NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm no climatologist, but I do know that nature is not perfect, and will not follow a precise linear model. There will be fluctuations, imperfections, and anomalies. But the general trend is impossible to ignore, especially in recent years.

Incidentally, what's with everybody putting octothorpes (yes, that's what they're called) in front of thread titles? It's getting very annoying...

EDIT: Temporal weirdness FTW.

But don't forget that we also had two major World Wars, a severe depression in the industrialized world, and two energy crises in the 1970's; there was nothing on that scale in the 19th century to suppress emissions during the century.

Also notice that all of the temperature increases in the 20th century occured in the last twenty years, which also coincide with the development of India and China, cheap fossil fuels and the rapid growth in the world car market.

If the rate in the late 20th century was extended to the entire century, we would have seen temperatures rise by 2 degrees celsius...that is insanely fast.

I haven't really made my mind up on whether i agree with every point made by global warming supporters but i do have one question. According to wiki during the 40 years from 1860 to 1900 the globe warmed .75 degrees celsius. Yet it also says that during the entire 20th century the globe only warmed .6 degrees celsius. To me it looks like global warming was occuring at a faster rate pre-industrial revolution than during it. Can any one explain this to me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

The point about this batch of Global Warming is that it's caused by humans, and therefore we can stop it before it fucks us up, old school.

I'm no climatologist, but I do know that nature is not perfect, and will not follow a precise linear model. There will be fluctuations, imperfections, and anomalies. But the general trend is impossible to ignore, especially in recent years.

Incidentally, what's with everybody putting octothorpes (yes, that's what they're called) in front of thread titles? It's getting very annoying...

EDIT: Temporal weirdness FTW.

I just wanted to beat oceandrive so i put 3. But then couldn't the current trend also just be a fluctuation?

Incidentally, what's with everybody putting octothorpes (yes, that's what they're called) in front of thread titles? It's getting very annoying...

EDIT: Temporal weirdness FTW.

QFT on both counts. I'm waiting for a post from 2008 about the results of the US elections to find it's way back here.

The point about this batch of Global Warming is that it's caused by humans, and therefore we can stop it before it fucks us up, old school.

I understand that that is standard thought but what i want to know is how we know that.

I just wanted to beat oceandrive so i put 3. But then couldn't the current trend also just be a fluctuation?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

Are you kidding me?

I'm no climatologist, but I do know that nature is not perfect, and will not follow a precise linear model. There will be fluctuations, imperfections, and anomalies. But the general trend is impossible to ignore, especially in recent years.

Incidentally, what's with everybody putting octothorpes (yes, that's what they're called) in front of thread titles? It's getting very annoying...

EDIT: Temporal weirdness FTW.

I'm doing it so that Occeandrive2 can't locate his posts as easily. He's the one who started doing it.

I haven't really made my mind up on whether i agree with every point made by global warming supporters but i do have one question. According to wiki during the 40 years from 1860 to 1900 the globe warmed .75 degrees celsius. Yet it also says that during the entire 20th century the globe only warmed .6 degrees celsius. To me it looks like global warming was occuring at a faster rate pre-industrial revolution than during it. Can any one explain this to me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Not blaming you for this, but this is why skeptics get the traction they do.

Relative to the period 1860–1900, global temperatures on both land and sea have increased by 0.75 °C (1.4 °F), according to the instrumental temperature record.

What that is saying is that global temperatures have risen by that much since then - not that they rose by that much during that period.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

Are you kidding me?

But if it went up higher before couldn't it be whatever caused it originally? You can't deny that there isn't a possiblilty.

Not blaming you for this, but this is why skeptics get the traction they do.



What that is saying is that global temperatures have risen by that much since then - not that they rose by that much during that period.

Oh my bad. Thanks for clearing that up.

But if it went up higher before couldn't it be whatever caused it originally? You can't deny that there isn't a possiblilty.
Dude, this spike is more than double the highest level seen in the past several hundred years, and the spike coincides exactly with the birth and spread of the Industrial Revolution. It is not a natural fluctuation.

But if it went up higher before couldn't it be whatever caused it originally? You can't deny that there isn't a possiblilty.

That's probably an underlying cause.

However, there's a big problem regardless: Because of manmade greenhouse gas emissions, we are making a process that might have taken 1,000 or 10,000 years happen in 100...that's not good, because that means you're going to have wild, unstable swings in climate due to the sudden change.

Dude, this spike is more than double the highest level seen in the past several hundred years. It is not a natural fluctuation.

What caused it the year before several hundred years ago?

Why is everyone using OD's ##?

Why is everyone using OD's ##?

I don't like him very much so i wanted to out do him.

What caused it the year before several hundred years ago?
Wiki says:

"[C]hanges in the Earth's orbit around the Sun, known as Milankovitch cycles, are believed to be the pacemaker of the 100,000 year ice age cycle."

What caused it the year before several hundred years ago?

Again, be careful. He said it's more than double what we've seen in several hundred years, not as high as wev've seen in several hundred years. The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere now are higher than we've seen since the PETM severl million years ago.

Again, be careful. He said it's more than double what we've seen in several hundred years, not as high as wev've seen in several hundred years. The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere now are higher than we've seen since the PETM severl million years ago.

How short of a time period can we find the average temp for?

How short of a time period can we find the average temp for?
You mean how far back can we plot global temperatures? Up to 650,000 years, I believe.

How short of a time period can we find the average temp for?

Just look at your own wiki link. There's plenty of info and graphs there. If you click on the graphs you get even more graphs.

You can also go here:

www.realclimate.org

This is a site run by actual climatologists. It not only gives you studies, it discusses the methodology and data sets. It is a pro-climate site and spends a lot of time debunking skeptics arguments. If you want the other side go to www.junkscience.com . They debunk warming studies. My personal feeling is that if you are honest and not politically motivated and you spend a bunch of time on both sites you'll see that real climate wins the debate overwhelmingly and that junk science, run by non scientists (I have yet to find a global warming skeptic site run by scientists) either deliberately distorts what the actual science says or just plain misunderstands the science.

You mean how far back can we plot global temperatures? Up to 650,000 years, I believe.

No way. Many hundreds of millions.

You mean how far back can we plot global temperatures? Up to 650,000 years, I believe.

No i mean for how short a period of time can we get the average. The reason i ask this is that if we can only get the average for a 200 year period then you can't really say that there has never been a higher 5 year or so average.

No way. Many hundreds of millions.
Do ice core samples go back that far? Or are there other methods?

(I was talking about hard evidence, btw... I figured he wouldn't be convinced by theoretical models alone)

No i mean for how short a period of time can we get the average. The reason i ask this is that if we can only get the average for a 200 year period then you can't really say that there has never been a higher 5 year or so average.
Natural processes are unbelievably slow, so there's very little chance that global temperatures could suddenly (and naturally) skyrocket and then plummet in a handful of decades. Global warming is an exception, of course, because it's an artificial side effect of human industrial processes.

Natural processes are unbelievably slow, so there's very little chance that global temperatures could suddenly (and naturally) skyrocket and then plummet in a handful of decades. Global warming is an exception, of course, because it's an artificial side effect of human industrial processes.

I thought that that theory was changing seeing as nearly every major climate change that we have seen or know about has come quickly. There have been plenty of cataclysmic events on earth that have brought about rapid change though. One example is the dinosaurs. Completely natural yet changes the climate and life on earth for many many years. A lesser example is the little ice age where natural causes brought the temp down dramatically in a very short amount of time.

I thought that that theory was changing seeing as nearly every major climate change that we have seen or know about has come quickly. There have been plenty of cataclysmic events on earth that have brought about rapid change though. One example is the dinosaurs. Completely natural yet changes the climate and life on earth for many many years. A lesser example is the little ice age where natural causes brought the temp down dramatically in a very short amount of time.

Dude, just go to the sites I told you to. If you don't know much about these things you shouldn't be getting yoru info from a message board. Might as well get it from a bar. Read around for a couple hours on

www.realclimate.org

and

www.junkscience.com

and go back and forth and come to your own conclusions. Even if you can't make up your mind from there you can at least suss out bullshit when you see it.

Hey just thought i would chime in and let you know we are watching this stupid movie about global warming in advisory. It is good aside from the fact that Gore can't stay on subject. He has given some interesting points though. The movie is called an inconvenient truth

Do ice core samples go back that far? Or are there other methods?

(I was talking about hard evidence, btw... I figured he wouldn't be convinced by theoretical models alone)

I think the longest ice core is 100 million years, but there are other geological models and evidence that can give us longer period trends. Ice cores can tell you teh temperatures of specific decades, geologic evidence can give you evidnce over milenia - sudden disappearence of species and such. In anycase, teh only time frame we are woried about is the last few thousand years because this is the time period within which we built our civilization so it's imaterial how warm the planet was even 100,000 years ago.

Dude, just go to the sites I told you to. If you don't know much about these things you shouldn't be getting yoru info from a message board. Might as well get it from a bar. Read around for a couple hours on

www.realclimate.org

and

www.junkscience.com

and go back and forth and come to your own conclusions. Even if you can't make up your mind from there you can at least suss out bullshit when you see it.

There is nothing on any site that i can find and seeing as you have no answer i take it that you can find about what span of time ice cores can get accurate averages for. To me that is pretty critical in their argument. You can't say that there is no precedent for something happening if there is no way that you could know if there was a precedent or not.

There is nothing on any site that i can find and seeing as you have no answer i take it that you can find about what span of time ice cores can get accurate averages for. To me that is pretty critical in their argument. You can't say that there is no precedent for something happening if there is no way that you could know if there was a precedent or not.

I did answer it. I said 100 million years is the farthest back. Now, however, I see that you're a troll and never really intended to have an honest debate. You dobt the science but know nothing about it and have no real interest in learning aboutit because for you the issue is political. Sorry I wasted my time. :)

I did answer it. I said 100 million years is the farthest back. Now, however, I see that you're a troll and never really intended to have an honest debate. You dobt the science but know nothing about it and have no real interest in learning aboutit because for you the issue is political. Sorry I wasted my time. :)

You misunderstand my quesstion. I'm not saying how far back. I'm asking whether the method can discern the average temp for any paticular year for any particular decade, century or every couple of centuries. I'm just wondering how specific the averages are.

You call several thousand years "quick"?

And those cataclysmic events are just that -- cataclysmic events. They are not natural in origin. Just like human industry.

As long as they're not human made then they are natural. Of course it is obvious that nothing like those is happening now and that CO2 is a very possible and likely explanation for what is happening but there still could be other explanations.

I thought that that theory was changing seeing as nearly every major climate change that we have seen or know about has come quickly. There have been plenty of cataclysmic events on earth that have brought about rapid change though. One example is the dinosaurs. Completely natural yet changes the climate and life on earth for many many years. A lesser example is the little ice age where natural causes brought the temp down dramatically in a very short amount of time.

You call several thousand years "quick"?

And those cataclysmic events are just that -- cataclysmic events. They are not natural in origin. Just like human industry.

You misunderstand my quesstion. I'm not saying how far back. I'm asking whether the method can discern the average temp for any paticular year for any particular decade, century or every couple of centuries. I'm just wondering how specific the averages are.

I understand that average temp per year can be done for the last 650,000yrs BP.

Where I live the last 10 yrs have had the highest ever winter temperatures ever recorded.

You call several thousand years "quick"?

And those cataclysmic events are just that -- cataclysmic events. They are not natural in origin. Just like human industry.

How is human industry not natural in origin?

How is human industry not natural in origin?
:rolleyes: You know what I mean...

:rolleyes: You know what I mean...

Yes. I do.

But I'm amazed at how many people, even otherwise respected scientists who express the amazing arrogance to think that somehow mankind is some x-factor in the ecosystem and not an integral part of it. They greatly overestimate our importance and impact. It's one of the reasons why I hesitate to let these people meddle with climate.

How is human industry not natural in origin?

Yes in the "big picture" it is, if we were to continue on as we are we'll destroy ourselves and most of the life on the planet. The earth will recover in a few million years a new life form will dominate the planet.

Each time there is a mass extinction the next dominant life form seems to be an improvement over the one that came before.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

Are you kidding me?
That graph only shows carbon dioxide levels. Since they have presumably not been this high in millions of years, we don't really know how the world will react to them.

That graph only shows carbon dioxide levels. Since they have presumably not been this high in millions of years, we don't really know how the world will react to them.

Computer models have simulated the results and they are happening as predicted. Melting of the Arctic Sea Ice Cap, breaking up of the Antarctic Ice cap, glaciers receding, I heard these predictions 20yrs ago and now they're happening(and at a rate faster than predicted). So yes we do know what happens.

Yes. I do.

But I'm amazed at how many people, even otherwise respected scientists who express the amazing arrogance to think that somehow mankind is some x-factor in the ecosystem and not an integral part of it. They greatly overestimate our importance and impact. It's one of the reasons why I hesitate to let these people meddle with climate.

What do you mean? Humanity has a unique impact on this planet. Factories spewing pollution, loggers clearcutting the rainforests, millions of cars releasing countless billions of pounds of gases and chemicals...

No other species in history even begins to approach the level of influence we have over the world. That's not arrogance, it's fact.

What do you mean? Humanity has a unique impact on this planet. Factories spewing pollution, loggers clearcutting the rainforests, millions of cars releasing countless billions of pounds of gases and chemicals...

No other species in history even begins to approach the level of influence we have over the world. That's not arrogance, it's fact.

the poster also overlooks what man has done to the environment in the past, much of Europe at one time was heavily forested, much of the region around the Mediterranean has been destroyed by domestic animals. These human impacts are overlooked because many believe that this is the way it always was.

That graph only shows carbon dioxide levels. Since they have presumably not been this high in millions of years, we don't really know how the world will react to them.

We can't be sure what will happen this time, but we know what happened the last couple times they got that high. ;)


The Permian-Triassic (P-T or PT) extinction event, sometimes informally called the Great Dying, was an extinction event that occurred approximately 251 million years ago (mya), forming the boundary between the Permian and Triassic geologic periods. It was the Earth's most severe extinction event, with about 96 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct[citation needed].

Organisms throughout the world, regardless of habitat, suffered similar rates of extinction over the same relatively short period, showing that the extinction was global and sudden, not gradual or localized.
New evidence from strata in Greenland shows evidence of a double extinction, with a separate, less dramatic extinction occurring 9M years before the Permian-Triassic (P-T) boundary, at the end of the Guadalupian epoch. Confusion of these two events is likely to have influenced the early view that the extinction was extended...

...The eruptions took place in an area which was rich in coal, and the heating of this coal would have released vast amounts of carbon dioxide and methane into the air, causing severe global warming. Ward reports a massive increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide immediately before the "Great Dying"...



And a bit closer to now


The end of the Paleocene (55.5/54.8 Ma) was marked by one of the most significant periods of global change during the Cenozoic, a sudden global climate change, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which upset oceanic and atmospheric circulation and led to the extinction of numerous deep-sea benthic foraminifera and on land, a major turnover in mammals.
In an event marking the start of the Eocene, the planet heated up in one of the most rapid and extreme global warming events recorded in geologic history, currently being identified as the 'Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum' or the 'Initial Eocene Thermal Maximum' (PETM or IETM). Sea surface temperatures rose between 5 and 8°C over a period of a few thousand years, but in the high Arctic, sea surface...

...What unleashed the PETM is unclear. Most evidence points to volcanic eruptions that disgorged gigatons of carbon dioxide, or coastal reservoirs of methane gas, sealed by icy soil, that were breached by warmer temperatures or receding seas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petm

You misunderstand my quesstion. I'm not saying how far back. I'm asking whether the method can discern the average temp for any paticular year for any particular decade, century or every couple of centuries. I'm just wondering how specific the averages are.

I answered that, too.

Fluctuations in global temperature have been occuring since the beginning of the planet. Humans are unlikely to have this much of an effect alone and if this process is partially natural there seems little point in trying to stop it, the Earth was here long before us and will be long after, the question is when and why humanity is wiped out.

luckily the vast majority of the world doesn't agree with you and your great grandchildren just may have a planet to live on.

Fluctuations in global temperature have been occuring since the beginning of the planet. Humans are unlikely to have this much of an effect alone and if this process is partially natural there seems little point in trying to stop it, the Earth was here long before us and will be long after, the question is when and why humanity is wiped out.

Fluctuations in global temperature have been occuring since the beginning of the planet. Humans are unlikely to have this much of an effect alone and if this process is partially natural there seems little point in trying to stop it, the Earth was here long before us and will be long after, the question is when and why humanity is wiped out.

You're right. Damn. :(

I just spent a little over $400.00 on a Snell/Dot helmet and some chaps and riding gloves, too. Guess I'll go try and return them. I mean, bad things happen. They happened before me and they'll happen after me. No reason I should wear a helmet when I get on my motorcycle. I'm going to die some day anyways. :(


I'm so sick of that stupid reasoning. We're all gonna die and humanity is going to go extinct. Doesn't mean we need to die now and it doesn't mean we should be reckless with our children's planet. It's called reasonable caution and restraint and it's also called being responsible.

luckily the vast majority of the world doesn't agree with you and your great grandchildren just may have a planet to live on.
Do you actually believe that the human species will last 'forever'? Our extinction should occur eventually, as I said, when and why are the unknown factors.

I'm not saying that we should not try to halt our demise, only that we may not be able to.

You're saying that we shouldn't study our climate and try to see if we are having any impact. You're also saying that if we are we should just ignore it and proceed like there's no tomorrow. Youre' saying that if we have good information - and we do - that says we are having what may be a very bad impact on the climate that we should just ignore it because one day we're all gonna die anyway so it might as well be now. :)

I'm so sick of that stupid reasoning. We're all gonna die and humanity is going to go extinct. Doesn't mean we need to die now and it doesn't mean we should be reckless with our children's planet. It's called reasonable caution and restraint and it's also called being responsible.

I'm not saying that we should not try to halt our demise, only that we may not be able to.

I don't think we "have" to go extinct at all. It seems almost like wishful, apocalyptic thinking that humankind will be wiped out by one thing or another. There is absolutely no reason why we should go extinct, especially if we're capable of preventing it from happening. Unlike other species, we have the mental ability and the technology to avert such a fate.

Dying is something else altogether. I'd prefer not to, but it might happen anyways. That doesn't mean I plan to hasten it.

One day we're gonna go extinct. Even with global warming I doubt that it will happen in any timeframe that we should be conerned about because even with the most severe scenarios, even coupled with Peak Oil, water scarcity, etc... I think that the human race will survive. We may be headed for a die off, but I doubt an extinction. But all that aside, one of these days we are going to go extinct.

Yes, I do. There is absolutely no reason why we should go extinct, especially considering that we are the only species in the history of the planet that can truly control its destiny. We are capable of controlling natural phenomena, and we are capable of understanding them...that's why we are not going to go extinct. Ever.

This is assuming the stupid people don't take control.

I'm so sick of that stupid reasoning. We're all gonna die and humanity is going to go extinct. Doesn't mean we need to die now and it doesn't mean we should be reckless with our children's planet. It's called reasonable caution and restraint and it's also called being responsible.

I don't think we "have" to go extinct at all. It seems almost like wishful, apocalyptic thinking that humankind will be wiped out by one thing or another. There is absolutely no reason why we should go extinct, especially if we're capable of preventing it from happening. Unlike other species, we have the mental ability and the technology to avert such a fate.

Dying is something else altogether. I'd prefer not to, but it might happen anyways. That doesn't mean I plan to hasten it.

Yes, I do. There is absolutely no reason why we should go extinct, especially considering that we are the only species in the history of the planet that can truly control its destiny. We are capable of controlling natural phenomena, and we are capable of understanding them...that's why we are not going to go extinct. Ever.

We're not capable of controlling supervolcanos or the sun going red giant or impacts like the one that gave us the moon...

Supervolcanos are really scary... :eek:

Do you actually believe that the human species will last 'forever'? Our extinction should occur eventually, as I said, when and why are the unknown factors.

Yes, I do. There is absolutely no reason why we should go extinct, especially considering that we are the only species in the history of the planet that can truly control its destiny. We are capable of controlling natural phenomena, and we are capable of understanding them...that's why we are not going to go extinct. Ever.

Basic science dictates that global warming is a very minor crisis. As you may know, global warming is supposedly occurring because greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, absorb some of the longer infrared radiation emitted by the Earth. However, most of the Sun's energy is not transformed into this longer infrared radiation, and thus carbon dioxide levels have no effect on it. If worst comes to worst and all the longer infrared radiation is absorbed, we still wouldn't be in that bad a predicament because a large preponderance of energy would be successfully reflected out into space. This is a classic tale of "Chicken Little."

I don't think we "have" to go extinct at all. It seems almost like wishful, apocalyptic thinking that humankind will be wiped out by one thing or another. There is absolutely no reason why we should go extinct, especially if we're capable of preventing it from happening. Unlike other species, we have the mental ability and the technology to avert such a fate.
I think you overestimate our technological capabilities, not to mention our collective intellect. It may take more than one thing to eliminate us, but attrition could certainly do the job.

Yes, I do. There is absolutely no reason why we should go extinct, especially considering that we are the only species in the history of the planet that can truly control its destiny. We are capable of controlling natural phenomena, and we are capable of understanding them...that's why we are not going to go extinct. Ever.
Somethings we can understand, others not, but controlling 'natural phenomena' is largely beyond us (depending on your exact definition, and the scale).

Basic science dictates that global warming is a very minor crisis. As you may know, global warming is supposedly occurring because greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, absorb some of the longer infrared radiation emitted by the Earth. However, most of the Sun's energy is not transformed into this longer infrared radiation, and thus carbon dioxide levels have no effect on it. If worst comes to worst and all the longer infrared radiation is absorbed, we still wouldn't be in that bad a predicament because a large preponderance of energy would be successfully reflected out into space. This is a classic tale of "Chicken Little."

Yeah... ummm...

bullshit. :)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12230343&postcount=45

Human technology is amazing; our rate of progress has not only continued steadily for thousands of years but has in fact accelerated at an increasing rate in the past two centuries, and that is with accompanying progress in social and cultural development.

If anything, we're underestimating human potential; our technology is the main thing that has kept us alive, growing and healthy for the past 10,000 years.
It's also been accompanied by oil, coal and gas. We'll be running short of that soon. I see no reason to assume that our rate of progress will continue post fossil fuels.

Okay, that's it. This board is acting like a bitch. I'll be back when they fix it. This is really annoying.

Yeah... ummm...

bullshit. :)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12230343&postcount=45

Volcanoes release ash, which is impermeable by the sun's rays. This leads to the widespread death of vegetation and, consequently, other animals. It is not, however, linked to carbon dioxide.

I think you overestimate our technological capabilities, not to mention our collective intellect. It may take more than one thing to eliminate us, but attrition could certainly do the job.

Human technology is amazing; our rate of progress has not only continued steadily for thousands of years but has in fact accelerated at an increasing rate in the past two centuries, and that is with accompanying progress in social and cultural development.

If anything, we're underestimating human potential; our technology is the main thing that has kept us alive, growing and healthy for the past 10,000 years.

Somethings we can understand, others not, but controlling 'natural phenomena' is largely beyond us (depending on your exact definition, and the scale).

Well, we can control some phenomena, like weather or tides, and we can engineer things to control some natural disasters. However, obviously, there are some things we can't control, like a massive volcanic eruption or a shift in the magnetic poles.

We can control most of the stuff that might hurt us, but not all of it. That's why we need to expand beyond Earth so as to preserve humanity from such a fate.

Human technology is amazing; our rate of progress has not only continued steadily for thousands of years but has in fact accelerated at an increasing rate in the past two centuries, and that is with accompanying progress in social and cultural development.

If anything, we're underestimating human potential; our technology is the main thing that has kept us alive, growing and healthy for the past 10,000 years.
What you fail to mention is social and cultural development have caused their share of problems, humans cannot get along with each other, but are incapable of functioning correctly alone. Our scientific and technological progress is advancing yes, but more and more its value becomes less immediate and practical, and people seem more ready to condemn it for its failures. Perhaps that technology will prove our downfall, it has allowed us to destroy ourselves in ways that our ancestors only dreamed of.

If anything, we're underestimating human potential; our technology is the main thing that has kept us alive, growing and healthy for the past 10,000 years.

Volcanoes release ash, which is impermeable by the sun's rays. This leads to the widespread death of vegetation and, consequently, other animals. It is not, however, linked to carbon dioxide.

That's not what the scientists said. Volcanos release ash, CO2, methane and a billion other gasses. The ash drop out of the atmosphere very quickly, in months or a couple years. It is also responsible for global cooling, not warming. CO2, methane and othet gasses stay in the atmosphere for decades or centuries or longer. In both of the cases I cited it was the increase in atmospheric carbon in the form of CO2 and methane that led to global warming events that triggered sudden mass extinctions.

Well, we can control some phenomena, like weather or tides, and we can engineer things to control some natural disasters. However, obviously, there are some things we can't control, like a massive volcanic eruption or a shift in the magnetic poles.

We can control most of the stuff that might hurt us, but not all of it. That's why we need to expand beyond Earth so as to preserve humanity from such a fate.

See, now you're on glue. How the fuck can we control tides? how can we over power the moon's and sun's gravitational effect on the entire world ocean? How can we control natural disasters? Let us know out here in CA because these earthquakes are a fuckin' bitch. Also, you might want to let all those Indonesians how they can control the next tsunami.

Well, we can control some phenomena, like weather or tides, and we can engineer things to control some natural disasters. However, obviously, there are some things we can't control, like a massive volcanic eruption or a shift in the magnetic poles.
If you think about it, it is the big things that will probably end us, a slight problem. And any control we can exercise over, say, the weather is only of the most primitive kind, we understand it, but genuine manipulation is another thing entirely. Building a concrete bank to stop a wave is a temopary measure at best, and we cannot make the wave turn around and hit the coast of a place we do not like, unfortunately.

We can control most of the stuff that might hurt us, but not all of it. That's why we need to expand beyond Earth so as to preserve humanity from such a fate.
And go where? With what? Outside our solar system we have no hope, inside half of the planets are unsuitable for human habitation, and the rest really will be trouble to reach, let alone colonise. Knowing humanity we will start great wars over who goes where.

See, now you're on glue. How the fuck can we control tides? how can we over power the moon's and sun's gravitational effect on the entire world ocean? How can we control natural disasters? Let us know out here in CA because these earthquakes are a fuckin' bitch. Also, you might want to let all those Indonesians how they can control the next tsunami.
I think what she means is that we can put a concrete wall on the beach, or release ash and heavy smoke into the atmosphere, although I have said that this is not control as such.

Proof of global warming.


http://library.thinkquest.org/18626/media/TitanicFlares.gif

See, now you're on glue. How the fuck can we control tides? how can we over power the moon's and sun's gravitational effect on the entire world ocean? How can we control natural disasters? Let us know out here in CA because these earthquakes are a fuckin' bitch. Also, you might want to let all those Indonesians how they can control the next tsunami.

What I mean is we can predict the tides and use satellites to monitor their activity; we can even have some rudimentary protection against earthquakes and tsunamis thanks to things like seismographs. It's nowhere near perfect, but it's a damn sight better than what we had before.

The same is true of early warning devices for tornadoes, hurricanes, and the like...a lot fewer people die now from natural disasters than they did in the past.

What do you mean? Humanity has a unique impact on this planet. Factories spewing pollution, loggers clearcutting the rainforests, millions of cars releasing countless billions of pounds of gases and chemicals...

No other species in history even begins to approach the level of influence we have over the world. That's not arrogance, it's fact.

I think you greatly overestimate humanity. *nod*

Why do people in authority do nothing about global warming, and sometimes even deny its existence? I have a theory. Clearly a conspiracy by our reptilian overlords to make the climate more agreeable for the general invasion circa 2040.

I haven't really made my mind up on whether i agree with every point made by global warming supporters but i do have one question. According to wiki during the 40 years from 1860 to 1900 the globe warmed .75 degrees celsius. Yet it also says that during the entire 20th century the globe only warmed .6 degrees celsius. To me it looks like global warming was occuring at a faster rate pre-industrial revolution than during it. Can any one explain this to me?Relative to the period 1860–1900, global temperatures on both land and sea have increased by 0.75 °C (1.4 °F), according to the instrumental temperature record.The gap between '45 & '75 is worth as well, just like it's cause: anthropogenic aerosol emissions.Remember the cooling scare of the early '70s? Well the political initiatives it brought about worked. Sulfate aerosols - which were the primary cause - are very shortlived, so cutting back on emissions had an almost instantanious effect. Of course, we also kept right on increasing our GHG emissions, helping the warming trend.But if it [GHG concentration] went up higher before couldn't it be whatever caused it originally? You can't deny that there isn't a possiblilty.
[And again]
What caused it the year before several hundred years ago?I can & do deny it. The thing is, the gasses comprising Earth's atmosphere don't just change 'cos they feel like it. It's chemistry, not yahtzee. Whenever the content changes, there's a reason.

Despite being a very finetuned mechanism, the atmosphere is still an enormous volume of gasses. Significant changes to it has corrosponding significant sources, like massive volcanic eruptions, flinging gasses from inside the Earth's crust up into the atmos... Or massive industrialisation, flinging massive amounts of gasses into the atmos, previously trapped within the Earth's crust.

The source of the various gasses can to a large extent be verified by counting isotopes. Different sources for the same gas, carry different isotope signatures. Combined with dendrochronology - the science of figuring out what's what in plant matter - we can say some very specific things about what the sources of the recent & current atmospheric changes are. Further, we can - and do - compare this to the meticulous records we keep of our own emissions.

The two reasons there's no controversy (in the scientific community, there's plenty among lay-persons who don't want to know any better), is exactly because there's no alternative sources for the changes, and because the changes corrosponds exactly with what we're doing. No i mean for how short a period of time can we get the average [Temperature]. The reason i ask this is that if we can only get the average for a 200 year period then you can't really say that there has never been a higher 5 year or so average.

You misunderstand my quesstion. I'm not saying how far back. I'm asking whether the method can discern the average temp for any paticular year for any particular decade, century or every couple of centuries. I'm just wondering how specific the averages are.The Instrumental Period refers to the period of human civilisation where we've been capable of measuring the temperatures, and actually have done so on a useful scale. In plain English, we know rather precisely what both global & local means have been since 1850. It's worth noting, however, that if you want to be reallly exact about it, we've only tried to measure global temperatures since around 1910, and really damn precise measurements only came about with sattelite technology in the '70s. It's also worth noting that the uncertainties are too small to have any sort of relevance here.

Outside the Instrumental Period, our estimates are based on a number of different methods, and it's far too fucking complex to get into here, I think. That said, we can reconstruct annual means back half a million years. Of course, there's various margins of error involved, so talking about the temperature of year 450,001 BC vs. 450,002 BC is meaningless. Icecore samples give fairly precise results, but it's still nonsense to talk about individual years. What our reconstructions are useful for, is giving a pretty precise picture of global climate trends.But I'm amazed at how many people, even otherwise respected scientists who express the amazing arrogance to think that somehow mankind is some x-factor in the ecosystem and not an integral part of it. They greatly overestimate our importance and impact. It's one of the reasons why I hesitate to let these people meddle with climate.It's because we are an 'X-factor'. We alter the environemt in unprecedented ways, and that leads to unforseeable consequences. Slash & Burn foresting created deserts, and not a one had a clue 'till the deserts appeared. Nobody else'd ever done anything like it, so why should we even have considered it?
It's not that our actions aren't part of the natural realm, it's that we do things we strictly speaking don't need to, and which the surrounding environment thus isn't geared to cope with... And we do it far too fast for non-human mechanisms & organisms to adapt.

It's not that humankind is 'threatning Earth' or anything like that. Technologically, we're hardly at a point where we can threaten a planet of this size. We can render it inhospitable to some of the things living on it though, and that doesn't require a hell of a lot of effort on our part. At all.

The last (great) iceage was brought about a change in solar forcing of about 1W/m**2 over a 20,000 year period. The verifiable man-made negative aerosol forcing is somewhere around 3W/m**2 right now. That's 300% of the change it took to cause a global iceage, and it's just a part of the artificial negative forcings offsetting the overall positive one causing global warming. Read that again LG. I said the verifiably man-made. If you think humans are incapable of causing major, planet-wide climate change, then you're ignoring reality.Do you actually believe that the human species will last 'forever'? Our extinction should occur eventually, as I said, when and why are the unknown factors.Barring freak accidents, like great big balls of rock falling on us, or idiotic warmongers unleashing human hellfire, I have no reason to assume humanity will go extinct. We'll presumably become humans v.2.0 (Dr. Who reference unintentional) at some point, but I'm not sure that qualifies as extinction.Basic science dictates that global warming is a very minor crisis. As you may know, global warming is supposedly occurring because greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, absorb some of the longer infrared radiation emitted by the Earth. However, most of the Sun's energy is not transformed into this longer infrared radiation, and thus carbon dioxide levels have no effect on it. If worst comes to worst and all the longer infrared radiation is absorbed, we still wouldn't be in that bad a predicament because a large preponderance of energy would be successfully reflected out into space. This is a classic tale of "Chicken Little."Maybe you should try putting some numbers on in, because that shit's just hot air (yea I'm punny). Consider it a dare. When you're done, try putting numbers on the variables within which the life currently present on this planet is possible.

It's worth noting, however, that if you want to be reallly exact about it, we've only tried to measure global temperatures since around 1910, and really damn precise measurements only came about with sattelite technology in the '70s. It's also worth noting that the uncertainties are too small to have any sort of relevance here.


Then how do we know that global temps are really at their highest in recent times if we only have accurate readings for the past 30 or 40 years?

Outside the Instrumental Period, our estimates are based on a number of different methods, and it's far too fucking complex to get into here, I think. That said, we can reconstruct annual means back half a million years. Of course, there's various margins of error involved, so talking about the temperature of year 450,001 BC vs. 450,002 BC is meaningless. Icecore samples give fairly precise results, but it's still nonsense to talk about individual years. What our reconstructions are useful for, is giving a pretty precise picture of global climate trends.



On the contrary, if scientists were really serious about global warming and wanted to get all of the evidence and not just the evidence that supports the theory then they would not compare a current 10-15 year trend to a past 300 year trend. They aren't comparable. It's just not good science. If there was a precedent to what is happening we would never know with today's methods.

When the Arctic Ice cap is completely gone by 2050 the earth will no longer be reflecting the sun's energy back into space during summer months in the N hemisphere. With no ice cover the Arctic ocean will be absorbing the energy so the planet will be absorbing the sun's energy summer and winter.

And then the north atlantic ocean current will stop b/c of desalinization so temps will rapidly drop. Then the ice will build back up again and the cycle is continued.

Basic science dictates that global warming is a very minor crisis. As you may know, global warming is supposedly occurring because greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, absorb some of the longer infrared radiation emitted by the Earth. However, most of the Sun's energy is not transformed into this longer infrared radiation, and thus carbon dioxide levels have no effect on it. If worst comes to worst and all the longer infrared radiation is absorbed, we still wouldn't be in that bad a predicament because a large preponderance of energy would be successfully reflected out into space. This is a classic tale of "Chicken Little."

When the Arctic Ice cap is completely gone by 2050 the earth will no longer be reflecting the sun's energy back into space during summer months in the N hemisphere. With no ice cover the Arctic ocean will be absorbing the energy so the planet will be absorbing the sun's energy summer and winter.

Yes, I do. There is absolutely no reason why we should go extinct, especially considering that we are the only species in the history of the planet that can truly control its destiny. We are capable of controlling natural phenomena, and we are capable of understanding them...that's why we are not going to go extinct. Ever.

I don't think you realize what a super catastrophe can do to the planet, there is no surviving it because they can't be controlled and our technology cannot save us. A good sized meteor, super volcano(Yellowstone, Siberian Traps), Runaway Greenhouse effect, anyone of those can end humanities reign on the planet.

And then the north atlantic ocean current will stop b/c of desalinization so temps will rapidly drop. Then the ice will build back up again and the cycle is continued.

that's a possibility but then the planet's headed into unknown territory with the level of GHG's that will be in the atmosphere equal to the time greatest mass extinctions. The planet will continue on but likely without us, which may be a good thing.

Then how do we know that global temps are really at their highest in recent times if we only have accurate readings for the past 30 or 40 years?Because accurate is in the eye of the beholder. It's better to talk about usefully accurate. Newtonian mechanics aren't entirely accurate either, but more than sufficient most of the time (and a hell of a lot simpler than having your speedometer do relativity theory).

Roughly speaking, it wouldn't matter if the records & reconstructed records of the last 20,000 years were any more accurate. Beyond that, things become increasingly inaccurate. Go beyond 100,000 years back, and we have to start talking about mean temperatures of 100+ year periods. Anything less has too great a margin of error (and there's other problems as well).On the contrary, if scientists were really serious about global warming and wanted to get all of the evidence and not just the evidence that supports the theory then they would not compare a current 10-15 year trend to a past 300 year trend. They aren't comparable. It's just not good science. If there was a precedent to what is happening we would never know with today's methods.Of course they are. It just gives a severely limited picture of events. Still, you're completely wrong about your assertion. Climatologists do a lot of different shit, not the least of which is reconstructing the most accurate temperature record humanity is capable of, covering as large a span of time as humanly possible. Technology is the limit. The willingness to know every last detail of everything, and compare it with everything else, is boundless. Science is methodical curiousity. And yes, cats gets killed on occation.

About 100 years ago, one of these curious assholes, figured out that it was theoretically possible to increase the global temperature by pumping massive amounts of GHGs into the atmos. Being a Swede, he unsurprisingly thought it was a pretty good, if at the time wholly impossible, idea.
Bit less than 50 years later, a Guy first figured out it was happening. Not because he had observational evidence to support his (then) outrageous idea, but because he'd done the math.
Some 30 years later again, a few climatologists arrived at an old conclusion, and were surprised as bloody hell. Because they looked for the empirical evidence, and they found the opposite. It got a hell of a lot of people interested, and the observational evidence was soon explained - and global warming resumed.
Since then, it became a race to debunk the poor cold (and long dead) Swede. Not just for the oil industry, but by everyone. And no one could.
The last 15 years, it's become a race to predict the scope & consequences of the warming. Because that it is in fact happening, is beyond dispute at this point.

The timeframe you asserted is incorrect. Primarily current changes are looked at in the context of the last 20,000 years. Primarily because the Earth's climate has been in something close to equilibrium for most of that time, but also because of the quality of the data covering that timeframe.And then the north atlantic ocean current will stop b/c of desalinization so temps will rapidly drop. Then the ice will build back up again and the cycle is continued.That assertion unfortunately has no basis in reality, though it'd be reassuring if it did.. Not that it'd make much of a difference.
1. The damage to the biosphere would make destruction on a Biblical scale seem petty. This damage, and the resulting massive loss of human life, is the main reason most sane people are worried about global warming.
2. The increased concentration of long lived GHGs in the atmosphere would make a return to equilibrium impossible.

Like LG, you seem to miss the bit where no body actually said it's problematic for the globe. It's problematic for us living things. The globe will go on being the globe regardless of what we do to the atmosphere. The biosphere is rather more delicate.

that's a possibility but then the planet's headed into unknown territory with the level of GHG's that will be in the atmosphere equal to the time greatest mass extinctions. The planet will continue on but likely without us, which may be a good thing.

I really don't think that even though global warming is happening that humans will become extinct. W/o technology we've survived much more than a few degrees increase in a few areas. We survive in every climate on earth. We're a far too adaptable species to become extinct by something like this.

Because accurate is in the eye of the beholder. It's better to talk about usefully accurate. Newtonian mechanics aren't entirely accurate either, but more than sufficient most of the time (and a hell of a lot simpler than having your speedometer do relativity theory).

Roughly speaking, it wouldn't matter if the records & reconstructed records of the last 20,000 years were any more accurate. Beyond that, things become increasingly inaccurate. Go beyond 100,000 years back, and we have to start talking about mean temperatures of 100+ year periods. Anything less has too great a margin of error (and there's other problems as well).Of course they are. It just gives a severely limited picture of events. Still, you're completely wrong about your assertion. Climatologists do a lot of different shit, not the least of which is reconstructing the most accurate temperature record humanity is capable of, covering as large a span of time as humanly possible. Technology is the limit. The willingness to know every last detail of everything, and compare it with everything else, is boundless. Science is methodical curiousity. And yes, cats gets killed on occation.

About 100 years ago, one of these curious assholes, figured out that it was theoretically possible to increase the global temperature by pumping massive amounts of GHGs into the atmos. Being a Swede, he unsurprisingly thought it was a pretty good, if at the time wholly impossible, idea.
Bit less than 50 years later, a Guy first figured out it was happening. Not because he had observational evidence to support his (then) outrageous idea, but because he'd done the math.
Some 30 years later again, a few climatologists arrived at an old conclusion, and were surprised as bloody hell. Because they looked for the empirical evidence, and they found the opposite. It got a hell of a lot of people interested, and the observational evidence was soon explained - and global warming resumed.
Since then, it became a race to debunk the poor cold (and long dead) Swede. Not just for the oil industry, but by everyone. And no one could.
The last 15 years, it's become a race to predict the scope & consequences of the warming. Because that it is in fact happening, is beyond dispute at this point.

I disagree, it does matter that we have such huge gaps in our records of past history. For all we know this could be a relatively common thing.


1. The damage to the biosphere would make destruction on a Biblical scale seem petty. This damage, and the resulting massive loss of human life, is the main reason most sane people are worried about global warming.

What kind of damage do you think would occur? How many people do you think would die?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

Are you kidding me?

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_correlation.htm

Hmm...

What I mean is we can predict the tides and use satellites to monitor their activity; we can even have some rudimentary protection against earthquakes and tsunamis thanks to things like seismographs. It's nowhere near perfect, but it's a damn sight better than what we had before.

The same is true of early warning devices for tornadoes, hurricanes, and the like...a lot fewer people die now from natural disasters than they did in the past.
So what you are saying is that we can understand certain natural events. That does not mean we can control or prevent them. Knowing that annihalation is coming would do little good unless we can stop it (if anything it would be worse).

Barring freak accidents, like great big balls of rock falling on us, or idiotic warmongers unleashing human hellfire, I have no reason to assume humanity will go extinct. We'll presumably become humans v.2.0 (Dr. Who reference unintentional) at some point, but I'm not sure that qualifies as extinction.
I believe that would probably be one of these 'freak accidents' that causes our end. We are to capable a species to just die off, it would take a (or many) serious blows against the species to finish us, but those events can certainly happen.

So what you are saying is that we can understand certain natural events. That does not mean we can control or prevent them. Knowing that annihalation is coming would do little good unless we can stop it (if anything it would be worse).

Well, understanding an event is usually a precursor to controlling it; the more effort we put in to understanding and predicting natural events, the more likely it is we will find a way to either control them or neutralize their effects.

I really don't think that even though global warming is happening that humans will become extinct. W/o technology we've survived much more than a few degrees increase in a few areas. We survive in every climate on earth. We're a far too adaptable species to become extinct by something like this.this is more than a few degrees in a few areas...a 5 degree rise in ocean temperature is the end. what technology are you counting on to save you? if there is collapse of the food chain billions die civilization collapses...where are you going to find technology to save yourself? I don't think you've thought this out.

this is more than a few degrees in a few areas...a 5 degree rise in ocean temperature is the end. what technology are you counting on to save you? if there is collapse of the food chain billions die civilization collapses...where are you going to find technology to save yourself? I don't think you've thought this out.

That's why we try to avoid destroying the planet until we no longer need it.

I'm no climatologist, but I do know that nature is not perfect, and will not follow a precise linear model. There will be fluctuations, imperfections, and anomalies. But the general trend is impossible to ignore, especially in recent years.

Incidentally, what's with everybody putting octothorpes (yes, that's what they're called) in front of thread titles? It's getting very annoying...

EDIT: Temporal weirdness FTW.

Speak English please.

That's why we try to avoid destroying the planet until we no longer need it.

And when might we not need it? Until we colonize Mars and live off eating red, iron filled dirt? I don't know about you, but I hope we can keep this damn planet alive at least before I die.

Unfortunately for the world, the U.S. is the leading emitter of greenhouse gases and yet our government is doing nothing to control the crisis. Nor did Bush want to take part in the Tokyo Protocol...I'm feeling rather un-proud of being American. At least individual states are taking action on their own...my family uses wind power...

Speak English please.
Too many big words? ;)

And when might we not need it? Until we colonize Mars and live off eating red, iron filled dirt? I don't know about you, but I hope we can keep this damn planet alive at least before I die.

Well, when we no longer need it we'll have other planets that we can live on.

Of course, the thing is, that's hundreds of years in the future...we've got to take care of our problems now.

Well if anyone was going to destroy the world, it would be the US...

Well if anyone was going to destroy the world, it would be the US...

Because as we all know, the United States is an evil, soulless entity bent upon global annihilation. :rolleyes:

Vetalia, normally I'd be agreeing with you, but in this case I think you're being hopelessly optimistic. The Danster is correct: technology cannot advance if we cannot keep our economies and industry intact, and we cannot do that if cheap fossil fuels cease to be available, unless you expect us to pull an entire infrastructure built upon all forms of alternative energy overnight. Were we to have started preparing, say, ten or twenty years ago, we'd be fine. Now? We've pushed the envelope too far, and things will go at least partially to hell, more than likely. Sure, I'd love it if everything stayed the same, but as I said, it's hopelessly optimistic to think that way.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_correlation.htm

Hmm...

um, are you serious? cause that's just about the silliest thing to say in response to that graph.

Vetalia, normally I'd be agreeing with you, but in this case I think you're being hopelessly optimistic. The Danster is correct: technology cannot advance if we cannot keep our economies and industry intact, and we cannot do that if cheap fossil fuels cease to be available, unless you expect us to pull an entire infrastructure built upon all forms of alternative energy overnight. Were we to have started preparing, say, ten or twenty years ago, we'd be fine. Now? We've pushed the envelope too far, and things will go at least partially to hell, more than likely. Sure, I'd love it if everything stayed the same, but as I said, it's hopelessly optimistic to think that way.

I don't believe that, personally. And, of course, we have to remember the timescale. If oil production declines at 2% per year from its peak (which is on the high side), that means we'll still be producing 79% of our peak level in a decade, and we'll be producing 50% of our peak level in 35 years. That's still a lot of oil, more than enough for all of our agricultural and industrial needs. Transportation will suffer, but that's looking better and better as the potential of things like hybrids, electric vehicles and alternative fuels improves.

Combine that with a major program to expand mass transit and we could seriously cut back on oil demand. As a matter of fact, if the US car fleet increased its average MPG to 40 miles per gallon (as is being proposed right now), our demand for oil would fall by about 20%...that would buy us a decade of time to prepare by itself. During the 1973-1985 period, we were capable of reducing our energy intensity by 2.1% per year for that entire time, and that was through investments in efficiency and conservation without the kind of technology available now. We can not only do the same now, but we also have the advantage of nearly 40 years of additional technology on our sides.

Will we have to make sacrifices, and will the economy suffer? Yes, but it will survive and rebound.

The Danster is correct: *snip*

The Danster. :p

I disagree, it does matter that we have such huge gaps in our records of past history. For all we know this could be a relatively common thing.Seeing as your sole source of knowledge seems to be me, I'm left wondering where the hell you got 'gaps' from. There aren't any gaps.

Secondly, for all that we don't know, we aren't entirely ignorant. Global climate is physics & chemistry. It doesn't suddenly start to 'do things' because it 'feels like it'. Same way gravity won't hurl the next cup of coffee you drop up into the ceiling at supersonic speeds, simply because it feels like it. The kind of planet-altering 'flukes' you're invoking are impossible & no more sane that the few idiots claiming that Earth will end up like Venus, if we don't stop all GHG & aerosol emissions right the fuck now.

Thirdly, the climate as it is today, is very much a product of the last iceage, and overlooking human interference, it's in near equilibrium. All of that means non-human, non-cataclysmic (Earth-shattering volcanoes and the like) changes are extremely tiny, and change corrospondingly minute. What kind of damage do you think would occur? How many people do you think would die?I'm loathe to offer anything concrete, because it can't really be done right now. The following is what I think looks most plausible, based on climate models, WEO '06 & my (in)comprehension of geopolitics. Please heed my reservations for once. Or simply don't read the next bit, if it's impossible for you not to misconstrue it.

I'd say it's likely the changes in rainfall & seasonal patterns, combined with a slight eustatic rise, will result in 100-300 mill. refugees & as many dead, during the next 80 years. The damage to the biosphere will be the major cause for death & emigration. Food & especially fresh water sources will become too scarce in a great many settled places around the world, and just to turn impracticality to disaster, the poorest countries are the ones that'll be hit the hardest.

um, are you serious? cause that's just about the silliest thing to say in response to that graph.

Why? Because I don't jump to unsubstantiated conclusions?

Be logical. Not blindly faithful. Correlation? Certainly. Causation? Not necessarily.

Computer models have simulated the results and they are happening as predicted. Melting of the Arctic Sea Ice Cap, breaking up of the Antarctic Ice cap, glaciers receding, I heard these predictions 20yrs ago and now they're happening(and at a rate faster than predicted). So yes we do know what happens.
Those models don't model cloud albedo feedbacks.

Previous high carbon events caused by vulcanism would have darkened the clouds considerably with ash and soot. We're not doing that. That's a significant and relevant difference.