Give me your opinions about global warming

[iNow]

The data against it is your own ridiculously weak, short-term, one dimensional climate data!

 

Im self-righteous??? Who are the treehuggers trying to push green policies on everyone no matter how it affects them economically?

 

 

 

No! Natural selection has been shown to be right with every test given to it, and has copious and varying evidence (living and fossil) to back it up. It is still to this day tested for failure and never treated as absolute fact by scientists...... Hence scientific integrity.

 

Global warming claims however are based on assertion over scant evidence and have derived from the popular culture section with an ever increasing mercenary scientist following......Hence irrational hysteria and big buck chasers .

Furthermore your type wouldnt know what the word "honest" was if you never even heard of the word politics.

 

Like I said. Reminds me of arguing evolution with a creationist.

 

Please do define "scant evidence," as I can show you a metric ass load of data about global climate change and the long-term impact our actions have which is not "derived from the popular culture section." That is, of course, if you would be willing to take your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes.

[ghstofmaxwll]

Like I said. Reminds me of arguing evolution with a creationist.

 

Please do define "scant evidence," as I can show you a metric ass load of data about global climate change and the long-term impact our actions have which is not "derived from the popular culture section." That is, of course, if you would be willing to take your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes.

 

Its not the quantity of the data but the quality of data( in regards to the amount of time you have collected said data and few variables and known elements it actually covers).

 

Im sure you have plenty of one dimensional data repeating the same pointers living along side your fingered orifices.

[Pangloss]

Ew, that's gross.

 

Ok, that's enough with the personal attacks. If you can't talk civilly to one another we're going to have to shut down the thread.

 

Edit: You know what, in reviewing this thread the infractions list is longer than a call girl's appointment sheet at a "Family Values" convention. Either you people cool it or you're going to find out a whole different kind of "inconvenient truth"!

 

'Nuff said.

[swansont]

Back-tested? Show me a paper or report that shows modeled results where the modeling begins in the year 1007 and predicts the "global climate" accurately from that day to today.

 

My honest answer (or, more specifically, my opinion) is that it sounds exactly the same as when a creationist doubts natural selection.

 

Can't really say it any better than that. It sounds exactly like "show me a half-lung."

 

Swansont said

 

"Because you say things like "you are putting words into my mouth. Not that there is anything new about this." and I choose to defend myself aginst such allegations."

 

I have been told much worse. Just today, in another thread an idiot who disagreed with me called me a total bastard. If you are thin skinned, you should not be contributing to these threads. And yes, you did put words into my mouth. And yes, there is nothing new about it, though you are not the main culprit.

 

Being thin-skinned (or not) has nothing to do with it. You asked me a question, I answered it. You made an accusation, I responded; your justification of using or not using models does not seem to be consistent. It seems that if you like what they show, you use them and if they don't, they are too complex.

 

Swansont also said

 

"One thing that gives me pause about the solar irradiance and T curve to which you've linked is that it doesn't show the 11-year cycles that are known to exist. Why is that?"

 

It depends on which scientific study you are quoting. The papers I have checked on this issue tend to use a kind of evened out trend, rather than following the exact year by year effect which, as you rightly pointed out, goes up and down according to the 11 and 22 year cycles. The Max Planck Insitute results which I have been quoting show trends that are 'compensated' for the cycles. There are other papers that look at the changes within one cycle, and show an effect equivalent to about 0.2 Celsius global temperature within one cycle.

 

And the danger in that is that if you start massaging the data, how do you know when to stop? When it fits your preconceived idea? That's bad science.

 

Swansont also said

 

"You should see this correlation only after you have subtracted out the other effects. Unless you are contending that other terms have no effect at all, but you have to justify that, too. Just saying the CO2 increase is trivial is not evidence-based."

 

As I have pointed out before, I am sceptical of the calculations of various forcings. However, some things are obvious, even if you do not carry out probably spurious calculations.

 

CO2 increase was about 10 ppm over the 60 year period from 1880 to 1940. ie. 0.17 ppm per year. Over this time period, it was pretty steady year by year. After 1976, and to 2007, it averaged over 1 ppm per year. I think the difference is sufficient to conclude that the warming effect from CO2 before 1940 was 'trivial' compared to the last 3 decades.

 

At the same time, there was a significant global cooling from 1880 to 1810, and a substantial (0.4 C) warming from 1910 to 1940. The cooling was preceded by a drop in sunspot activity and the warming by a substantial rise in sunspot activity.

 

And here you ignore the period from 1940-1976, where the increase was slightly less than 1 ppm per year. If the increase then was half of the recent trend and if the effect on temperature is linear, then the temperature increase in that span should be half of from 1976 onward, or 0.2 ºC. In other words, if solar is as important as you state, the temperature should NOT have a good correlation with solar activity in this frame — there should be a 0.2 ºC deviation from the CO2. And you have to account for all of the other contributions, too.

 

Until you've accounted for all of that, you can't support your conclusion. You've explained why you won't, and that's not the issue here. What you have is a correlation, without justification that there should actually be one. You simply cannot take the next step and conclude that solar was responsible and have it be scientifically justified.

[waitforufo]

Swansont,

You said:

 

Your dismissal of climate models because they haven't been tested against empirical data ignores the fact that they are back-tested, and this has been pointed out repeatedly.

 

I simply asked you to provide a reference to a paper demonstrating this "back-testing" you mention. I suggested a backtesting period of time equal to 1000 years. If a model is to be trusted to predict 100 years into the future one would think that a back-testing period of 10 times that amount would not be unreasonable.

 

Your response was to dismiss my request as the rantings of a creationist. Having trouble finding a back-testing reference? Since you claim that successful back testing has been demonstrated repeatedly, one would think my request is a simple one.

[SkepticLance]

Swansont said :

 

"It seems that if you like what they show, you use them and if they don't, they are too complex."

 

I think if you check back, you will find that the only models I have expressed real scepticism about are the global climate models. These are possibly the most complex computer models that humankind has ever tried to set up. To say they are extremely complex is not some 'convenience' to support my argument, but simply the truth.

 

Swansont also said :

 

"And the danger in that is that if you start massaging the data, how do you know when to stop? When it fits your preconceived idea? That's bad science."

 

I have not been, as you put it, 'massaging the data." I have been doing what everyone on this forum does. That is, I quote studies that are relevent, and do not quote studies that are irrelevent. The studies looking at the temperature impact of highs and lows in the sunspot 11 and 22 year cycles do not contradict my points. However, they are not particularly relevent to the discussion, so I do not use them.

 

 

Swansont also said :

 

"here you ignore the period from 1940-1976, where the increase was slightly less than 1 ppm per year."

 

Not exactly ignore. I used the 1880 to 1940 time period to illustrate my point, which is part of the discussion. I agree that in the 1940 to 1976 time period, the CO2 increase was greater, and its impact would be greater also. However, from 1941 to about 1955, there was a drop in global temperature, which was preceded by a drop in sunspot activity. So this 15 year time period also supports my point.

 

I will make you one concession, though. The period 1955 to 1976 was less clear cut, with a couple of temperature rises and falls, and sunspot activity changed relatively little. This period is not one with any obvious correlation. Probably the various parameters affecting temperature rise or fall were more or less in balance.

 

After 1976, of course, anthropogenic greenhouse gases (AGGs) dominated the impact, with fairly steady rise in global temperature.

 

Your arguments, Swansont, are still not terribly scientific. Again you accuse me, wrongly, of cherry picking which models to believe. You accuse me, wrongly, of massaging data. You accuse me of selecting time periods to support my case while ignoring others.

 

None of these arguments address the issue - just try to discredit the debater rather than continue the debate. As I said, you should either agree with me, or discuss the science.

[swansont]

Swansont,

You said:

 

 

 

I simply asked you to provide a reference to a paper demonstrating this "back-testing" you mention. I suggested a backtesting period of time equal to 1000 years. If a model is to be trusted to predict 100 years into the future one would think that a back-testing period of 10 times that amount would not be unreasonable.

 

Your response was to dismiss my request as the rantings of a creationist. Having trouble finding a back-testing reference? Since you claim that successful back testing has been demonstrated repeatedly, one would think my request is a simple one.

 

No, you asked for a specific time span in the model (the implication of which being that if such a simulation does not exist, then your position is validated)

 

But, how long have climate models been around? A few decades? Any model predictions predating then have to have been from back-testing.

 

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

 

"we first show in section 2.0 the results of a recent preliminary attempt to simulate the observed global-scale warming over the past century using the GFDL coupled climate model"

http://www.gfdl.gov/~tk/climate_dynamics/climate_impact_webpage.html

 

"And the danger in that is that if you start massaging the data, how do you know when to stop? When it fits your preconceived idea? That's bad science."

 

I have not been, as you put it, 'massaging the data." I have been doing what everyone on this forum does. That is, I quote studies that are relevent, and do not quote studies that are irrelevent. The studies looking at the temperature impact of highs and lows in the sunspot 11 and 22 year cycles do not contradict my points. However, they are not particularly relevent to the discussion, so I do not use them.

 

That's a generic "you." I have never been under the impression that these models are yours, nor meant to imply that you were doing the calculations.

 

Swansont also said :

 

"here you ignore the period from 1940-1976, where the increase was slightly less than 1 ppm per year."

 

Not exactly ignore. I used the 1880 to 1940 time period to illustrate my point, which is part of the discussion. I agree that in the 1940 to 1976 time period, the CO2 increase was greater, and its impact would be greater also. However, from 1941 to about 1955, there was a drop in global temperature, which was preceded by a drop in sunspot activity. So this 15 year time period also supports my point.

 

I will make you one concession, though. The period 1955 to 1976 was less clear cut, with a couple of temperature rises and falls, and sunspot activity changed relatively little. This period is not one with any obvious correlation. Probably the various parameters affecting temperature rise or fall were more or less in balance.

 

After 1976, of course, anthropogenic greenhouse gases (AGGs) dominated the impact, with fairly steady rise in global temperature.

 

Your arguments, Swansont, are still not terribly scientific. Again you accuse me, wrongly, of cherry picking which models to believe. You accuse me, wrongly, of massaging data. You accuse me of selecting time periods to support my case while ignoring others.

 

None of these arguments address the issue - just try to discredit the debater rather than continue the debate. As I said, you should either agree with me, or discuss the science.

 

I have been discussing the science; I tried to explain why you shouldn't expect the correlations that you are parading around, and that graphs that do not show the 11 year cycles have necessarily been filtered. I can't help that you do not recognize these as scientific arguments.

 

You admit above that certain time spans fit better than others, and you concentrated on them. That's the definition of cherry-picking.

[D.Lickerson]

Global Warming is a hoax....Read Kicking the Sacred Cow by James P. Hogan

 

The amount of co2 and cloroflorocarbons(Greenhouse gasses in general) emitted by humans is like a drop in a 55gallon drum compared to natural things like volcanos

[SkepticLance]

Swansont said :

 

"You admit above that certain time spans fit better than others, and you concentrated on them. That's the definition of cherry-picking."

 

Swansont, please. You are making silly accusations. I have said that the impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gases gets less further into the past as the increase in AGGs gets less. When we look at a graph of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, we see a substantial increase in recent decades. As we go back into the past, the increase gets less.

 

I have said, and no true scientist would disagree, that a reduction in CO2 increase will mean a lesser increase in global temperature. This also means that other parameters will, speaking relatively, be more potent by comparison. My argument is that, in those earlier decades, where AGG increase is less, the impact of sunspot activity variation is greater.

 

For this reason, time periods closer to the present, with more rapid CO2 increase, fit the AGG model better. Time periods further in the past, where CO2 increase is much smaller, fit other models better. This is not cherry picking. This is simple scientific reality.

 

If you cannot debate using good science, then please admit it.

[Pangloss]

Just for the sake of convenience, I've moved the last four Geodue and iNow responses to one another over to the other thread "Global Warming is Bunk". iNow's last post is now (inow?) #19 in that thread. Here's a convenient link to that thread:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=99

[swansont]

Swansont said :

 

"You admit above that certain time spans fit better than others, and you concentrated on them. That's the definition of cherry-picking."

 

Swansont, please. You are making silly accusations. I have said that the impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gases gets less further into the past as the increase in AGGs gets less. When we look at a graph of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, we see a substantial increase in recent decades. As we go back into the past, the increase gets less.

 

I have said, and no true scientist would disagree, that a reduction in CO2 increase will mean a lesser increase in global temperature. This also means that other parameters will, speaking relatively, be more potent by comparison. My argument is that, in those earlier decades, where AGG increase is less, the impact of sunspot activity variation is greater.

 

That can only be true if it were a zero-sum situation, but there are other factors. And until you quantify them, you cannot draw this conclusion. As another example, the cooling arount 1910 also corresponds to a period of increased volcanic activity, which is a cooling effect. Until you quantify its effect you cannot draw the conclusion that it was solar-driven. How do you know that the decrease then wasn't mostly driven by volcanic activity?

 

For this reason, time periods closer to the present, with more rapid CO2 increase, fit the AGG model better. Time periods further in the past, where CO2 increase is much smaller, fit other models better. This is not cherry picking. This is simple scientific reality.

 

If you cannot debate using good science, then please admit it.

 

Science is predominantly driven by quantifying effects. I'm done repeating this: you have to quantify the effects before you can validly draw the conclusion at which you have arrived. This is simple scientific reality. I already gave you an example that falsifies your contention that correlation must identify the dominant driver, so I don't see why you persist with this. You have to quantify the contributions. It's that simple.

[SkepticLance]

Swansont said :

 

As another example, the cooling arount 1910 also corresponds to a period of increased volcanic activity, which is a cooling effect. Until you quantify its effect you cannot draw the conclusion that it was solar-driven. How do you know that the decrease then wasn't mostly driven by volcanic activity?

 

Thank you for giving me something to laugh at. If you double check, you will find that 1910 was the beginning of a warming period, and the world warmed by about 0.4 C between 1910 and 1940. And incidentally, 1910 was preceded by an increase in sunspot activity.

 

Your insistence that science can proceed only by quantifying matters is not strictly accurate. Sure, it is better if effects can be quantified. And, of course, both temperature increase and what the Max Planck Institute call "reconstructed irradiance" can be quantified, and shown as Watts per square metre. This was shown on the graph which I have posted a number of times.

 

However, there are a lot of phenomena noted by scientists for which no accurate quantifying has been done, and for which useful data and conclusions are still gathered. For example : How many Kuiper Belt objects are there? How much do they mass? What is their maximum and minimum size? We have no way of knowing, but we can still study the objects that are accessible to our telescopes.

[swansont]

Swansont said :

 

As another example, the cooling arount 1910 also corresponds to a period of increased volcanic activity, which is a cooling effect. Until you quantify its effect you cannot draw the conclusion that it was solar-driven. How do you know that the decrease then wasn't mostly driven by volcanic activity?

 

Thank you for giving me something to laugh at. If you double check, you will find that 1910 was the beginning of a warming period, and the world warmed by about 0.4 C between 1910 and 1940. And incidentally, 1910 was preceded by an increase in sunspot activity.

 

There was no cooling around 1910?

 

Earlier, you said

At the same time, there was a significant global cooling from 1880 to 1810, and a substantial (0.4 C) warming from 1910 to 1940. The cooling was preceded by a drop in sunspot activity and the warming by a substantial rise in sunspot activity.

 

I'm assuming this was a typo, and you meant 1910.

 

How is this not a contradiction? Either there was cooling up to around 1910, or there wasn't. You can't claim both.

 

Your insistence that science can proceed only by quantifying matters is not strictly accurate. Sure, it is better if effects can be quantified. And, of course, both temperature increase and what the Max Planck Institute call "reconstructed irradiance" can be quantified, and shown as Watts per square metre. This was shown on the graph which I have posted a number of times.

 

Yes, if you misquote me, then the quote isn't strictly accurate.

"predominantly" =! "exclusively"

 

Yes, the reconstructed irradiance gives units. Correct that for geometry and albedo and any other effects that might be present. Then, to compare, look at the magnitude of the other effects on temperature. After that you can make comparisons; you need to remove the other effects before you can draw any valid conclusions.

[waitforufo]

No, you asked for a specific time span in the model (the implication of which being that if such a simulation does not exist, then your position is validated)

 

But, how long have climate models been around? A few decades? Any model predictions predating then have to have been from back-testing.

 

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

 

"we first show in section 2.0 the results of a recent preliminary attempt to simulate the observed global-scale warming over the past century using the GFDL coupled climate model"

http://www.gfdl.gov/~tk/climate_dynamics/climate_impact_webpage.html

 

 

Swansont,

Thank you for providing the above references. I do however have issues with the back-dating periods provided by these references. When I asked for a period of time from 1007 to present I was really just looking for a significant period of time. The exact dates were not of particular interest. I was more interested in whether or not current models could explain why the medieval warm period and the little ice age occurred. Would the modeled results follow the know history for these significant events in our recent past. If they could, then we would know if they had any meaningful accuracy in predicting climate in the absence of anthropogenic forcing. If current models are not accurate enough to explain past climate warming and cooling periods, why should we trust their ability to predict the future of our current warming period? Is this too much to ask? Do you find anything unscientific about this request?

[SkepticLance]

To waitforufo

 

Your query relates to the argument I have been making. The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age have temperature levels that correlate well with sunspot activity. The correlation is not 100%, of course, since there are other factors involved. However, it appears to be the strongest correlation.

 

To Swansont

 

Just to answer your question. Yes, 1910 was the coldest part of a cooling period. That is why I thought the suggestion that a volcanic eruption in 1910 as cooling influence was somewhat amusing. If that were true, we would see the years following showing a further cooling. They do not. 1910 to 1940 was a quite substantial warming period.

 

I was interested to read an account of the eruption of the Tambora Volcano in Indonesia in the year 1815. This was the most potent eruption over the past few centuries. The year 1816 was known as the 'year without a summer' showing the cooling effect of a major volcano. However, within 2 to 3 years, global climate seemed to be back to normal.

 

It seems to me that, if the most massive eruption has an effect lasting no more than 3 years, then we should be careful about ascribing too much effect to the much smaller eruptions of the 20th Century.

[ghstofmaxwll]

Swansont,

Thank you for providing the above references. I do however have issues with the back-dating periods provided by these references. When I asked for a period of time from 1007 to present I was really just looking for a significant period of time. The exact dates were not of particular interest. I was more interested in whether or not current models could explain why the medieval warm period and the little ice age occurred. Would the modeled results follow the know history for these significant events in our recent past. If they could, then we would know if they had any meaningful accuracy in predicting climate in the absence of anthropogenic forcing. If current models are not accurate enough to explain past climate warming and cooling periods, why should we trust their ability to predict the future of our current warming period? Is this too much to ask? Do you find anything unscientific about this request?

 

Excellent point, of course, you wont get what you ask for, well I've never seen them even use context of even a century back in their argument, let alone model it(which of course they cant because they havent got the historic data they need).

[waitforufo]

To waitforufo

 

Your query relates to the argument I have been making. The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age have temperature levels that correlate well with sunspot activity. The correlation is not 100%, of course, since there are other factors involved. However, it appears to be the strongest correlation.

 

SkepticLance,

I agree. Also, it does not seem that the data presented by swansont tracks well with the cooling periods you have pointed out that occurred in the 20th century.

 

A comment on modeling. In my field, electrical engineering in the area of electromagnetics, there are several modeling tools available that predict design performance. These modeling tools are based on well known science, primarily Maxwell’s equations. These modeling tools do get a design into the ballpark thereby reducing the number of physical design iterations needed to achieve a final design. A ballpark is still a large place when the science is so well known and elegantly described. Modeling something as complex as the earths dynamic climate with accuracy must be orders of magnitude more complex. This complexity makes it all the more important to verify the performance on past historical events such as the medieval warm period and the little ice age.

[swansont]

To waitforufo

 

Your query relates to the argument I have been making. The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age have temperature levels that correlate well with sunspot activity. The correlation is not 100%, of course, since there are other factors involved. However, it appears to be the strongest correlation.

 

To Swansont

 

Just to answer your question. Yes, 1910 was the coldest part of a cooling period. That is why I thought the suggestion that a volcanic eruption in 1910 as cooling influence was somewhat amusing. If that were true, we would see the years following showing a further cooling. They do not. 1910 to 1940 was a quite substantial warming period.

 

I was interested to read an account of the eruption of the Tambora Volcano in Indonesia in the year 1815. This was the most potent eruption over the past few centuries. The year 1816 was known as the 'year without a summer' showing the cooling effect of a major volcano. However, within 2 to 3 years, global climate seemed to be back to normal.

 

It seems to me that, if the most massive eruption has an effect lasting no more than 3 years, then we should be careful about ascribing too much effect to the much smaller eruptions of the 20th Century.

 

Well, in 1902 there were three large eruptions (Santa Maria, Pelee and Soufriere) and dozens of smaller ones in each year around that time.

 

http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/find_eruptions.cfm

 

Of course, not all volcanoes will have the same effect. The sulfate levels measure at Summit, Greenland show a spike after Tambora, but peak almost as high in 1902, and are consistently much higher in the 1900-1910 frame than they had been previous to that.

http://www.igac.noaa.gov/newsletter/highlights/1998/pascnl.php

 

So, since you admit that eruptions can have an effect, one should take these into account. They represent one more area where your solar correlation shouldn't be as good, because another factor comes into play.

[SkepticLance]

Swansont

 

I have never said that volcanoes have no effect. We all realise they can be a factor. I have also never said that sunspot activity is the only factor. We all know there are many factors.

 

My argument has been that anthropogenic greenhouse gases (AGGs) were a relatively minor factor before the middle of the 20th Century, though they became a bigger effect later, while changes in sunspot activity have been the biggest single factor before, say, 1955.

 

This whole argument began with 1veedo claiming that AGGs were the dominant influence on global warming/cooling, right back to the beginning of the 20th Century. Clearly, they were not.

[1veedo]

I have never said that volcanoes have no effect. We all realise they can be a factor. I have also never said that sunspot activity is the only factor. We all know there are many factors.

Finally you're starting to realize this. There are older threads where you were vigorously trying to simplify things to the point where you're simplified version of the climate system didn't look anything like the real climate system. "Well between 1940 and 1976..." and then "1910 to 1941..." even earlier in this thread I think lol, anyway.

This whole argument began with 1veedo claiming that AGGs were the dominant influence on global warming/cooling, right back to the beginning of the 20th Century. Clearly, they were not.

You are trying to pretend that anthropogenic global warming has only been going on for the past 30 years when in reality humans have been steadily causing the Earth to get hotter for over 150 years now, and possibly even longer. To say otherwise is a missinterpretation of what the science says, eg it's a straw man. Just because the human impact on the climate has not always been the overwhelming factor does not change the fact that in the previous 150 years we have caused the Earth to get warmer by about a degree celsius. Where natural factors have caused the temperature to bounce up and down a little during this same period, human factors have steadily been pushing mean temperatures further and further up. If you look at only the natural factors in the climate the Earth would actually be cooler today than what it was 150 years ago, but because of the human influence over this entire period temperatures are much warmer now.

 

It's not as simple as looking at periods of warming and cooling. During periods of cooling anthropogenic factors were still causing warming, the warming effect was just overshadowed by the cooling. If we remove human factors completely these cooling periods would have gotten even cooler and the Earth would be about a degree cooler today than it is.

[ghstofmaxwll]

You are trying to pretend that anthropogenic global warming has only been going on for the past 30 years when in reality humans have been steadily causing the Earth to get hotter for over 150 years now, and possibly even longer. To say otherwise is a missinterpretation of what the science says, eg it's a straw man. Just because the human impact on the climate has not always been the overwhelming factor does not change the fact that in the previous 150 years we have caused the Earth to get warmer by about a degree celsius. Where natural factors have caused the temperature to bounce up and down a little during this same period, human factors have steadily been pushing mean temperatures further and further up. If you look at only the natural factors in the climate the Earth would actually be cooler today than what it was 150 years ago, but because of the human influence over this entire period temperatures are much warmer now.

 

Jesus Christ man! 1 degree C???? If the mean temperature had remained within a degree over a 150 year period it would be a miracle if you take into account the erratic nature of solar surface activity along with one of the most complex climates in the solar system and substantial atmosphere( greenhouse gas rich). Thats not to mention accuracy and precision concerns in data, more so over a century ago.

 

Where do you guys learn your Physics? Do you guys learn Physics? Where do you guys get taught systematic error, not to mention the random error ?

[1veedo]

When the fastest historical period of warming within the past 65 million years or so was 3 orders of magnitude less, 1 degree C is a startling amount. Today the Earth is warming even quicker though, at a rate of about 3 degrees C over 150 years (.2C/decade * 15).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

 

If you've ever had any basic biology you'd know that slight changes in the climate have far-reaching effects.

[ghstofmaxwll]

When the fastest historical period of warming within the past 65 million years or so was 3 orders of magnitude less, 1 degree C is a startling amount. Today the Earth is warming even quicker though, at a rate of about 3 degrees C over 150 years (.2C/decade * 15).

How in the hell do you assume such precision? 65E6 years back would require estimates of temperature through geological records! You guys remind me of the museum joke, with the 850,000,001 year old fossil on display.

 

http://www.jokes.net/accountantvisitsthenaturalhistorymuseum.htm

 

If you've ever had any basic biology you'd know that slight changes in the climate have far-reaching effects.

If you had any knowledge of evolutionary biology, you would know that mass extinctions followed by remain species diversifying in the left niches is all part of the process.

[swansont]

If you've ever had any basic biology you'd know that slight changes in the climate have far-reaching effects.

 

If you had any knowledge of evolutionary biology, you would know that mass extinctions followed by remain species diversifying in the left niches is all part of the process.

 

This, of course, in no way invalidates 1veedo's statement. It's phrased like a rebuttal, but after a microsecond of thought one realizes that it really isn't. It's (partly) because of this observation that we should be concerned about climate change. Unless you want to go down that path of "... and this is a good thing ..." But somehow I doubt that the ones who claim that climate modeling is too complex will be able to reassure us by modeling which species will go extinct and how it will all be fine if that happens.

[ghstofmaxwll]

This, of course, in no way invalidates 1veedo's statement. It's phrased like a rebuttal, but after a microsecond of thought one realizes that it really isn't. It's (partly) because of this observation that we should be concerned about climate change. Unless you want to go down that path of "... and this is a good thing ..." But somehow I doubt that the ones who claim that climate modeling is too complex will be able to reassure us by modeling which species will go extinct and how it will all be fine if that happens.

Indeed! Inow not understanding how much temperature will have surpassed well in excess of 1C fluctuations since 65E6 years ago, is its own rebuttal.

 

Yes It will be fine! It will be fine for evolution! It will be fine for everyone but you guys who are ignorant to mass extinctions throughout transitions from and toward iceages and mini-iceages.