Misanthropic Scott says:

#80 – Phillep,

(Weird. Where’d all that water come from?)

Two places. One, the melted ice. You may not be aware that Antarctica, a large continent is covered with 2 mile thick ice. The peninsula alone, if it melts, will raise sea level by 20 meters. And the peninsula is relatively small. Greenland also has enough ice, that, if/when it melts, will raise sea level 20 meters.

Two, water expands when it warms.

#87 – Cursor_,

Good for you. Enjoy your life in neverland. Humans have only been on this planet for 200,000 years. Statistically, we’re brand new. If you want to look at really adaptable species, look at the ones that have been here a long time. Try horseshoe crabs, crocodiles, turtles, sharks, and of course, most life on this planet, the bacteria. That we’re already having this discussion after only 200,000 years does not bode well for us.

#78 – MikeN,

That chart has been making the rounds quite a bit. Every time I read it though, I see one case of what you describe with the CO2 lagging warming. I don’t see that as the normal pattern.

As for your comments about the third world CO2, you’re just flat dead wrong. Many of the models simply look at the amount of CO2 in the air over time and extrapolate the current trend.

There’s also data to suggest that the levels of CO2 are already far worse than worst case scenarios predicted.

http://tinyurl.com/2t7epk

#91 – MikeN,

Certainly there are scientists with agendas. But, remember, these scientists were all chosen by their respective governments. If you don’t believe that one can pick individuals based on their ability to forward an agenda, you haven’t been paying attention to the Supreme Court in the United States, where the judges were similarly picked to promote an agenda.

#93 – MikeN,

AFAIK, the hockey stick is still perfectly valid. I’m guessing it is not used because of its perceived debunking.

However, when I had this discussion at work, My coworkers and I purchased copies of the peer reviewed articles on the subject. There was a single peer reviewed article contradicting the hockey stick.

It was based on the first published version of the hockey stick graph even though a newer version had already been published months earlier that addressed all of the issues in the first version. There were then two other articles in peer reviewed publications re-supporting the hockey stick graph and no further contradictions of it.

So, AFAIK, the hockey stick is still very much a real picture of the world’s temperature. Though, it may be a bit dated and newer graphs may be used instead.

MikeN says:

If you ever want to learn how these models are built, I suggest you do so rather than repeating old talking points. They build in estimates of carbon emissions for each set of countries. How else would you ‘extrapolate CO2?’