Climate Koch up.

[Jason]

Yeah, I'm exaggerating. It's more like 350-400 years.

[pErvinalia]

Funny how the first half he kept saying " we don't understand what might happen " and " we don't know what the effects might be " and " it's a big experiment " etc etc.
Then the second half he went on as if we did know, we did understand, we did know what the effects will be.
Without a shred of new info.

That sums up the whole debate. We don't know, followed by an huge unjustified jump to " we are heading for the fires of hell ".

THe reality? One half of a degree warming BEFORE CO2 levels jumped. One half of a degree after.
And fuck-all for the last ten years.

And STILL nobody can explain why CO2 levels have followed temperatures, not driven them, for hundreds of thousands of years.
And the only evidence FOR CO2 causing the rise this time is man-made models, which can be made to show anything you choose.

Fucken old people should be required to shut up in regards to commenting on progressive issues. Old people are conservative to the bone, whether they want to be or not. This is a problem for the youth of the world to face. Old people have fucked the place up and can frankly shove their conservative advice up their cakeholes.

Definition: "Old" - older than me...

[pErvinalia]

And STILL nobody can explain why CO2 levels have followed temperatures, not driven them, for hundreds of thousands of years.

That point has been well understood for at least the last 30 years.

When the world starts to warm, sea temperatures rise, making CO2 less soluble, and thus entering the atmosphere. This phase takes a couple centuries. After that, the increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere reinforce the temperature rise.

The original temperature rise, that kicks off the process, is related to Milankovitch Cycles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

What's the bet old conservative dude doesn't respond? Doesn't fit his fox news narrative.

[Jason]

You mean it's a complete load and you need some pliant young throats to cram it down?


.. That sounded bad.

Fuck it.

[Cormac]

Yeah, bullshit like this only muddies the water and slows progress. Rich fuckers only care about making more $$$. Twats.

THOSE rich fuckers.

Not ALL rich fuckers.

Even the City of London is demanding a bold response to climate change from the UK govt.

[Cormac]

A news report (New Zealand Herald 26 January) implicates American brothers Charles and David Koch as billionaire donors to an anonymous donor trust, to feed millions of dollars into a climate change denial program. Is this corruption or what? Those guys have major shares in the fossil fuel industry, and their support of climate change denial can only be seen as a cynical and callous attempt to become traitors to generations to come, in the interests of their own wealth in the here and now.

The Koch family pay their money to a trust called the Knowledge and Progress fund, which pays on the money to The Donors Trust, to keep identities secret, and fund the climate denial industry. To make things totally ridiculous, these donations are tax deductible!

A sociologist, Dr. Robert Bruile, at Drexel University in Philadelphia, has claimed that 500 million dollars has been fed to organisations determined to undermine the science of climate change. The Donors Trust is passing money to the American Enterprise Institute, which is currently being sued by Dr. Michael Mann (eminent climate scientist) for claiming that Mann committed scientific fraud.

As appalling as it is, I don't think it is corruption in the true sense of the word, which involve a potentially criminal action. They are making self-interested propaganda on a large scale, and not being transparent about the underlying motivation. It's a good illustration of the way our society allows money and power to self-perpetuate, but it's not technically corrupt.

If it could potentially influence share prices it would be a crime. (And it most definitely could).

[Cormac]

A news report (New Zealand Herald 26 January) implicates American brothers Charles and David Koch as billionaire donors to an anonymous donor trust, to feed millions of dollars into a climate change denial program. Is this corruption or what?

Actually, it's capitalism. Welcome to the shit we deserve.

By the way, here's link to this story. http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 66312.html

Actually, it is not.

[JimC]

Funny how the first half he kept saying " we don't understand what might happen " and " we don't know what the effects might be " and " it's a big experiment " etc etc.
Then the second half he went on as if we did know, we did understand, we did know what the effects will be.
Without a shred of new info.

That sums up the whole debate. We don't know, followed by an huge unjustified jump to " we are heading for the fires of hell ".

THe reality? One half of a degree warming BEFORE CO2 levels jumped. One half of a degree after.
And fuck-all for the last ten years.

And STILL nobody can explain why CO2 levels have followed temperatures, not driven them, for hundreds of thousands of years.
And the only evidence FOR CO2 causing the rise this time is man-made models, which can be made to show anything you choose.

Fucken old people should be required to shut up in regards to commenting on progressive issues. Old people are conservative to the bone, whether they want to be or not. This is a problem for the youth of the world to face. Old people have fucked the place up and can frankly shove their conservative advice up their cakeholes.

Definition: "Old" - older than me...

[FBM]

Yeah, bullshit like this only muddies the water and slows progress. Rich fuckers only care about making more $$$. Twats.

THOSE rich fuckers.

Not ALL rich fuckers.

Even the City of London is demanding a bold response to climate change from the UK govt.

Yeah, I mean "those." I've heard tell that there are a few good eggs among the rich.

[pErvinalia]

A news report (New Zealand Herald 26 January) implicates American brothers Charles and David Koch as billionaire donors to an anonymous donor trust, to feed millions of dollars into a climate change denial program. Is this corruption or what?

Actually, it's capitalism. Welcome to the shit we deserve.

By the way, here's link to this story. http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 66312.html

Actually, it is not.

Of course it is. Everything has a value in capitalism. That includes information and disinformation.

[pErvinalia]

Funny how the first half he kept saying " we don't understand what might happen " and " we don't know what the effects might be " and " it's a big experiment " etc etc.
Then the second half he went on as if we did know, we did understand, we did know what the effects will be.
Without a shred of new info.

That sums up the whole debate. We don't know, followed by an huge unjustified jump to " we are heading for the fires of hell ".

THe reality? One half of a degree warming BEFORE CO2 levels jumped. One half of a degree after.
And fuck-all for the last ten years.

And STILL nobody can explain why CO2 levels have followed temperatures, not driven them, for hundreds of thousands of years.
And the only evidence FOR CO2 causing the rise this time is man-made models, which can be made to show anything you choose.

Fucken old people should be required to shut up in regards to commenting on progressive issues. Old people are conservative to the bone, whether they want to be or not. This is a problem for the youth of the world to face. Old people have fucked the place up and can frankly shove their conservative advice up their cakeholes.

Definition: "Old" - older than me...

Yeah, well I may have been generalising a bit. That's so unlike me...

[Cormac]

A news report (New Zealand Herald 26 January) implicates American brothers Charles and David Koch as billionaire donors to an anonymous donor trust, to feed millions of dollars into a climate change denial program. Is this corruption or what?

Actually, it's capitalism. Welcome to the shit we deserve.

By the way, here's link to this story. http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 66312.html

Actually, it is not.

Of course it is. Everything has a value in capitalism. That includes information and disinformation.

If I recall, communist regimes have been dedicated purveyors of disinformation.

The ones that still exist are also dedicated to it.

Where Labour parties have been in power, disinformation mills have kicked into overdrive.

Capitalism is simply this:

One person has capital that they wish to protect from the ravages of inflation, in addition to potentially generating additional value.

Another person wishes to do something now, but they don't have the capital.

The first person lends the money to the second for some kind of return.

This is Capitalism. There are more complex variations on this, but the core is always this.

What you seem fixated on is more akin to mercantilism. But capitalism in and of itself has very little to say about using disinformation to gain value - except as I pointed out already elsewhere in this thread.

If Koch's shares stood to gain or fall (they didn't have to gain or fall in reality - just could have potentially moved) as a direct consequence of this campaign of disinformation - in most jurisdictions this would be considered a crime, and one that is severely punished.

[mistermack]

And STILL nobody can explain why CO2 levels have followed temperatures, not driven them, for hundreds of thousands of years.

That point has been well understood for at least the last 30 years.

When the world starts to warm, sea temperatures rise, making CO2 less soluble, and thus entering the atmosphere. This phase takes a couple centuries. After that, the increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere reinforce the temperature rise.

The original temperature rise, that kicks off the process, is related to Milankovitch Cycles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

That's simplistic rubbish that doesn't stand even the lightest scrutiny.
You only have to look at the ice-core results to see that. If the Milankovitch Cycles just kick off a warming cycle, what can possibly STOP that cycle? The CO2 increases with temperature, (lagging by about 800 years).
So CO2 and temperature levels go up and up and up. According to the "science".
Except that they don't. They go up and down, and up and down. At the very peak of the cycle, with temperatures at record levels, and CO2 at record levels and rising, the world plunges into a severe glaciation. It's happened again and again.

The Milankovitch cycles just do not explain anything. The change in solar irradiation is extremely gradual, but the change from extreme heat to extreme cold is extremely fast. To argue that a minute gradual change in irradiation can override record CO2 levels and suddenly plunge a CO2 rich world into a severe glaciation is defeating your own argument.

[Blind groper]

Mistermack

You have a point, though I have to say it is a different point.

You asked about why CO2 rises in the past have followed temperature rise, and I explained that. What you have now raised is a quite different question, which is why, in the past, temperature rises have not continued.

I cannot give you a clear answer off the top of my head (though someone else may be able to). My best guess is that there is a negative feed-back mechanism that kicks in. If so, this may or may not be useful in today's world. It may be quite insufficient for the simple reason that greenhouse gas levels today are rising to a point way higher than those of the past, and any negative feed-back may be totally inadequate to stop the warming.

[Jason]

Or perhaps this hypothetical feedback mechanism works in direct proportion to the heating trend? Perhaps this is all a big case of 'maybe', 'perhaps', and what we really need to do is stop panicking and do some science.