Plants begin to die at 200 PPM, the level we had during the last Ice Age.”

Please post supporting links (primarily for “This is because the plants we have today were used to higher CO2 levels in the past” statement).
Thank you

I know my position on this causes some discombobulation in the local political blogscape (both here and on HuffPo, but the sum total of what I know leads me away from Al Gore’s cushy bosom.

It is interesting to note that HuffPo now rarely blogs about climate change.

“As for temperature changes they are nothing special whatsoever. The transition between the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age was more rapid and of greater magnitude, so also changes related to the Minoan and Roman Warm Periods. I know, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age don’t really exist, except that they did for the more than 6,000 Vikings who were driven out of their Greenland settlements due to a worsening climate, and the general contraction of agricultural outputs across Europe during the Little Ice Age. It is there for all to see, and cannot be hidden by revisionist climate history.”

(*LAUGHING MY ASS OFF*) (*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN WITH TWO THUMBS UP*)

Sftor1… whether you appreciate the compliment or not, I’m just blown away by the QUALITY of your posts on this particular thread/subject.

To to give you a bit of blog history – perhaps before you discovered NM – whenever one of us brings up the historical record… it’s usually met with silence.

Usually at this point we can expect to hear no more from Sinz on the subject – at least here on this thread.

(Of course… my writing that might just hook Sinz back it; you just never know!) (*GRIN*)

BILL

you will note that historians use climate to explain historic events such as the Eurasian Migration Period, the first migration across the Bering Land Bridge, the Viking territorial expansion, Medieval cathedrals, wars, famines, average European body heights through history, the Black Death, and so on.

Climate change advocates now try to erase these climatic swings.

the IPCC estimates a rise of abut 8 inches on the outside, provided that the climate models are reliable (more about that in a moment.)

should be

the IPCC estimates a rise of abut 8 inches by 2100 on the outside, provided that the climate models are reliable (more about that in a moment.)

Please refrain from using the term “denier.” It harkens to the term “Holocaust denier,” and is nothing but a slur. The term “skeptic” covers it just fine.

I will also point out that your argument from authority is a logical fallacy. I am making my position known here, in this forum, after continuous deliberation and study. It is possible that many Earth Science faculties disagree with my position, but to suggest that I am a solitary voice flailing against a bulwark of accepted facts is nothing but a misrepresentation. You know and I know that there are many respected scientists who disagree with the IPCC reports. As a matter of fact many IPCC scientists disagree with the summary conclusions of the IPCC. The sooner you stop hiding behind authority the sooner you can assume the benefits of finding out for yourself.

The pace of change we are seeing is not particularly quick. Temperature, sea levels, and atmospheric CO2 content has changed at a greater pace in the past over several periods. It is also interesting to note that Swedish oceanographer Nils Axel Morner, who bothered to check sea level histories in the Maldives (the ocean level canary in the coal mine) found that the sea level around the Maldives has actually dropped by about 12 inches since 1970. Erosion, however, is giving the Maldivians (?) recurring problems. That, however, is not the same as sea level rise. I am not saying this is the case worldwide, where we have had very small rise. Sea level rise varies, and the IPCC estimates a rise of abut 8 inches on the outside, provided that the climate models are reliable (more about that in a moment.)

We know that CO2 releases lag temperatures by about 800–1,000 years, which means that our current anthropogenic releases are mixed in with the increased releases from the Medieval Warm Period. Please also note that the CO2 increase is too linear to fit with anthropogenic releases. There is more going on than meets the eye.

As for temperature changes they are nothing special whatsoever. The transition between the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age was more rapid and of greater magnitude, so also changes related to the Minoan and Roman Warm Periods. I know, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age don’t really exist, except that they did for the more than 6,000 Vikings who were driven out of their Greenland settlements due to a worsening climate, and the general contraction of agricultural outputs across Europe during the Little Ice Age. It is there for all to see, and cannot be hidden by revisionist climate history.

When we look at current weather statistics (rainfall, droughts, hurricanes, etc.) we see no pattern, and certainly no increase in catastrophic events. Currently total energy in warm weather systems is somewhere between down and fair to middling.

What are we left with on the global warming side? An increase of temperatures over the last century of about 0.5 °C. According to the ice core research done in Greenland with GISP II, 1871 was the coldest year there since the last Ice Age. This again is a local measurement, but demonstrates that we are measuring temperatures starting with a very cold period. As for a correlation between CO2 releases and temperature: it does not fit. This does not mean there is no causation, simply that it cannot be inferred directly from recent measurements of temperature and CO2 releases.

How about climate models? Recent evaluations have given them predictive power out to a two-week horizon. Once you are past that the chaotic nature of the climate system takes over and renders them unreliable. To trust them for predictions over decades is simply unscientific.

Should we continue the research and learn how to evaluate AGW? Yes. Do we have any idea what is really going on with the planet’s climate today? Not really. Not in any meaningful sense.

Every observation points to that the climate we live in today is reasonably inhabitable, but that it can get better with a little more warming. Predictions of droughts and other adverse developments are pure conjecture. Predictions of catastrophy caused by AGW is pure conjecture. Predictions of a colder future climate on the other hand, are almost guaranteed to be accurate.

We live on one of the climactic peaks of recent Earth history, a time that is fairly benign to the human race, separated from one another by lengthy swaths of frigid conditions.

Let’s enjoy, shall we?

Another OUTSTANDING post, Sftor1 – informative as well as logical and well written.

(BTW, I couldn’t agree more with you on the fisheries issue.) (*NOD*)

Re: Johnmcc // Aug 19, 2009 at 5:56 pm (#18) –

So… (*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)… you’re saying the American southwest is guaranteed to become a permanent drought zone over the next hundred years…???

Please clarify.

BILL

data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Regarding the role of carbon dioxide:

earthguide.uscd.edu/globalchange/global_warming/03.html

So go argue with the earth-science faculty of every significant university about CO2, ok?

And the point of the debate is not whether the earth has ever been warmer or CO2 higher. The point is the pace of change; evolution adjusts adequately to many changes given time. By pouring the carbon byproduct of oxidation of plant cellulose that accumulated over millions of years all in a century or two we have exceeded the capacity of the natural processes. If the American southwest becomes a permanent drought zone over 10000 years that is a very different business that the same thing happening over 100 years.

On the other hand there is a limited amount of fish in the ocean. We have hard data—again, hard data—that this resource is dramatically over-exploited. Many key fisheries are below 20% of their original biomass. We see that management practices such as stricter quotas and the establishment of marine sanctuaries dramatically improve the situation. The science is not hard, to find the political will is.

CO2 is a question mark at best, the fisheries situation is becoming an emergency. The Grand Bank/George Bank cod fishery is an example of what happens with a population crash. It becomes very hard to do something about it once the damage is done.

Barker, if I am going to post I owe people and myself my best intellectual honesty. That’s all it is.

Interesting. A liberal who gives global warming lower priority, and a conservative (yours truly) who gives it high priority. But the oceans aren’t a separate issue, sorry.

One of the biggest carbon sinks is the world’s oceans. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can dissolve into the ocean water. (Water has the capability to dissolve CO2, that’s how we make seltzer.)

Up till now, certain ocean algae, such as coccolithophores, have taken up this carbon to build their shells. When they die, they sink to the bottom of the sea, taking their calcified shells with them.

But it’s unknown whether these carbon sinks can handle all the new CO2 in the atmosphere, some of which will dissolve into the oceans. I doubt that the world’s fish and shellfish are going to enjoy living in acidic seltzer. Fish populations will almost certainly be adversely affected by excess CO2 dissolving in the oceans.

So you can’t separate oceans from atmosphere. A major change in one will change the other.