? At this point, I think you're just wasting time.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
You then babble about not relating the causal mechanisms, as if that is of any import whatsoever.

When he concludes by dismissing a cause it becomes important. The only thing he can claim from the evidence he presents is that current warming trends are not extraordinary given the ice core record. He only presents information about temperature, but concludes by dismissing the idea that the rise of carbon dioxide is the only thing that can account for it. That's called a bait and switch. Furthermore, the latest IPCC report concludes that half the current warming trend is due to human sources. Clearly, he hasn't bothered to read it otherwise he wouldn't imply that the AGW theory attributes all of the warming trend to human causes.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Your biting analysis equates to "it's rubbish for fools" which is supposed to pass some logical threshold equivalent to, "because I say so" I guess.

I was hoping for something a bit more sophisticated. Surely the guys a doody head or "bought and paid for by (insert evil villain here) "

No, rubbish for fools was exactly what I wanted to say. It's rubbish because the evidence he presents by itself is insufficient to dismiss carbon-dioxide as the only cause of current warming trends. It's for fools because it takes a fool to accept his dismissal of carbon-dioxide without question. Think about this. He comments that another ice age is more probable, but he doesn't find anything extraordinary about the current warming trend. If the long term temperature trends say ice age, but the recent trend says otherwise, clearly the pattern has been disrupted. At any rate, arguing with denialists is a waste of time.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Based on your remarks here, it's my contention that you are a denialist. But maybe you are still reachable. Please read the IPCC report. They conclude that it's 5% unlikely. For what it's worth, terraforming is part of the problem, only it's usually called deforestation.

In case you havnt been keeping tabs on my exchange with Hostile; this 5% is based on not taking into consideration an effect estimated at similar magnitude as the direct CO2 forcing, and in the author's own words 'circular logic'. That is, doing this kind of math is only possible assuming youve got all ingredient that go into the mix. If we had, youd expect people to actually come anywhere near close to reconstructing our thermomether record; they dont.

Couldn't read every post in this entire topic and if I'm being redundant just ignore this post but..

3% of greenhouse gases on this planet are CO2.

3% of this CO2 is anthropogenic.

A 30% decrease in CO2 emission leaves us with..

.0027% decrease in greenhouse gases. That'll save the planet!

WAKE UP people.. the bigger threat is obviously population explosion, but that isn't even addressed because it doesn't make anybody any money.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
.... this 5% is based on not taking into consideration an effect estimated at similar magnitude as the direct CO2 forcing...

Where did this disclaimer come from? (Page number would be immensely helpful)