That’s an interesting claim, Alec Rawls. So you’re saying that human beings have evolved to be suited to a climate they’ve never actually experienced. How did they do that, exactly?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=84462e2d-6bff-4983-a574-31f5ae8e8a42

Yeah, there is the “political” debate which is primarily a propaganda war between people of different temperaments and then there is the “scientific” debate, which I find somewhat more disturbing because you see academics who should know better, cherry picking data to support a viewpoint in a very self interested way right now. There is a lot of potential to do damage to the credibility of science in the minds of the public. I hope that doesn’t happen. Of course, there are conspiracy theory cranks and AGW loonies, such as the kid above pretending to be “Hunter”, who just make repeated fools of themselves and can only be laughed at. But they are marginal to the debate at best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation and http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/1vc.html

Placing your faith in climate models is misplaced faith. Our unerstanding is paper thin.

I do appreciate the civil tone and dispassionate debate in some of the comments posted here. They would never be allowed in RC, do nothing to shape anyone’s opinion on the issue except casue a hardening of them. Bravo, bravo…

Thank you

Sorry for interruption while I was addressing the troll…

“I do, however, think it’s a little strong to say “But that [CO2 has not been a driver of climate in the past] doesn’t necessarily say anything about the present.” Past behavior may not be proof of present behavior, but it is indicative.”

I’m just framing the counter-argument here. Not necessarily saying I agree with it…

“Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.”

I don’t think anyone (sceptic or believer) is disputing the general gist of what you’ve quoted above, although there is always room to quibble over the exact details.

“If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.”

I think this criticism is addressing perhaps some of the theories of James Hansen–tipping points and stuff. It might be worth observing here that is probably a position held by a fringe group in the AGW camp. I don’t see much mention of imminent tipping points leading to global catastrophe in the IPCC reports. Although that scenario is not entirely outside of their range of possibilities. Some climate models do predict this behaviour (the ones doing worst against empirical observations at the moment) and the IPCC has forecast up to 6C in the worst case over the next 100 years. Given the last decade of static temperatures and ever accelerating CO2 ppm in the atmosphere, we can probably rule those extreme scenarios out as even remotely likely, even with the data we have now.

I think in a nutshell nobody is arguing that *something* causes warming (i.e., orbital change), which releases CO2 from the atmosphere. This is why temperature change and CO2 correlate well. Based on accepted physical principles, the extra CO2 should contribute to at least a small amount of additional warming. A “feedback loop.”. Again, no one except the nutcases at either end of the debate dispute this. What is not understood is how powerful this feedback loop is. The science behind understanding it is very sketchy and controversial at present. I don’t seem much evidence for alarm just yet. We probably need another 10 years of global temperature data in order to nail this one down further, and at least rule out if there is any possibility of it being harmless, costly and inconvenient, or dangerous.

How about using your real name, and not pretend to be someone else? What about the “missing heat” problem you declared was “paranoid” and something I was making up. Anyone can just google “missing heat” to see how full of shit you are.

And weren’t you the guy who accused people of being paedophiles because they disagreed with your point of view?

Sure, there are climate cranks everywhere on the net, but you are a fine example of an extreme lunatic so typical of the other side of the debate.