-1=e^ipi Posted November 29, 2013 Report Share Posted November 29, 2013 so what? As you've been repeatedly challenged on, what does the distant past (now you've gone back 600 million years), it's conditions, and presumed climate therein, have to do with today's relatively recent warming, related climate change and attributions therein? I expect you'll be throwing down the Venus mantle next, hey? From page 17: The reason the past 500 million years are significant is because multi-cellular life has flourished during this time period, which means that the past 500 million years have had conditions that are good for life. Furthermore, as CO2 and temperature levels have varied over the past 500 million years, we can see how well life has faired under different climactic conditions. From the geological record we can see what CO2 and temperature levels have been optimal for life and predict what may happen if we increase CO2 levels and temperature levels by CO2 emissions. In the geological record we see that we are well below the average for the past 500 years, climate change will merely bring us closer to the average, and life has flourished during warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels. BS! You spoke of expected warming, a projection of expected warming. What you kept calling, what you keep calling a projection, was and is not... it's a target, a goal. One presumed to be the level at which the most harmful effects of warming/climate change will begin to be realized. It assumes on actually tackling emissions with targeted reduction commitments/actions. It has absolutely nothing to do with expected warming... unless one buys into the need for mitigation and accepts that appropriate actions will be taken. This was not your underlying premise... again, you were speaking to how much warming, outright, could be expected with rising CO2. And you were doing so, only because you were pushed/prodded to come up with a figure (a benchmark) to associate with your alarmist labeling. The amount of warming we expect depends on what actions we take. If we perform some mitigation policies and target 450 ppm then 2 C is the expected amount of warming. Do you not understand that what will happen depends on what we do? I also gave climate models in this thread that predict 4 C warming if we go to 800 ppm, which corresponds to a scenario where little mitigation takes place. Either way, the amount of climate change we should expect will be on the order of a few hundred ppm increase in CO2 levels and a few degrees of warming. don't try to backpedal on your stooopid claim and your associated ignorance of the related discussion points. Stand up for your stated nonsense - be loud and proud of it! Pointing out and countering your strawman arguments is not backpedaling. Of course, even if you were to cough up some guy out there who lines up with your alarmist bleating, does that qualify your broad based attachment to your catch all "alarmist labeling'. So even if I find any evidence that shows that climate alarmists believe that pre-industrial CO2, it won't be good enough for you? So even if I point at organizations like 350.org (http://350.org/en/about/science) or get quotes from David Suzuki, it won't count? The fact that alarmists want to stop CO2 emissions as much as possible (and even reduce CO2 levels back to pre-industrial levels) implies that they believe that pre-industrial levels are optimal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.