The optimal global temperature would be warmer on average then it is now. But not hotter in the heat of the day in the hot places.

That is to say heat differentials ought to be less.

This might imply more greenhouse but with the same level of sun power or slightly less sun power but with the greenhouse gas overmatching the reduction.

But this is not a likely scenario because the greenhouse is unlikely to overmatch any drop in solar activity.

However it may be the case that if we could keep CO2 levels elevated for hundreds of years it could mitigate against another glaciation.

I say that because I think that climate is far more serendipitous on earth then the other planets.

And whereas SEA ICE appears to me to be the ultimate greenhouse substance LAND ICE would appear to me to be the ultimate anti-greenhouse substance.

Ergo it might be that, weak though the CO2 effects are, if they can melt a few more metres of land ice every summer and retard a few more metres of land ice every winter then the net effect of that might be to save us from the ultimate disaster of another glaciation.

I say that because the effects of extra CO2 are more pronouned in the arid air.

And on this planet the arid air tends to be COLD AIR…. and so the CO2, while its effects may be too weak to detect, decade to decade, globally….

…. nonetheless over a number of centuries it could well save our asses by its effects WHERE THE WALL OF WHITE DEATH HAPPENS TO BE.

So we ought not think about any optimal temperature.

The bias is always towards catastrophic cooling.

And so if we aim at any CO2 level between 1000ppm and 2000ppm and work concientiously to get the level of aerosols down…….

…. then that might just be enough for us to get by.

If carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and warms the Earth, what is an optimal temperature for the Earth and how much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases should be in the atmosphere?

The suns activity has been stronger then at any time for at least 1000 years and perhaps as long as 8000 years during the warming period.

Since the suns activity oscillates up and down it should be clear by this that we must expect a downturn.

And the suns activity turning down means we will face cooling and not warming.

So its more productive to think how we are going to deal with this cooling.

And to be quits with this utterly unscientific fantasy of catastrophic warming.

This is good to think about, especially if people are bringing up all sorts of different ideas that aren’t often discussed in the media.

I’m not a skeptic. I’m not skeptical at these alarmists ideas. This is not a folded-arms posture you see here.

Rather this is me trying to get at them and get my hands around their throat.

I know they are dishonest, full of shit, and ludicrously wrong in every constituent part of their argument.

And its more then clear that they want to do us harm.

As much harm as they did with Malaria.

And someone ought to pay for that by the way.

There are still people who ought to at least be fired over that.

Its the watermelon-commies that are the anti-scientific ones.

And I’m pissed with them for sucking me in for awhile.

It is by Willis Eschenbach and appears in the Unthreaded #3 thread, and is comment #204:

“I’m still not clear what your point is. Yes, US, Canada, and Australia emit a large amount of CO2 per capita. However, that only makes them “bad global citizens” if we accept the underlying assumption that CO2 is “bad”. To do that, you need to establish two things using facts (as opposed to models):

1) Increasing CO2 will cause a significant rise in temperature.

2) The effects of this rise will be significantly deleterious/dangerous.

Near as I can tell, neither of these is any where near established. Yes, I’m very aware of what the IPCC says … but if you can’t see the holes in their claims, you desperately need new eyeglasses. If you move from New York to LA, you have experienced a change in average temperature far, far exceeding what the IPCC predicts … where is the downside? Increased malaria? Paul Reiter, one of the world’s most qualified experts in the subject, says this is nonsense … and for saying so, he was dumped from the IPCC panel on health effects, and replaced by someone expert in … coprolites. If you are looking for clues, there’s a clue in there about the IPCC report’s value, when they dump real health scientists and replace them with experts in fossilized shit …

Increased rainfall? While there may be more floods, unlike a small amount of warming, water shortages are a very real problem in many parts of the world. How is increased rain a problem?

Increased drought? Drought is associated with cooler climates, not warmer. The Sahara is becoming more green, not less. I don’t see that as a worrisome trend.

Sea level rise? The IPCC currently predicts about a foot (300 mm) of rise in the coming century … which is what we’ve seen since 1850, and somehow I don’t recall anyone saying that sea level rise was one of the great disasters of the 1900’s.”

The more I follow this story the less regard I have for the IPCC and its procedures, as well as of some, not all, of the scientists involved who appear only to be interested in protecting the fiefdom they have created.

However, what do you suggest IF THEY ARE NOT ENOUGH ? Or do you think they will be enough? If the latter, why do you think that?

IF THEY ARE NOT ENOUGH???????????????? fatfingers???????

Enough for WHAT??? you dishonest communist assholes.

See how these watermelon-commies work third parties?

They haven’t got a stitch of evidence for catastrophic global warming but they just keep on running ahead without it anyhow.

FATFINGERS YOU FILTH.

Where is your evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.

I hope some of you are beginning to understand why our greatest living economist thinks that these lunatics are so dangerous.

They don’t need evidence to start pointing guns at people.

They just don’t fucking care.

realclimate.org should change its name to fuckthedata.com

No fatfingers you are lying.

Thats just a lie.

Deus tried to show that all these place were going under water because of rising seas.

But she chose an island in the middle of a river in a Delta region and I pointed out that every Delta region in the world was sinking and this didn’t mean the seas were rising faster then normal background rises.

I pointed out that the Himilayas were rising and that this didn’t mean he oceans were sinking and we were losing water molecules out into space.

You see Deus didn’t come up with any evidence. She just tried to gyp us by failing to distinguish between land sinking and sea rising.

And failing to distinguish between a normal range of background sea level rise that we have had to deal with for 18000 years and something more catastrophic and new on the scene.

In other words she had no evidence and should have stuck to the dancing lessons with which she is no doubt more profficient.

“JC, many, many people have tried answering GMB on this. He doesn’t want to know, period.”

No fatfingers. Thats just you lying. Retract those lies.

Now third parties will know you are lying when you fail to come up with valid EVIDENCE……for the LIKELIHOOD…..of CATASTROHIC WARMING.

We have mountains of evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic COOLING. But we have no evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming.

So you were just lying fatfingers. And once one person starts lying the rest of you start piling on with it.

We were looking for evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming ON EARTH.

And if I must add in another stipulation I would have to say ON EARTH WITHIN THE NEXT 20 MILLION YEARS. (lets say).

Because I have just BEGAN to argue…. My argument is not complete….. that without humans the EARTH may be catastrophically hot within 300 million years.

I need more evidence for this to see if it could be true. But so far it looks like the continued prosperity of intelligent like MAY be necessary to the survival of the natural world for more then another 300 million years.

http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2007/02/11/capital-accumulation-critical-to-the-salvation-of-the-natural-world/

Not that it matters much. Without intelligent life its all a bit pointless.

But I want to reverse this lunacy of thinking that man and nature are enemies with eachother ….. which is only true to the extent of some land-use practices that could be mitigated against under a better form of capitalism.

Under capitalism akin to what JC was talking about when you get rid of all height restrictions on buildings.