"Extreme global warming" in the ancie...

"Extreme global warming" in the ancient past

There are 47 comments on the NorCalBlogs story from Nov 11, 2010, titled "Extreme global warming" in the ancient past. In it, NorCalBlogs reports that:

Ancient global warming: but which came first, the temperature or the CO2? The image shows the the scientific drilling ship JOIDES Resolution docked in Hobart, Tasmania.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NorCalBlogs.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#42 Nov 14, 2010
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Bogus. Green energy projects are making money and industry regularly reduces emission based purely on costs. There is no evidence of any such 'rising costs of anything to do with climate science'. This is purely part of your fear mongering campaign.
You must have your head firmly planted in a weird place if you don't know how much the cost of climate science has risen over recent years.
Not to mention all the 'high level' talks that don't come cheap and achieve nothing, apart from pumping more of that nasty CO2 into your precious, "atsmophere."
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
But you do admit that you are trying to appeal to public fears over costs to back your denial of reality. That was pretty obvious by your inabiltiy to understand or learn anything about the facts.
Don't start me off on facts and your idea of what they are.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Yes. All rational educated people have similar characteristics of understanding the facts and facing them without panic, while you show the typical signs of a denialist. Running about screaming and shouting for no apparent reason and with no apparent objective.
Is that your best excuse being free with insults?

Since: Jun 08

Conder, Australia

#46 Nov 14, 2010
Does anybody ever stop to think that the earth is a living entity in itself and thus intelligent?

We, like all living things on the face of this earth, live in a symbiotic existence.

Without one we have nothing.

We can though change how each affects the other.

Either we balance it, or mother earth will.

We cannot die, as we are needed.

But we can be punished......
Paper_Masochist

Australia

#47 Nov 14, 2010
Dud Twenties wrote:
<quoted text>the Ice Age cycle is due to the precession of the equinoxes and is a regular cycle. We have no effect on it at all.
See, people assume the second part because of the first and that's wrong.

Yes, the ice age cycle has occurred many times throughout history, at least as far as modern science understands it, and yeah, according to the cycle we should have already started the temperature increase, and from the looks of global temperatures we have, great, but there is actually more evidence for man made GCC than "It's getting hotter and we're here"

We understand the greenhouse effect on a chemical level. We understand how the gases interact with the suns rays, we know exactly why how and which gases cause radiative forcing and for some time now we've had the ability to reliably calculate the effect. This means that not only do we know that man is having an effect, climatologists can actually mathematically work out how much of an effect.

Unfortunately this is all very anti climactic because I can't remember the number and I suck at Google these days, however, the number would be anti climactic anyway, because numbers like "2 degrees in 50 years" doesn't sound a smidgen as devastating as it really is.
LessHypeMoreFact

Nepean, Canada

#48 Nov 14, 2010
Paper_Masochist wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately this is all very anti climactic because I can't remember the number and I suck at Google these days, however, the number would be anti climactic anyway, because numbers like "2 degrees in 50 years" doesn't sound a smidgen as devastating as it really is.
Some of your post is a bit off too. The main effect of AGW is not 'chemical' but quantum physics. However, the last point is a good one. Most people just see the number in terms of the diurnal cycle and don't understand how it can make major changes to climate.

An example for something up to or less than a doubling of CO2 ( 560 ppm = 4C to 6C warming) should be illustrative.

http://www.tikkun.org/tikkunblog/wp-content/u...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#49 Nov 15, 2010
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
The main effect of AGW is not 'chemical' but quantum physics.
The 'effect' of AGW is quantum physics?
LessHypeMoreFact

Nepean, Canada

#50 Nov 15, 2010
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>The 'effect' of AGW is quantum physics?
The 'greenhouse effect' is a photon interaction that happens on a 'quantum physics' basis.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to be just 'playing' dumb..

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#51 Nov 16, 2010
I see, so AGW causes quantum physics, not warming.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Oceanography Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News US faces off with itself in gay skydiver discri... Oct '17 St Rick Saintpornum 2
News Study: Now we have to worry about climatic 'exi... Sep '17 FDR 1
News Russell Wangersky: The ones that got away Aug '17 okimar 27
News Princeton researcher explores Southern Ocean pa... (Oct '13) Aug '17 Madison 6
News Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought (Jul '09) Jul '17 Too Funny 3,772
News Obvious science from Antarctica: ice melts in w... Jun '17 Hail Hydra 6
News Poor Education Leads To Lost Dreams And Low Inc... (Feb '17) Mar '17 The Real Karen 78
More from around the web