Dateline 17,000 BC: The First Global Warming Debate

[Arkady]

I think civilization will have problems regardless of the path the climate is on.

But I'll take problems in a world with a lush tropical Colorado over one with an ice age Colorado any day.

But why present that as the choice? We could, obviously, try to target carbon emissions tailored to keep the global average temperature about where it is now. Assuming the tendency without humans would be heading towards an ice-bound Colorado, that would mean higher CO2 than during prior centuries, to offset cooling factors and reach a neutral state. But it wouldn't mean out-of-control increasing CO2, that would vastly more than offset cooling factors to result in two degrees or more (Celsius) temperature increase over the next century. Right now, the path most experts think we're on is for rapid warming. We could instead get on a path for slow warming, with some practical changes. That's the real choice here.

By the way, the experts aren't predicting "lush tropical Colorado." They're predicting a drier, deforested Colorado:

http://www.rockymountainclimate.org/website pictures/Hotter and Drier.pdf

 

[Capitalist]

Stay tuned for next weeks episode,, where Grog proposes sacrificing a virgin every year on the winter solstice, in order to stop the glacial melting.

And proposes to execute all clan members who disagree with his plan, as "glacier deniers"

Good idea. And Grog must prepare virgin for sacrifice in private "purification ritual." Should take Grog, oh, 30 minutes or so.

 

[Capitalist]

But why present that as the choice? We could, obviously, try to target carbon emissions tailored to keep the global average temperature about where it is now. Assuming the tendency without humans would be heading towards an ice-bound Colorado, that would mean higher CO2 than during prior centuries, to offset cooling factors and reach a neutral state. But it wouldn't mean out-of-control increasing CO2, that would vastly more than offset cooling factors to result in two degrees or more (Celsius) temperature increase over the next century. Right now, the path most experts think we're on is for rapid warming. We could instead get on a path for slow warming, with some practical changes. That's the real choice here.

By the way, the experts aren't predicting "lush tropical Colorado." They're predicting a drier, deforested Colorado:

http://www.rockymountainclimate.org/website pictures/Hotter and Drier.pdf

Historical fact disagrees with the High Priests--I mean--experts.

 

[Arkady]

Historical fact disagrees with the High Priests--I mean--experts.

Incorrect. The experts derive their beliefs from the historical facts.

 

[Capitalist]

Incorrect. The experts derive their beliefs from the historical facts.

Dead wrong. These are the historical facts:

Furthermore, it would appear that in warm times and high CO2 the Earth is wetter:

And LOOK at that CO2 peak in the Pre-Cambrian! Yet the temperature never seems to get above 22 C. That spike corresponds to about 7000 ppm.

And so the historical FACTS tell us that warmer is wetter. . .not dryer. And that given even wild swings in CO2 the avg. temp never really breaks 22C.

Show me a period of time in the Earth's history when warmer meant dryer.

But you know what? Why don't you whip up some statistics that support your "experts" and refute these graphs. I'm in the mood for a good laugh.

 

[ObamacareForever]

Dead wrong. These are the historical facts:

Furthermore, it would appear that in warm times and high CO2 the Earth is wetter:

And LOOK at that CO2 peak in the Pre-Ambrian! Yet the temperature never seems to get above 22 C. That spike corresponds to about 7000 ppm.

And so the historical FACTS tell us that warmer is wetter. . .not dryer. And that given even wild swings in CO2 the avg. temp never really breaks 22C.

Show me a period of time in the Earth's history when warmer meant dryer.

But you know what? Why don't you whip up some statistics that support your "experts." I'm in the mood for a laugh.

If by wetter you mean the ice caps are going to melt and drown Florida, then yes.

 

[Capitalist]

If by wetter you mean the ice caps are going to melt and drown Florida, then yes.

Do your homework.

We have fossil evidence that shows Colorado was a jungle at those warmer times and there were ferns in Antarctica.

And I'm sure those Floridians have lots and lots and lots of time to move.

Waitaminute! You don't think any of this calamity will happen anytime before your great grandchildren are long dead do you? That would be very "Gore" of you.

Don't make me break a rib laughing.

 

[ObamacareForever]

Do your homework.

We have fossil evidence that shows Colorado was a jungle at those warmer times and there were ferns in Antarctica.

And I'm sure those Floridians have lots and lots and lots of time to move.

Waitaminute! You don't think any of this calamity will happen anytime before your great grandchildren are long dead do you? That would be very "Gore" of you.

Don't make me break a rib laughing.

Past performance is not indicative of future results. What the climate was like 4 million years ago isn't really relavent. Humans have only come around in the last 40,000 years or so. We need a climate that is habitable to humans.
I know the middle of america doesn't give 2 sh*ts about what happens to the coast, But round about 40% of the global population lives along the coast. You see no problems with an increasing population density from people being forced to move inland?

 

[Arkady]

Dead wrong. These are the historical facts:

Furthermore, it would appear that in warm times and high CO2 the Earth is wetter:

And LOOK at that CO2 peak in the Pre-Ambrian! Yet the temperature never seems to get above 22 C. That spike corresponds to about 7000 ppm.

And so the historical FACTS tell us that warmer is wetter. . .not dryer. And that given even wild swings in CO2 the avg. temp never really breaks 22C.

Show me a period of time in the Earth's history when warmer meant dryer.

But you know what? Why don't you whip up some statistics that support your "experts." I'm in the mood for a laugh.

Yes, the Earth as a whole tends to be wetter when warmer. However, Colorado is expected to be drier. As for your graphs, the scale is wrong to assess the facts relevant to the present case (the unprecedented rapidity of modern warming, which can't even be seen at a scale where the whole industrial era is a mere blip. )

 

[as seen on tv]

Good idea. And Grog must prepare virgin for sacrifice in private "purification ritual." Should take Grog, oh, 30 minutes or so.

Grog says 3-4 minutes is all he's ever needed.

 

[Wahbooz]

So since you don't even realize we're in an ice age, we could say you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of the issue. But let's set that aside.

You think a carbon credits trading scam for the rich, corporate welfare and lots of wind farms is going to change the course of the planet's climate? Seriously?

You trying to belittle others on this issue would be like Pee Wee Herman belittling Lou Ferrigno for his physique. Get a clue! Buy some if you have to!

Hahahaha, so here we go with thinking again. Where is your evidence of an ice age of any kind? Whigville, Michigan experienced far more significant inclimate weather in 1836 and 1837, including a snow storm in May. Are you going to try to tell me that was a 'mini ice age'?

Even in your ridiculous top post, the Younger Dryas. Show me where there is significant ice buildup. This is nothing more than inclimate weather, and it could be brought on by many issues.

 

[Wahbooz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age



See, that's the problem here. Too much politics, not enough science.

Or humility.

I'm not really sure where you're going with that. With the use of the term holocene, are you referring to our always being in an ice age, and this is a warming period prior to a continuation of an ice age?

 

[Wahbooz]

According to scientists, we are living in an ice age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

Some scientists. They can parse words all they want. I'm waiting to see the encroachment of glaciers.

 

[Capitalist]

Grog says 3-4 minutes is all he's ever needed.

HAAA! You funny! Grog like!

 

[Capitalist]

Yes, the Earth as a whole tends to be wetter when warmer. However, Colorado is expected to be drier.

How? By magic? Because that assertion doesn't follow from the historical data.

Tell you what, stats boy. Why don't you calculate the correlation coefficient between the sets of data for avg. temperature and humidity over the existence of the earth? We can assume that increased humidity equals a "wetter" climate. That should put your question to rest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_dependence

And if you don't want to calculate it, then plumb the depths of the internet and copy/paste your favorite warmitologist's findings.

Why don't I do it? Because I don't care to. You and the rest of the warmmongers are the ones making the assertion that we gotta DO something. You're the stats boy. So you do it.

As for your graphs, the scale is wrong to assess the facts relevant to the present case (the unprecedented rapidity of modern warming, which can't even be seen at a scale where the whole industrial era is a mere blip. )

Well, that's the best set of data we have. If you have anything better, please feel free to share.

 

[Capitalist]

Some scientists. They can parse words all they want. I'm waiting to see the encroachment of glaciers.

It's simple.

Do we have ice at the polar regions? We do?

Then we're in an ice age.

 

[Capitalist]

I'm not really sure where you're going with that. With the use of the term holocene, are you referring to our always being in an ice age, and this is a warming period prior to a continuation of an ice age?

Glacial and interglacial periods make up an ice age.

We are in an interglacial period of an ice age. We have been for the last 20,000 years. The ice age has been going on for the past 2.6 million years.

 

[Wahbooz]

Glacial and interglacial periods make up an ice age.

We are in an interglacial period of an ice age. We have been for the last 20,000 years. The ice age has been going on for the past 2.6 million years.

An ice age is indicated by a long term reduction in the earths temperature. All indicators show that the earth's temperature is on the rise, not a long term reduction in the earths temperature.

In 1969 I saw permafrost dug up in Canada 6" under the surface in July. They didn't use septic tanks or fields because of the permafrost. Good luck finding that much permafrost on the Lake Superior coast now.

Sure ice builds at the poles, but there hasn't been the accumulation of just 40 years ago. Look around, you'll see how countries are using the polar seas year around now, and exploration for natural resources in the arctic is happening today.

 

[Wahbooz]

Glacial and interglacial periods make up an ice age.

We are in an interglacial period of an ice age. We have been for the last 20,000 years. The ice age has been going on for the past 2.6 million years.

I understand what you're saying, but too many people take this ice age thing wrong. Could this warming take us, at some point into another glacial period? Perhaps, but that may be thousands of years down the road. What affect will that have on life on this earth.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Hahahaha, so here we go with thinking again. Where is your evidence of an ice age of any kind? Whigville, Michigan experienced far more significant inclimate weather in 1836 and 1837, including a snow storm in May. Are you going to try to tell me that was a 'mini ice age'?

Even in your ridiculous top post, the Younger Dryas. Show me where there is significant ice buildup. This is nothing more than inclimate weather, and it could be brought on by many issues.

Translation: Crap, I got nailed. How about I do this?

HAHAHA!!! The old "are you saying...." canard? I guess that's better than confronting the actual content of the post, eh?