800,000 Years of CO2 - Beautiful and Sad

[iNow]

Yes, where have I done any of that?

Rather clearly, you did it in the other thread from which imatfaal's copy/pasted the previously given warning. Since nobody has accused you of making an ad hom in THIS thread, this is now little more than a red herring.

 

Since you don't seem to understand what these fallacies are, here is a link so you can better comprehend what I mean: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

[Tim the plumber]

Rather clearly, you did it in the other thread from which imatfaal's copy/pasted the previously given warning. Since nobody has accused you of making an ad hom in THIS thread, this is now little more than a red herring.

 

Since you don't seem to understand what these fallacies are, here is a link so you can better comprehend what I mean: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

Any chance you could be more specific? I'd like to revisit it and see it.

[imatfaal]

Tim

 

Can we keep this thread on topic please - this is not about logical fallacies and your previous posts; we have dealt with a one off question but lets move on now. Open a new thread in Support and Suggestions if you want

[michel123456]

On topic.

 

Wonderful presentation. I had seen these graphs before but not animated.

 

However

I had been looking some years ago about russian views on global warming. Well at the time they were very pleased! Siberia would become able for agriculture, new naval roads would open in the north polar ocean giving new horizons to Russia. Also new access for drilling in currently permafrost zones would be possible.

At my surprise, I see that today's political views have changed and Russi has aligned to the occidental POV that increasing temperature is a bad thing.

I have to dig to find references.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's a hint; he didn't mention cost.

Risking the destruction of our ecosystem is a cost too: rather a high one.

 

Whatever the cash costs are, there is a lot of special interest and social inertia preventing the introduction of less polluting energy sources.

I know he didn't mention cost. That's why I ask the question.

 

I think it's intellectually dishonest to leave the cost factor out of why people reject options to reduce CO2.

 

If we found several options, do any of them not cost more, as to make the statement correct that it is [implied that only] social inertia and special interests are why we haven't embraced them more?

Edited January 11, 2015 by Wild Cobra

[michel123456]

http://www.geocurrents.info/place/russia-ukraine-and-caucasus/siberia/global-warming-and-siberia-blessing-or-curse

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

while the conversation has drifted here, this is not posted in politics, so let's try and focus on the science

[Wild Cobra]

OK, color me confused...

 

The Title of this revived thread is "800,000 Years of CO2 - Beautiful and Sad." The video is real nice, but has no explaination for the 800,000 years.

 

If we assume our added approximate 40% lead to an approximate 0.8 degrees of warming, then why are we including it with a period of time when a change of about 160 ppm to 278 ppm, which is a 74% increase, leads to 8 degree change...

 

What gives?

 

If I assume ln(389/278) x 2.4 = 0.8 degrees, then ln(278/160) x 2.4 = 1.3 degrees. Yet, I cannot imagine the ice age to be only 2.1 degrees cooler than today.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Wild Cobra

[Tim the plumber]

!

Moderator Note

while the conversation has drifted here, this is not posted in politics, so let's try and focus on the science

Is this thread about science?

 

I thought it was an emotional piece about some sort of philosophy on humans being bad and anything they do is always bad. That nature should free it's self from the infection of humanity.....

 

Where is the science in the OP? What is it's scientific point? Why the music? Human activity has increased CO2. Yeah, so?

 

If there is a scientific point to this thread please explain it to me.

[swansont]

Is this thread about science?

 

I thought it was an emotional piece about some sort of philosophy on humans being bad and anything they do is always bad. That nature should free it's self from the infection of humanity.....

 

Where is the science in the OP? What is it's scientific point? Why the music? Human activity has increased CO2. Yeah, so?

 

If there is a scientific point to this thread please explain it to me.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Pardon my brevity. It's more about the effective communication of science. (I thought that was clear from reading the OP, but apparently I was mistaken.) The larger point being that this was not posted in politics, so the subject of the two posts prior to my modnote were going off-topic. Those discussions can be taken up elsewhere, if so desired.

 

Do not further derail the thread by responding to the modnotes.

 

[overtone]

 

 

Yet, I cannot imagine the ice age to be only 2.1 degrees cooler than today.

The weird thing is how people who cannot imagine this or that aspect of reality take their failures as some kind of data or evidence that the reality does not exist.

 

Some kind of common vulnerability of human nature is involved. And the propagandists of the US - the world's best, ever - know how to take advantage of it - cripple the imagination, and one can prevent all kinds of perception of even fairly obvious realities.

 

And that is why this thread exists, on a science forum - to instruct, rehabilitate, and thereby increase the capability of, the denialist imagination with respect to the CO2 boost and its incoming consequences.

[Wild Cobra]

The weird thing is how people who cannot imagine this or that aspect of reality take their failures as some kind of data or evidence that the reality does not exist.

 

Some kind of common vulnerability of human nature is involved. And the propagandists of the US - the world's best, ever - know how to take advantage of it - cripple the imagination, and one can prevent all kinds of perception of even fairly obvious realities.

 

And that is why this thread exists, on a science forum - to instruct, rehabilitate, and thereby increase the capability of, the denialist imagination with respect to the CO2 boost and its incoming consequences.

 

I was hoping to kick start a lost thread, throw it back on course with answers to my query. Instead, I get your response, which appears as an insult.

 

If CO2 is the cause, then why the discrepancies? Why the 800,000 year in the Title with no discussion of it afterwards? The only point I see them making is that we have significantly more CO2 than the ice cores reveal. Just how accurate is this, when the past ice core samples average what? I forget without looking it up, but I believe they average over 600 years between samples that far back. Would we really see shorter spikes that may match today’s levels? What is that probability?

 

CO2 in the times before we came out of the last ice age closely followed… didn’t lead temperatures. Consensus has it that solar variations brought us out of the ice age. What if CO2 doesn’t have the extent of warming claimed? If so, why the long hiatus? Is it just coincidence that the sun had its greatest output on record in 1958, and the ocean warming changes may take decades to equalize to the surface?

 

I could say I found it odd that they didn’t also show temperature reconstructions with the CO2, but it would detract from the beauty of the graph.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Wild Cobra

[overtone]

Instead, I get your response, which appears as an insult.

So there's hope for you - you do realize that to describe your posting there, and inquire after its sociological roots, is to insult the poster. Sorry about that - but what can one do?

 

 

CO2 in the times before we came out of the last ice age closely followed… didn’t lead temperatures. Consensus has it that solar variations brought us out of the ice age.

So? You seem to think that is very, very important for some reason, but why?

 

 

I forget without looking it up, but I believe they average over 600 years between samples that far back.

Which doesn't prevent you from claiming the CO2 levels were following the temperature changes.

 

But never mind: Which cores are you talking about? The ones that take us back through the past couple of glaciations have much higher resolution than 600 years - look at the graphs. The ones going back 3/4 of a million years might miss a spike like ours, if ours vanishes within a century and is followed by a significant and multiple century dip below 150 or so, but there's no sign of a possible and reasonable cause for such a unique event, and no trace of it anywhere else in the geological record.

 

And besides, what would you then argue? We know where the spike is coming from now, and we are measuring and analyzing its effects.

 

 

 

 

What if CO2 doesn’t have the extent of warming claimed?

What if the entire body of Western science has overlooked some major factor nobody has thought of yet, that saves us from the otherwise all but inevitable consequences of doubling the CO2 in the air? Then we will have been very, very lucky.

 

 

 

Is it just coincidence that the sun had its greatest output on record in 1958, and the ocean warming changes may take decades to equalize to the surface?

Uh, are you seriously claiming the sun warmed the ocean from the bottom up in 1958, the warmth is just now reaching the surface undetected by earlier measurements, and that is what is warming the atmosphere these days?

 

Or what is this supposed "coincidence"? What are you claiming is coincident with what?

Edited January 13, 2015 by overtone

[Tim the plumber]

If there is something in this thread OP beyond the fact that human activity has increased CO2 in the air please tell me what it is.

 

All I see is an emotion piece which has no, ... erm.. point.

[iNow]

If there is something in this thread OP beyond the fact that human activity has increased CO2 in the air please tell me what it is.

 

All I see is an emotion piece which has no, ... erm.. point.

Post #7 already largely addressed this: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83238-800000-years-of-co2-beautiful-and-sad/?p=806239

[Tim the plumber]

Post #7 already largely addressed this: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83238-800000-years-of-co2-beautiful-and-sad/?p=806239

So you think that there are people on this science forum who are not aware that human activity is held, correctly I think, as the cause for increases in CO2 in the air?

 

Have you ever come across any post here which has held that view?

[iNow]

Obtuse, intentional or otherwise, has grown boring.

[Harold Squared]

I guarantee this: no one will ever say, "This beautiful spring day can be attributed to Global Warming."

 

People griped about the weather before the AGW fraud raised its ugly head and will continue to do so after that myth has been laid to rest.

[Strange]

I guarantee this: no one will ever say, "This beautiful spring day can be attributed to Global Warming."

 

I have heard people say that (as spring here is [was] usually cold and wet).

 

 

People griped about the weather before the AGW fraud raised its ugly head and will continue to do so after that myth has been laid to rest.

 

Funny.

[Wild Cobra]

I guarantee this: no one will ever say, "This beautiful spring day can be attributed to Global Warming."

 

People griped about the weather before the AGW fraud raised its ugly head and will continue to do so after that myth has been laid to rest.

The problem in these forums is that if you disagree with the consensus view, and seem the least bit credible, they will hound you into the unwillingness to answer, then suspend you for not answering.

 

Choose your words carefully, else you will get a suspension.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/page-19#entry838272

Edited January 24, 2015 by Wild Cobra

[Harold Squared]

I have heard people say that (as spring here is [was] usually cold and wet.

 

 

 

Funny.

I am sure no one is threatening to do so, as our colleague Strange seems to agree with my claim that only UNpleasant weather is attributed to AGW. Funny business indeed.

[iNow]

Is it possible to make your case without using such obvious misrepresentations of the positions of those who accept the overwhelming scientific consensus?

[Strange]

I am sure no one is threatening to do so, as our colleague Strange seems to agree with my claim that only UNpleasant weather is attributed to AGW.

 

I was saying exactly the opposite. Is your reading comprehension that poor (which might explain why you don't understand the evidence) or was it a deliberate misrepresentation?

Edited January 24, 2015 by Strange

[John Cuthber]

The problem in these forums is that if you disagree with the consensus view, and seem the least bit credible, they will hound you into the unwillingness to answer, then suspend you for not answering.

 

Choose your words carefully, else you will get a suspension.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/page-19#entry838272

Actually, you can be fairly slack in your choice of the words in your reply - it's when you choose not to reply at all that you risk suspension.

 

Of course, you should be careful in your choice of words because the alternative is that you risk not being understood.

Incidentally re.

" if you disagree with the consensus view, and seem the least bit credible, they will..."

How do you know?

... only UNpleasant weather is attributed to AGW. ...

Not by anyone who understands the difference between weather and climate.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Let's stick to the topic, please.