Well, we know at least one thing that could cause temperatures to plunge almost overnight. In fact, it would probably kill off a lot of plant life, and drop CO2 levels as well.

At this point, given what I know about our chances of surviving this crap, I see a new ice age as the best chance of survival for 90% of life on the planet. If we heat up the Earth too much, we're quite possibly headed for another Permian Extinction level event. The amount of hydrogen sulfide that has built up in the ocean since then is surely enough to kill most aerobic life on earth.

Yeah well not everyone shares your desire to move because of catastrophic climate change.

Furthermore, parts of the icecaps could fall off suddenly. It's not like it's guaranteed to melt in an orderly, slow fashion. Fancy huge tidal waves that cross continents?

Also still waiting on a response as to whether you enjoy breathing hydrogen sulfide.

You claim circular logic on the part of the GP, and then you use it yourself. How... ironic.

Your statement is a classic example of begging the question (AKA, circular reasoning). You assume your premise in your statement. To wit, you assume that:

1.) There are dissenting articles worth publishing (feel free to cite one)
2.) Scientific publications base their acceptance of articles on whether the submitter is arguing against prevailing opinion

Neither of your unproven, circular assertions have any merit whatsoever. In fact, science loves controversy, and the best way to make a name for yourself is to prove a prevailing opinion incorrect. Examples abound:

- The cause of the Cretaceous extinction (once thought to be a slow death as the earth cooled, now known to be an asteroid)
- the evolution of birds (now known to be from theropods, though that was once very controversial)
- gradualism in evolution (now replaced by punctuated equilibrium)
- gradualism in climate (we've now shown that climate changes can occur very, very rapidly, rather than over thousands of years)
- the number of species of man (that's right, there were more than one, although the oldbeards still hate this idea, it's fairly widely accepted now)

These are just a few examples of science being turned on its head because scientists dared to go against consensus. You know how they did it? By publishing peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals.

Oops, I didn't mean to list New Delhi. That's probably where everyone is going to have to move to when the ocean starts rising, actually.

First off, the OP said that 280 ppm is "suddenly" more than the biosphere can handle. There's nothing sudden about 400k years. In fact, in recent geological history, 380ppm is quite an anomaly.

As to your point, the water level was also several hundred feet higher 400 million years ago. I guess you don't mind if Florida, Hawaii, California, New York, London, New Delhi, Washington, Vancouver, most of Italy, and countless other places just vanish under the ocean when the ice caps melt?

Furthermore, if the temperature gets too hot, hydrogen sulfide that has been building up (and been sequestered there due to temperature) for millions of years will outgas from the ocean, and kill almost every animal on the planet.

Furthermore, if carbon levels continue to increase, the acidity of the ocean will continue to increase, which could kill off most of the protozoa and plankton that form the basis of the entire food chain.

Yes, the Earth was hotter 400 million years ago. The point is that upsetting the current balance is likely to have all sorts of catastrophic effects. Because guess what? During those 400 million years you're talking about, when we see rapid changes in temperature and CO2, you know what else we see? Massive extinction events.

Do you see the downside now, or were you just being facetious in the first place?

Yeah my bad. I meant year, honestly, but whether you believe me or not, it's irrelevant to my point. 700bln a year is quite an incentive to lie about the climate, and is a bigger incentive than lone scientists have to get grants.

In fact, I'd wager that if you want to go be a scientist for the oil industry, you'd make a hell of a lot more money.

So if you're going to argue that a million here or there is an incentive to lie and conspire, you have to admit that the oil companies have an even bigger incentive to lie and obfuscate and conspire.

The lowest number since when?

If we're talking about the last 400 thousand years, you are completely and entirely wrong

Sure, if you want to go back to a time when the earth was inhospitable by humans, there was more CO2 in the atmosphere. What does that prove? Exactly nothing.

I didn't find the data you're talking about in your link, but I'm guessing you're comparing the CO2 concentration from tens or hundreds of millions of years ago to today. Umm... why?

I'm not quite sure as to how to answer your question, because it is completely nonsensical, based on a faulty assumption, and displays a profound ignorance. You've basically asked me to give you an entire education from scratch in paleoclimatology. But I'll give it a shot, briefly.

The amount of CO2 the biosphere can absorb is related mostly to the amount the ocean soaks up, and the amount used by plants in respiration. At different periods in the Earth's history, there have been differing amounts of volcanic activity, flora, and fauna. Each of these contribute to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The time period you are referring to is a time period in which there was a much different balance of these factors on the Earth.

Hopefully this answers your question.

No one says that any particular temperature is natural. You're just making that up. What we say is that willfully raising global temperatures is a bad idea because it can have catastrophic consequences for people. Why is this concept so elusive to deniers? If temps go high enough, life will suck and billions will die . Even if the rise was natural (it isn't), if there was a way we could stop it, we should try it .

You don't have to read humanist and transcendental philosophers to recognize that billions dead and a sucky life for those who remain is a bad outcome. If your house was on fire, would you say, "well, there's fires in nature all the time. It's natural!" Or would you try to put out the fire? This is basic common sense. Somehow it gets thrown out the window when the topic of AGW is broached.

Higher temps also mean more droughts, which means less food and water, which means more wars. It's why Al Gore won the peace prize, and deserved it.

I hope this helped you grasp the concept of catastrophic change (but I realize it probably didn't).

Actually, it's not even close.

We put about 5% of the carbon into the atmosphere, but that 5% is enough to tip the balance and cause CO2 levels to rise, because the biosphere cannot absorb it.

How the hell did this get troll modded? Asking for a cite is trolling? The OP made a blanket assertion with nothing to back it up! Hopefully whoever did that gets meta-modded into /. hell.

Really? Well, since we're on the subject, the USA buys 700 billion dollars worth of oil every day.

So, assuming intellectual consistency on your part, do the oil companies who spend millions on AGW denial research, and stand to lose trillions of dollars if we reduce our oil consumption have a bigger conflict of interest than a professor, or Al Gore? Just curious.

2.calling it warming is kind of fucked up since it's warming in some places, and cooling in others

Wow, so the Earth isn't actually warming overall? Holy crap, I should go get rich on Intrade.

I don't know if you know anything about trading, but there's a crapload of bids out there, and hardly any asks for that contract. Wonder why?

Based on the current bid, you can get almost 4x your money back if this year is not the hottest year on record. So what are you waiting for?

As far as your "argument", please provide an example of a recent long-term cooling trend, on the order of decades (as man made global warming has been) anywhere on the Earth . A cold winter isn't climate. It's weather. Denialists such as yourself cannot seem to (or don't want to) grasp this concept.

[citation needed]

CO2 levels have risen from 280 ppm to 380ppm since the onset of the industrial revolution.

The earth's biosphere can absorb only a certain amount of CO2, i.e. - that which is produced naturally. When you add more than the biosphere can absorb, atmospheric levels of CO2 increase. You are tipping the scales, as it were.

The fact is, climate scientists predict how much CO2 levels will rise over the long and short term, and do a pretty fantastic job of it. Can you do better with your theory of nothing?

You can't see it, or you won't see it? Do you have a better idea of where the excess carbon is coming from? Let's hear it!

Global warming also can cause hydrogen sulfide outgassing from the ocean. You can't breathe hydrogen sulfide. But it's just part of the natural order of things, so who cares, right?

Maybe because you didn't even attempt to make a refutable statement of fact. The closest you came was this:

You don't make it clear what claims you are talking about, or what evidence we're supposed to provide. Should we link you to every climate study since the beginning of time? What exactly is it that you believe (erroneously) climate scientists claim without evidence? Do you think they just go around making claims with no science to back it up? What in the hell gave you that idea?

Just making a blanket statement that there's no evidence for anything in climate science isn't an argument. It's a troll.

Here's how actual argument works: you make a claim, and support it with evidence. Other people rebut your claim on the basis of your evidence, or other evidence.

Why is it that the global warming deniers can't ever seem to get this right? You think the scientists are wrong? Then post something factual. It's not my job to defend and litigate all of climate science just because you lack education in the matter.

Are you a card carrying fascist? Or are you just acting like one to make a pain in the ass of yourself?