EXXON Contradicts its Own Scientists

[_EAllusion]

CO2 isn't the sole forcing of climate. During the Jurassic age, solar intensity was significantly lower than it is currently for example. It would take less than Jurassic levels of CO2 to get to Jurassic global climate averages. You wouldn't have similar climate patterns because the shape of the continents and oceans were drastically different as well.

More importantly, the scary part of climate change is its rapidity, not the end result of thousands to millions of years of evolutionary adjustment. People are dependent on relatively stable climate and biodiversity patterns to grow their food, find their water, plan their cities, etc. If that changes too quickly, life can't adjust fast enough to sustain current patterns. That's why all known periods of rapid climate change are associated with mass extinction.

[_EAllusion]

Suppose agricultural science finds a way to deal with the collapse of pollinator food webs in "4-5 generations." In the intervening time, that will cause a substantial drop in food productivity. That in turn will cause famines for poor populations and economic devastation for wealthier ones. Not only is the potential suffering from this fact alone very troubling, those are the sort of conditions that tend to cause autocratic political movements and wars.

No biggie, I guess.

[_Res Ipsa]

No. A lower temperature for the Jurassic than you claimed undercuts your original argument.

It does?

Yes. Your original argument was that it was much, much hotter in the Jurassic and everything was fine. If it was not as much hotter than you claimed, that undercuts your argument.

[_Res Ipsa]

Tobin, EA covered what I would have said in your last long post. The only thing I would add is that growing food isn't just a matter of temperature. We didn't make the fertile area where we grow food. We took naturally fertile areas and enhanced them. In addition, global warming isn't just a matter of increasing the average temperature everywhere by the same number. It will change ocean currents, air currents, and precipitation patterns. There is published literature on all this, and it doesn't say "don't worry; be happy.

[_The CCC]

Tobin:

My apologies I misread your statement. However the facts remain that ocean levels were mush higher than today, and people didn't exist during the Jurassic period.

[Guest]

CO2 isn't the sole forcing of climate. During the Jurassic age, solar intensity was significantly lower than it is currently for example. It would take less than Jurassic levels of CO2 to get to Jurassic global climate averages. You wouldn't have similar climate patterns because the shape of the continents and oceans were drastically different as well.

Poppycock. The Jurassic period was 200 million years ago. I really doubt you'll find any credible scientist that would agree the Sun's solar intensity was significantly lower than it is today. If we were talking about a period a billion years or more ago, then you might have a point about there being maybe a 10% difference at most. But that claim is a bunch of crap.

More importantly, the scary part of climate change is its rapidity, not the end result of thousands to millions of years of evolutionary adjustment. People are dependent on relatively stable climate and biodiversity patterns to grow their food, find their water, plan their cities, etc. If that changes too quickly, life can't adjust fast enough to sustain current patterns. That's why all known periods of rapid climate change are associated with mass extinction.

People aren't fragile flowers and live in a very diverse number of climates. It doesn't take us long to adapt to a new environment. These changes will happen over decades and centuries, not overnight.

[_Tobin]

Suppose agricultural science finds a way to deal with the collapse of pollinator food webs in "4-5 generations." In the intervening time, that will cause a substantial drop in food productivity. That in turn will cause famines for poor populations and economic devastation for wealthier ones. Not only is the potential suffering from this fact alone very troubling, those are the sort of conditions that tend to cause autocratic political movements and wars.

Plants were pollinated just fine during the Jurassic period. Yet another unwarranted and silly claim.

[_Tobin]

Yes. Your original argument was that it was much, much hotter in the Jurassic and everything was fine. If it was not as much hotter than you claimed, that undercuts your argument.

My original argument was that at 1500-2500 ppm CO2 concentration, life thrived just fine. You then revealed the actual temperature at those level is at most +8 degrees C. Great!

[_Tobin]

Tobin, EA covered what I would have said in your last long post. The only thing I would add is that growing food isn't just a matter of temperature. We didn't make the fertile area where we grow food. We took naturally fertile areas and enhanced them. In addition, global warming isn't just a matter of increasing the average temperature everywhere by the same number. It will change ocean currents, air currents, and precipitation patterns. There is published literature on all this, and it doesn't say "don't worry; be happy.

Didn't we have ocean currents, air currents and precipitation patterns during the Jurassic period?

[_Tobin]

Tobin:

My apologies I misread your statement. However the facts remain that ocean levels were mush higher than today, and people didn't exist during the Jurassic period.

So what? Were there large land animals on the planet during the Jurassic period? Yep. Did the thrive? Yep. Did they have plenty to eat? Yep. Did plants thrive? Yep. It wasn't a barren wasteland, so big deal.