Latest findings on global warming

Milankovic cycles is one of several factors that is believed to cause succesive ice ages.

 

Nobody denies that CO2 levels have increased as a result of us burning fossil fuel. The debate is over the effect of that increase.

 

Orbital forcing is the initial trigger, but it's then enhanced by large positive feedbacks.

 

Scientifically, there's not much debate left on that either. Long-term climate sensitivity has been pretty well established by paleo studies at about 2.8° C per doubling of CO2. See, e.g., Royer et. al. 2007.

 

???? Correlation isnt causation. This doesnt any more show that a dooubling of CO2 will cause a 2.8C increase in temperature, than it shows an increase of 2.8C will cause a doubling of CO2

 

This is classic conservatism as work.

Kick the can down the road, because it's going to cost something to fix the problem.

It's the typical cutting of one's nose off to spite his face.

Besides, there's no reason that the economies need to be destroyed, but we would need to start putting pressure on our industries, along with our global trading partners to do the same.

IE place huge tariffs on Chinese goods until they did the same as we do... oh wait, America has been without the balls to do what needs to be done either. All because big business doesn't want to be responsible for it's global mess.

 

The world hasnt. KYOTO and other proposed climate agreements are essentially green lights for the likes of India and China to continue spewing CO2. Creating a competive manufacturing advanttage that would likely cause they to put even more CO2 into the atmosphere, than they would have without the agreements.

 

Doing statistics in no way relieves us from the obligation of doing science. The temp-causes-CO2 path is constrained by Henry's Law and the solubilty of CO2 in water. The CO2-causes-temp path is a function of physics. If you think rising CO2 doesn't cause higher temps, you have a lot of 'spainin' to do.

I kinda think you're too smart to want to argue that point. But I will if you want.

 

You don't understand what he means by "correlation isnt causation."

 

As I said, fossil fuels contribute to the man-made contribution to global warming. This has been scientificly proven. Yes it does contribute to global warming. Whether it contributes more or less than natural causes is another issue in itself.

 

It is wonderful that denialists have actually learnt about Milankovitch cycles - now they just have to learn that they are not the reason for the current warming

 

And while America is dragging the chain we will NEVER get India and China to clean up the act

 

We voted, Kyoto lost:

 

And you are STILL dragging the chain despite the fact that until recently the USA was the biggest polluter in the world

In fact China is more active than the USA in researching and developing alternative energy sources that do not emit CO2 or have you removing the tops off of whole mountain ranges

 

Wherein lies the tragedy of all these American climate change deniers. They are so engulfed in lobbying for the short-term profit interests of their big oil and energy-companies that they forget to push for long-term innovations. Sooner or later that kind of short-sightedness will turn this once great nation into one of this planets' least developed countries.

 

I don't think the statement of "US dragging the chain" and "China to clean up their act" is exactly accurate. As seen below, here are some of the things that were discussed and reached during an International Conference with our (Australian) Prime Minister. - (I can't remember the Conference)

"The 12th Five-Year Plan (FYP) adopted by the Chinese government in March 2011 devotes considerable attention to energy and climate change and establishes a new set of targets and policies for 2011-2015. While some of the targets are largely in line with the status quo, other aspects of the plan represent more dramatic moves to reduce fossil energy consumption, promote low-carbon energy sources, and restructure China’s economy. Among the goals is to "gradually establish a carbon trade market." Key targets include:

•A 16 percent reduction in energy intensity (energy consumption per unit of GDP);
•Increasing non-fossil energy to 11.4 percent of total energy use; and
•A 17 percent reduction in carbon intensity (carbon emissions per unit of GDP).

So I think the statement of "NEVER get India and CHINA to clean up their act", is also incorrect.

 

No - that isn't a sine wave

 

Yes - All cycles are caused by something - or rather a combination of many things. That is the point.

When a denialist starts talking about "cycles" - ask then what is causing these "cycles".

 

My comment you responded to was:
The point is that the observed warming of recent decades is not in any way connected with Milankovic Cycles.

You have not answered my comment

 

And if you think rising temperatures doesnt cause higher levels of CO2, you have a lot of 'spainin' to do

 

Nobody claimed the observed warming of recent decades was in any way connected with Milankovic Cycles. What exactly did you want me to answer.

 

Yes I was using hyperbole - something i have learnt to do when talking with denialists. It comes back to trying to get them to accept that America is and has been not just ignoring the problem but in some instances actively interfering with what other countries have been trying to accomplish - case in point - Bali conference where the USA was being so obstructionist that the Papua New Guinea representative stood up and told them to basically "lead, follow or get out of the way" and got applauded for actually speaking up and standing up to the USA

 

Hmmmm - latest denialist claptrap - sprout some semi-understood underpinning science in relation to global warming like Milankovitch cycles and when called on it say "I didn't say it was causing the current problems"

But a little bit of research on my behalf leads me to believe that you are heading towards quoting this particular "article"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/...ed-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/

Which shamelessly cherry picks data to "prove" the current rising Co2 levels are being caused by the current rising temperatures not the other way around

Pity it is complete claptrap

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-trend-not-caused-by-warming-oceans.html

 

Another denier who can't read, and misrepresents my position. It would be so much nicer if you guys were honorable.

Next time, look up Henry's Law before firing off an uninformed response like this garbage. Or even better, read my posts.

 

You are hopelessl;y confused. I didnt bring up the Milankovitch cycles. I merely pointed out to the poster who did bring them up, that they were not the only cause od successive ice ages. Got anything relevant to the post you chose to respond to? I didnt think so.