Have you seen this - slow changes amplifying CO2 effects?

yes i saw a report, and i have seen other stuff equally worrying. e.g. temperature in the eemian (previous interglacial) was only around 1 degree higher than now, and CO2 lower than now, and max. sea level was 5 metres higher. and this is not from proxies, we have ice cores, and many other temp. indicators.

Leaving all scientific evidence aside; there must be a point in time, when earth cannot handle the level of carbon dioxide and other pollutants that are currently released. If this won't happen now or tomorrow, it will happen at some point in the future. So, denying an immediate problem doesn't justify not taking action at all. Surely, it is not the answer our children and grand grand children would expect from us, as they will be the ones who will pay price.

This type of analysis Paul is why I can completely an utterly reject everything the scientists say. This is idiotic drivel. There are many factors affecting the global temperature, of which, these scientists know nothing. They don't even know the CO2 concentration because they are using a surrogate of a surrogate of a surrogate. We know very well that ocean currents, output of the sun, clouds cover and volcanic eruptions all effect the global temps, as well as a myriad of other factors, of which they know none of the factors. But what are we even talking about, they don't know the global temps, 4.5 million years ago. They have to use another surrogate of a surrogate of a surrogate to determine the temps. Then they try to correlate these two surrogates, and then make the absurd claim that these are the only factors, thus if you know the CO2 concentrations you know the temps? Any good scientists will tell you that a claim like that could not be made unless either all of the other factors were known and accounted for (which they are not), or CO2 is the only factor affecting temps (which Pagani seems to be saying).

You realize that we can barely conclusively measure the global temps now? When scientists make assissinine statements like this, they are showing bias and stupidity. Luckily, the pharma industry does not allow such idiotic fools to make such stupid statements in our field. Otherwise, we would still believe that snake oil cures all that ails you.

Seriously pathetic!!!

I am seriously hoping that Pagani was just quoted incorrectly.

Edit for Paul:

I have missed your insults, I had almost worried that you had deprived us of your presence.

I accept the cancer studies because they were randomized and blinded. The randomization covers the factors that were not accounted for. They had no such ability for a retrospective study. To make broad scoping claims for the future from the results of a retrospective study is foolish. Further to suggest that the scientists were able to take all of the factors that would affect the environment, into account 4.5 million years ago is rather stupid as they cannot even do so now. Then again a real scientist knows this, so obviously you are either a pathetic scientist or not a scientist at all. The other option of course is that you quite often write before you think.

EDIT for BOB:

Are you stupid? Seriously? Are you seriously suggesting that hundreds of scientists took these measurements 4.5 million years ago, before man was around? That would be the only way to claim that you are not just using surrogates, instead of surrogate of surrogates. Nothing you have stated even remotely argues against my statements. You insult with no truth to back you up. This could be why I constantly have to correct you AGWers. Evidently you think it is alright to replace evidence with insults and the scientific method with bias unblinded retrospective studies.

First Bob suggests " " is ignorant and then implies that IR spectrum can determine temperature and CO2 4.5 million years ago. Say what????? I don't know what he is talking about there nor does he.

The bottom line is that temperatures typically drive CO2 concentrations, not vice versa. For someone to see high CO2 concentrations and assume that those caused the high temperatures is the epitome of ignorance IMO. It really irritates me when a fellow geologist behaves this way. They pretend they have something new when in fact they are just regurgitating past mistakes or lies.

That study does not prove anything. All they did was assume that co2 is a climate driver, and then try to speculate how much warming is "in the pipeline." But of course they conveniently ignored that in the icecore sample that past interglacials were warmer than today, despite way higher co2 levels today. How do they reconcile that? Because if it is true and there is more warming in the pipeline that would mean, according to the icecore samples, that we have another ten degrees of warming in the pipeline. That would be inconsistent with the middle Pliocene period.

"They don't even know the CO2 concentration because they are using a surrogate of a surrogate of a surrogate."

This degree of ignorance about science is typical of many denier posts here.

Hundreds of scientists all around the world sample the air and make direct measurements of CO2. In rural areas, independent scientists get results that match to better than 1%.

One method (that's been used for over 50 years) is to measure the absorption of infrared light at frequencies specific for carbon dioxide, using an infrared spectrometer. Measurements can also be made by gas chromatography, another common technique for analyzing gases that separates out individual gases by passing them through a column of absorbent. These closely agree. There are also chemical analytical methods, but they are subject to interferences from other substances, and are less reliable.

Data compiled here:

http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/

i saw another study about the the ice core of the south pole

in no time the earth climate could wipe out all civilisation from the planet

and yes i think we are doomed

I agree

But more CO2 will make temperatures rise even more.

Do we need this ?

When we can still do something about it !

Nikki, your answer about CO2 levels is false.

CO2 is at it's highest level since human beings have lived on earth.

It was only higher nearly half a billion years ago.

But only the most resilient of our present lifeforms could have survived then.

The planet was then completely covered in dense forest, which consumed vast amounts of this gas.

Because of this, the CO2 levels fell gradually.

Mammals came into being 300 million years later.

Global warming may be caused by too many people on the planet, people eating far too much, eating crap, thus farting more, hence co2. What ever happens we are all going to die one way or another. Just enjoy life and stop wondering...

"This is why non-scientists should not express views on scientific questions."

And yet you continue to share yours.

I think the key word in this study is associated, synonymous with correlated. Correlation does not imply causation. Never has never will.