Is this analysis of the probable long term effects of climate change logical?

Now we can add 'philosopher' to the growing list of things you are not.

 

correct, but you can bet your booty that theres a few thousand scientists determining exactly what the rate is and how it compares to archeological evidence.

No, if that does occur the empirical data gathered from that rise will provide a whole bunch of factual statements.

 

Historical evidence, field studies show CO2 follows temperature. The predicted rise is solely dependent on computer models and since every run ends up with a different result only a range is given which the low end was recently lowered to 1.5 degree rise from 2.0. Other scientists predict an even lower sensitivity. CO2 itself can't increase temperature to the low estimate because the hypothesis requires water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas, to be a multiplier. The hypothesis requires warming to show first in the troposphere. That warming is missing.

 

It is a fact that this Inter-Glacial Period is cooler thus far, than the previous eight Inter-Glacial Periods. It would be perfectly normal for the average global temperatures to increase another 10.4°F. Should it do so, it is likely that the Greenland Ice Sheet would nearly melt completely, once again, as it always does during Inter-Glacial Periods.

 

Actually no. The oldest Greenland ice core goes back before the last interglacial. Greenland has never completely melted but it does move, eventually out to sea.

 

Actually, yes, as this chart proves.

Wrong again, as this map of the Greenland Ice Sheet tells the story:

 

Good Lord. You prove my point with your picture and don't even realize it.

 

But it makes it quite likely.

If the rate was unchanged, it kinda would.

 

The Eemian was the interglacial period which began about 130,000 years ago and ended about 115,000 years ago. Much of the Greenland Ice Sheet melted during that Inter-Glacial Period.

 

The volume of the ice sheet was not reduced by more than 25 percent during the warmest 6,000 years of the Eemian which is estimated to have been 8C warmer than today. What you fail to realize is the pressure of the weight of ice causes previous ice to melt at bedrock levels. It also flows out to the edge and becomes icebergs. In other words it is fluid.

 

Go back further in time and ....

http://www.livescience.com/40893-weird-ancient-antarctic-forests.html
Weird Forests Once Sprouted in Antarctica

 

There was extensive melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet during the Eemian.

On the basis of water stable isotopes, NEEM surface temperatures after the onset of the Eemian (126,000 years ago) peaked at 8 ± 4 degrees Celsius above the mean of the past millennium, followed by a gradual cooling that was probably driven by the decreasing summer insolation. Between 128,000 and 122,000 years ago, the thickness of the northwest Greenland ice sheet decreased by 400 ± 250 metres, reaching surface elevations 122,000 years ago of 130 ± 300 metres lower than the present. Extensive surface melt occurred at the NEEM site during the Eemian, a phenomenon witnessed when melt layers formed again at NEEM during the exceptional heat of July 2012. With additional warming, surface melt might become more common in the future.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7433/full/nature11789.html

 

The Greenland ice sheet thickness is in general greater than 2000 meters and over 3000 meters at it's thickest. Reduction of ~ 400 m is ~ 15% and can not be characterized as "Much of the Greenland Ice Sheet melted during that Inter-Glacial Period".

 

Wow!

I admit that I am not worthy......
but I would love to get your reaction to:

http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/483090-what-do-you-think-my-alternative-wall-theory.html
What do you think of my Alternative Wall Theory?

 

Omg we're all going to die and The Rock is coming to save us!

 

It does not matter what humans do about climate change anymore. There is already enough stuff in the atmosphere that takes ten years to be felt and 100 years to filter out.....we could stop everything today and still deal with what has already been done.

 

Well... Everything indicates that by continuing to pollute our planet we are making things worse.
Are you arguing that we should just ignore the warning signs and continue until our globe in uninhabitable for people?

 

No, I am stating that enough damage has already been done and warming is inevitable. I will also state that our world population is incapable at this point of agreeing or joining together to enact any changes that would make a difference. The planet is going to be fine.....Us....not so much.

 

Yes... And I am saying that we can continue like it doesn't matter and potentially make this planet uninhabitable.
Is it too late to reverse some of the damage? It does looks like it. Can we make sure we don't make this place uninhabitable for humans? Yes.

I honestly don't understand your apathy towards this. I am guessing you want to see the human race disappear?

 

Your guess is incorrect. I am merely a realist and have watched our attempts at combatting climate change.

As I said we could stop everything today and not stop the changes.....and in reality we cannot stop today, next year, and probably next century. Humankind is pretty much screwing itself and not bright enough to notice it.

 

Well... As far as I have read we do still have time to not make this world uninhabitable. You are right that we have already screwed things up quite badly. But we can make it a lot worse.

I expect your country to pay for most it though given it is your fault we didn't have global action 20 years ago. We have done pretty well here to change our ways. Had you been on board 20 years ago we might actually changed it by now.

 

The US is the only country to actually meet the Kyoto targets even though we did not sign it. And the result of that has been economic damage to the US economy and no significant reduction in the global average temperature in 2100.

What have you read about the reduction of CO2 necessary to ensure that the world remains habitable and what have you read that leads you to believe that the gov's of the world will reduce CO2 emissions to that level ??

 

Is that so?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/nov/26/kyoto-protocol-carbon-emissions

Why did the US emissions rise?
Are you as usual just making (*)(*)(*)(*) up?

 

All countries except Canada (which withdrew from Kyoto) and the USA (which never ratified Kyoto) will meet their first Kyoto targets. They will do this through a mix of domestic reductions and the purchase of international carbon credits. Note that in this context, Australia is yet to meet an emissions reduction target because its first Kyoto target allowed it to increase emissions.

Countries’ progress towards their 2020 targets is more mixed. Countries generally claim they will meet their 2020 targets. A country is only given a YES in the table below if this has been verified by independent assessments in country, or by international groups such as the UN Environment Programme, PBL in the Netherlands or Climate Action Tracker. - Climate Institute 2015 factsheet

 

When was the Kyoto Protocol signed ?? (1997) And when did it go into effect ?? (2005) And when does the table which you've referenced start ?? (1990)

It pays to do your homework. See BA's post.

- - - Updated - - -

The US has not purchased international carbon credits.