Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

That's the same spike that shows up in the graphs I've been posting. It's clear that human activity has increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

But it's not clear what the result of that spike will be. In every other case over the last 400k years spikes like that have been immediately followed by rapid declines, as though some very massive global mechanism had been switched on or off. In previous threads I proposed that mechanism to be the thermohaline circulation in the oceans (which control the deep ocean currents).

The spikes in the past never got as high as the current spike on that graph. You have to look very close at the end of the graph to see how far it is above everything else and how steep it is.

That's correct. That's why we know that human activity is causing that spike.

However, you can't just assume that the entire global temperature will just go rocketing up to match that spike. You can say that you *think* it will, but actual evidence to support that supposition is lacking.

Then we have not one, but two larger problems:
1. Historic data shows clearly that temperature spikes, regardless of their cause, are routinely followed by rapid declines.
2. Temperatures were already rising long before we caused a CO2 spike, and we have every reason to think that the rise will continue even if we were to completely reverse the CO2 spike (which we can't).

How come nobody is talking about the real problems in all this?

The planet has been warming continuously overall since the last ice age. We have no way to know whether there have been brief short term spikes in the CO2 as we have been keeping records for a tiny amount of time relative to global history. Prior to the time we have been keeping such records, our technology is able to identify broad trends but is not capable of measuring past variables within a few or several decades.

So I think we can't say with certainty that the more recent spikes are due all or mostly to human activity though there is no doubt that human activity is producing a relatively small percentage of CO2 that is included in the whole.

I agree with your premise that we can't say for certain that there haven't been other spikes in CO2 similar to the present one. That's just a logically correct statement (since they may have been too brief to show up in the ice core samples). However, I think it's unlikely that spikes similar to this one have ever happened before because based on our measured output (of CO2), it isn't surprising that humanity is able to cause a spike like we see in the graph.

I think it's pretty clear that humanity is contributing to the CO2 increase and to some degree of warming, but it's not clear to me just how much we are contributing (in the grand scheme of climate change), or to what end.

It's not lacking. We know that CO2 retains heat when it absorbs IR. We know increasing CO2 increases the amount of heat retained. We know CO2 absorbs IR at a different spectrum from water vapor so water vapor doesn't mitigate CO2.

Yes, the cycle shows temperature increases and decreases but CO2 is not the only driver of temperature and no one is claiming it is. From an historic standpoint, it is other drivers that increase and decrease the temperature. An increase in Co2 will not stop the fluctuations but it probably will increase the temperature at which those fluctuations occur.

The unknown is how the increased temperature from CO2 affects other factors such as cloud cover which can cause cooling.

Bottom line is if nothing else changes BUT CO2 levels then temperature will increase.

It would seem it's the degree to which CO2 changes the atmosphere that counts.

I think it's more a question of how few degrees it takes to change climate.

Correct... or the Thermohaline systems in the ocean.

But the bottom bottom line is that CO2 will never be the ONLY thing that changes. The climate is a vast complex interconnected system in which nothing happens in isolation.

But as rosborne said, climate is not influenced in isolation, and I agree.

Mistake No. 1- Paradox--No source is cited for your graph. I do not accept graphs concocted by idiots like James Hansen--sorry!!

Mistake No. 2 Paradox--Instead of showing why my statement is wrong or inaccurate, you descend to ads homimen. Quite understandable when you cannot rebut the person's ideas. Now, unlike you, I will cite some studies. It is up to you to refute them or let them stand. As i have already alluded, the models used by the IPCC are flawed. Most of the computer simulations use a value which is too high for co2 increase. This is done for simplicity and convenience, though the IPCC admits this is "arbirtrary" and "on "the high side"

See IPCC 2001a:9executive summary.

Parados-Mistake nO. 3- You never showed that my description of the IPCC's lowering of the Sea Level Rise predictions over the years was wrong. I indicated that the IPCC had LOWERED its predictions. You never responded. Either you cannot respond or you do not wish to admit that your assertions are blow to kingdom come.

The IPCC is the authority on future climate predictions.

Read and comment. If you cannot rebut with evidence, this STANDS--

Re: Foxfyre (Post 3566470)
I think we should, as Bjorn Lomborg states,examine not whether MAN MADE CO2 increases global temperature but HOW MUCH--Whether this effect will be negligible, significant or even devestating( See IPCC data in my post on these pages).

This question turns out to be very tricky.

I will quote from Lomborg-

"Essentially, answering the question about temperature increase from co2 means predicting the global temperature over the coming centuries-no mean feat given that the earth's climate is an incredibly complex system. It is basically controlled by the Earth's exchangeof energy with the sun and outer space.The calculations comprise five important basic elements: the atmosphere, the oceans, the land surface, the ice sheets and the Earth's biosphere. The interaction between thse five basic elements is enormously complicated and CRUC IAL MECHANISMS ARE STILL UNKNOWN...It is imporatant to point out that the results of simulations depend entirely on the parameters and algorithms with which the conputer is fed. Computers are number crunchers, not crystal balls."

Lomborg-P.264--"The Skeptical Environmentalist" P. 266.

We must then, believe that the number crunchers at the IPCC have been able to correctly and PRECISELY calculate data from( as listed above) a. the oceans, the land surface, the atmosphere, the ice sheets and the Earth's biosphere and PRECISELY calculate the effects of each one of these elements on the other four.

It is supremely difficult to get cogent and unshifting answers depending on the parameters and algolrithms in a particular program. THAT IS WHY ACCORDING TO THE DATA ON THE IPPC THAT I HAVE POSTED,THE IPCC HAS REVISED ITS PREDICTIONS OF SEA LEVEL RISE DOWNWARDS EACH TIME IT HAS MADE A REPORT.

Parados--Mistake No. 4 on your part- You have not rebutted the following. If youcannot or will not,it stands. Ad Hominem attacks will not suffice. Rebut the substance or IT STANDS.

Re: ican711nm (Post 3567205)
and, Ican, if, as the left wingsays,co2 in the atmosphere should be lessened, can it be done?

Of course, we could achieve almost instantaneous stabilization of the atmosphere's co2 content by banning all use of fossil fuels right now but at the same time doing so would practically bring the world to a standstill. We could also let things take their course--assuming, of course, that we would agree to the deleterious consequences of CO2 emissions. In between these two extremes, we have the option of reducing co2 emissions somewhat and accepting some greenhouse warming.

William Nordhaus of Yale University has produced the first computer model to evaluate the pros and cons of different political choices. Nordaus has discovered that reduction is not only difficult IT IS EXTREMELY COSTLY. He found that the cost of cutting the first tonof carbon is almost nil whereas when cutting back 40 % the last ton will cost about $100 dollars.

source--"The Skeptical Environmentalist"--Bjorn Lomborg

Mistake No. 5 for Parados- He has not attempted to present any evidence rebutting my post below. If he cannot, it STANDS.

of course, Parados cannot reply to the post below. All he is left with is a statement FOR WHICH HE GIVES NO SOURCE that Co2 is higher now than it was 400,000 years ago. Of course,he assumes that co2 is the only cause of higher temperatures, he assumes that temperatures on the earth have never been higher, he assumes that co2 is a causal factor of global warming and is not a lagging indicator, he neglects the fact that the ice core findings show a 1.500 year climate cycle during its 400,000 year length.

Source--"Unstoppable Global Warming--every 1,500 years" -Dr. Fred Singer.

And he appears to be totally incapable of rebutting any of mycommentary below which I have already posted.

Re: genoves (Post 3566480)
3. Note the findings of the IPCC. Note that these findings were made using models. That means that data were fed into computers by scientists to model what temperatures might be in ninety years. That means that the scientists who set up these models were able to ACCURATELY PREDICT THE ACTION OF CLOUDS, OCEAN CURRENTS AND VOLCANOES AND THE INTERACTION OF THESE FACTORS FOR THE NEXT NINETY YEARS

quote from Wikipedia on IPCC
********************************************************


There are six families of SRES Scenarios, and AR4 provides projected temperature and sea level rises for each scenario family.

Scenario B1
Best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [18 to 38 cm] (7 to 15 inches)
Scenario A1T
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 45 cm] (8 to 18 inches)
Scenario B2
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 43 cm] (8 to 17 inches)
Scenario A1B
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.8 °C with a likely range of 1.7 to 4.4 °C (5.0 °F with a likely range of 3.1 to 7.9 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [21 to 48 cm] (8 to 19 inches)
Scenario A2
Best estimate temperature rise of 3.4 °C with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.4 °C (6.1 °F with a likely range of 3.6 to 9.7 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [23 to 51 cm] (9 to 20 inches)
Scenario A1FI
Best estimate temperature rise of 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [26 to 59 cm] (10 to 23 inches)



4. An examination of the IPCC findings shows that the MEDIAN TEMPERATURE RISE WILL BE( SEE SCENARIO B2 AND A1B) AND TAKE THE MID POINT BETWEEN THEM--2.6 C. rise by 2100.

It is most important to understand that the IPCC HAS REVISED ITS FINDINGS OVER AND OVER. THESE FIGURES ARE NOT WRITTEN IN STONE AND SINCE THEY ARE FINDINGS MADE THROUGH MODELING CAN SHOW DIFFERENCES.

Let us examine what the IPCC has said about Sea Level Rises---

In its report the IPCC estimates that sea levels will rise about a foot over the rest of the century..since 1860 we have experienced a sea level rise of about a foot--no major disruptions. IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT THE NEW PREDICTION IS L O W E R THAN THE PREVIOUS IPCC ESTIMATES AND MUCH LOWER THAN THE ESTIMATES FROM 1990 OF MORE THAN TWO FEET AND FROMTHE 1980'S WHEN THE EPA PROJECTED MORE THAN SIX FEET BY 2 100.

Mistake No. 6- Parados does not go back far enough in time in guaging CO2 levels.

Note:

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time



Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)





There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today

Doesn't do much for your case, massagato. When the CO2 concentrations were high, the earth was very hot. We're talking millions of years here, but the average global temperatures during those periods were about 20 to 25 degrees C. Keep in mind that the difference between Chicago being under a mile of ice in the last ice age and Chicago on a lake today is a difference in global average temperature of only around 5.6 degrees C. The global average temp. of the last century was around 13.9 degrees C, so the difference during the hot past ages was close to twice the difference between the ice age and today.so we're talking VERY hot, VERY high sea levels (200m higher than today), VERY swampy, VERY humid.

Furthermore, during the Ordovician, when CO2 was high but temps were cooler, all the landmass of the globe was clustered around the south pole. which even if the globe was hotter is still going to be cooler, than the restdue to lower insolation, same as today.

Thank you for showing, once again, high CO2 means high temperature.

TWo marine geologists, John Kraft and Rhoads Fairbridge had, in the late 1970's predicted a global sea level rise that ,since new elements of isostacy and continental movement were factored in, have since reduced their own (then) famous curves significantly. Much of these predictions of water temps and sea level elevations are WAG's at best, and downright fraudulent at worst. The rush to publish a lot of crap data is where weve gotten into a lot of messes with the entire global warming mantra. Axial precession, change in sol,ar luminosity, release of continental heat sinks and the various planetary cycles havent even been factored accurately into the equation and still many insist that global warming is human induced and weve gotta curtail all commerce to stem it.
Jeez, Im sorry, I try to be open minded about a lot but Im still not seeing the relationship even of CO2 as a "causitive element" in climate hange. ALl Im seeing in the paleoclimate data is that CO2 is a "following" indicator. (temperatures change, then CO2 is released)

Nice series of stupid posts.

So genevos, could you tell us the reasons why you haven't stopped beating your wife?

For those playing at home.

Ican claimed that CO2 was higher when humans roamed the planet.
I pointed out that CO2 has NOT been higher during that time period and provided a graph of ice core data showing CO2 for the last 400,000 years.
humans have existed as a species for approximately 200,000 years.

genoves thinks humans existed during the Jurassic 200 million years ago.

Your comments are rather stupid, aren't they genoves?