The worse case---Earth 2100

[Abraham3]

SwimExpert,

what relevance do you believe the Quaternary Glaciation has to the topic of anthropogenic global warming?

*shakes head*

The same relevance this, this, and this has.

The board is not working well for me this morning. Hopefully this won't appear twice.

So, do you believe the five IPCC reports and the consensus accepting AGW as valid among climate scientists constitute confirmation bias, frequency illusion or focalism?

And what do any of those have to do with the Quaternary glacial period or of that with AGW?

Or, since none of those are applicable to AGW, should I assume that our being in the Quaternary period has no bearing on AGW whatsoever? If so, you and I are in complete agreement.

 

[Indeependent]

Your side has left the future indebted they left them taxes they cannot pay. Your side has created slaves for the government.

Actually, the corporations and the banks did that. You didn't know this? Huh.

Corporations and banks don't sign legislation, or create taxes.

Tell that to Jack Abrahmoff
Handing over legislation during dinner has consequences.

 

[Abraham3]

Or ALEC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council

 

[ScienceRocks]

co2 level is directly related to the galacialation of Greenland and Antarctica.

Greenland developed glacials around 350-400
and Antarctica developed them at around 500ppm

When our planet had over thousand parts per million within the current set-up of landmasses(the past 80 million years)...That is the way it worked.


Leading into the ice age the past 3-5 million years was a decrease in co2...Each time we'd go through a glacial or interglacial we seen 100ppm charge within co2 percentage within our atmosphere....

CO2 was controlled by temperature. You're right but it was also a feed back cycle that helped amplify the effects of those cycles.

 

[SwimExpert]

Or, since none of those are applicable to AGW, should I assume that our being in the Quaternary period has no bearing on AGW whatsoever? If so, you and I are in complete agreement.

Let me guess, you're the type of person who can get straight A's in school, but can't apply any test material worth a damn to your every day life. If you don't understand the relevance, then you are most certainly the most stupid person I've come across on this board. Jesus Christ, I can't explain quantum physics to swamp rat. It just isn't possible. The cognitive capacity just isn't present in the student.

Even Rdean, the raging idiot that he is, would at least piece the facts together and understand it. He'd offer an amazingly ridiculous counter argument, no doubt. But he'd still get it.

 

[SwimExpert]

co2 level is directly related to the galacialation of Greenland and Antarctica.

False, and hopelessly outdated hypothesis.

 

[flacaltenn]

The percentage of CO2 concentration change between warm/cool periods of glaciation is LESS than the percentage of change for current warming.. AND YET --- there was a 2.5 to 3.0 times temperature increase during the glacials. CO2 is NOT the planet thermostat... It's a bit player that PROXIES for temperature increases and decreases..

 

[Abraham3]

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

 

[flacaltenn]

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

Your math abilities suck as usual.. Go back and read my post.. Then I'll help you read the graph you just posted..

 

[Abraham3]

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?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Old Rocks]

There are a number of factors that relate to ice ages. Tectonics, position of the land masses, trap volcanics, and a number of other things. 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.

Here is one of the world's leading glacialogists on the subject, Dr. Richard Alley. Addressing the American Geophysical Union Fall Conferance in 2009. Of course, I don't expect the numbnuts on this board to actually spend to time to listen to a real scientist, obese junkies are their speed, but for those wanting real information on the subject, this is a good start.

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" on Vimeo

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

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?

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..

Your turn... Tell us again... What is the RELEVENCE of comparing OUR level of CO2 to the glaciers???

 

[Abraham3]

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.

 

[Abraham3]

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?

 

[Abraham3]

Let me guess, you're the type of person who can get straight A's in school, but can't apply any test material worth a damn to your every day life. If you don't understand the relevance, then you are most certainly the most stupid person I've come across on this board. Jesus Christ, I can't explain quantum physics to swamp rat. It just isn't possible. The cognitive capacity just isn't present in the student.

My goodness, but you must be VERY smart indeed. It's a true honor to have someone of your intellectual calibre actually spend the time to write back and answer my puerile inquiries.

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?

 

[Abraham3]

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?

 

[Abraham3]

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.

False