... or is Sagebrush just repeating one of the many skeptic myths?

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140616223649AADesoe

Of course, not a single denier has been able to come up with a defense of Sagebrush's lie. If you go back to Sagebrush's answer to the original question, wilds_of_virginia claimed that " Liberals have short memories, so the scary story from two years ago has long been forgotten". Do you see what he was able to come up with in his answer? Apparently he equates runaway warming with 2 degrees Celsius!

wilds_of_virginia should apologize for his comment and admit that he was the one with the faulty memory.

EDIT: The dishonesty of deniers knows no bounds. wilds_, Ian, Mike, etc. all claiming that a rise of anything greater than 2 Celsius degrees is "runaway" warming. How hard would it be to admit that you made a mistake? It seems like it would be much easier than persisting in a ridiculous lie.

It has been used as a tipping point a lot, not so much recently as the concentration got to 400 ppm (now the tipping point is 450 ppm).

Back in the middle of the last decade, there were a lot of alarmist scientists who warned about the dangers of surpassing 400 ppm. Here is the quote:

"...scientists estimated that once the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere surpasses 400 parts per million (ppm), it's unlikely we'll be able to stabilise global mean surface temperature at two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels."

This is but one of many examples.

Edit: Apparently, some libs have trouble with reading comprehension in addition to poor memories. The article states once we exceed the 400 ppm concentration, it becomes "unlikely" that surface temperatures will stabilize at 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Instead, the surface temperature will keep rising which will lead to all sorts of terrible things.

The group reporting this launched a "100 months" campaign in 2008. It has all the elements of an alarmist propaganda campaign- a deadline, a tipping point, a scary scenario, etc. This deadline will come and go just like all the others. And the alarmists will still be trying to frighten us and setting new deadlines- because old deadlines are soon forgotten.

BTW, the first CAGW deadline was 1999:

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...

He probably got it from this

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment...

Which states.... "And it breaks new ground by putting a figure - for the first time in such a high-level document - on the danger point of global warming, that is, the temperature rise beyond which the world would be irretrievably committed to disastrous changes."

"More ominously still, it assesses the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere after which the two-degree rise will become inevitable, and says it will be 400 parts per million by volume (ppm) of CO2."

So basically the alarmists are saying that past 400 ppm a 2deg C rise is inevitable. This inevitable 2 deg rise will cause major catastrophes ("CAGW? We never said global warming would lead to catastrophes... but it will. We just never said that, although we just did.. but we didn't. But, we just did.") and will probably lead to runaway global warming.

It's just another hedge by alarmists like when they say "The sea level MAY rise UP TO 130 feet next week unless we spend billions on carbon capture,"

After the week comes and goes and the sea level is the same they go "What? We never said it WOULD rise TO 130 feet. Teeeeeheeeeeheeeee... we're so smart. You see what we did there? Teeeeeheeeeeheeeee... we're geniuses. Teeeeeeheeeeeeheeeee..."

Pretty much every bad thing has been claimed for global warming. And we have been told lots of short timelines to save the planet. According to Al Gore's talks from years ago, the planet can no longer be saved, yet somehow he is still giving speeches.

Pegminer says 2C warming is not within the confines of the claim, yet

RealClimate calls 2C warming a danger limit, above which we get tens of meters of sea level rise.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

They use 450 PPM to get the 2C though.

I would say that the ill-defined tipping point in combination with Hansen's use of "runaway" warming give us skeptics plenty of ammunition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_poi...

Honestly, runaway should have never escaped Hansen's lips, let alone been written in a book. You know very well that the likelihood of runaway is so minute that this just begs to be ridiculed.

Further, as per my discussion with Jeff M. Lets pretend for a moment that the IPCC predictions are EXACTLY accurate for what is to come. Given statemetn like "runaway", crap about 20 feet of sea rise and other obviously false alarms placed up, can you really say that the "deniers" who claim NO warming are as far from the IPCC as some of the warmers? If you can't then who is more anti-science.

I would contend that those who far exceed the IPCC reports are more anti-science, because they are asking for change and they are making positive claims, thus they bear the burden of proof.

This is the point I have been making to warmers. You think I am doing you a disservice, while I believe I am helping you. Consider. What if the linear warming plus PDO effect is the truth in what we will see in the future? This certainly in itself justifies reducing CO2 emissions. BUT, we are on the downswing of the PDO. Based upon the PDO cycle being 60-65 years. We are in for another 15 years of nearly no warming. In about 10 years, we are going to try to convince developing countries to use more renewable sources in earnest. What do you think the result will be?

Now if your models are actually right and you would have used the linear, would you really see much of a difference now in action?

SImply put, you take the opposite of the Scotty approach. You don't under-promise and over-deliver, you over-promise and under-deliver. That would work if you believe that AGW can be "fix" in the next 10-15 years. Do you believe that?

Yes and no. It depends on what you mean by runaway warming. I seem to recall people speaking of a tipping point, where the change becomes irreversible. But I do not believe in "irreversible". I only believe in "too hard to reverse to be worth doing it". And even if it is not reversed, it is not the end of the world. We just have to adjust to a different climate. Life on Earth has adjusted to different climates before and will again.

We all know how brilliant you are Dookster at analyzing any real data or research! You're a hypocritical copy-paster. Any science that doesn't agree with your arrogant delusions isn't science at all. That's why your answers are worthless. When you add your insults, it just further shows how ignorant you really are about "having a dignified response".

Spelling out the limits of CO2 warming is beyond environmental zealots. Less than 1/3rd of the climate scientists truly believe that CO2 is a danger to the atmosphere and most of those scientists are arrogant "elitists" like the Dookster.

I think Dookster was the one who started that rumor after someone took his "banky".

I don't know if any one has

but as far as the myth spreader, he's also an anti-evolution creationist

so he should stop embarrassing himself and go play in the Religion section

No, the runaway effect claim is a denier myth, we know full well from geologic records that Earth has three stable climates, the ice age we're in now is the least stable, the warm Earth is far more stable than the ice age and snowball Earth is the most stable requiring a cataclysmic volcanic activity to leave it. The runaway effect is from amateur comparisons with Venus and much of Venus climate is defined by it's slow rotation ( it's day is longer than it's year ) and the resulting hypervelocity winds leaving little clear area to radiate heat out ( the Sun does not contribute much to Venus's heat as the albedo ranges from 0.67 to 0.90 depending on which measurement you're going by, that is, sunlight is reflected away from Venus. Venus's heat is from it not being able to radiate away.

No, it's a conspiracy by the Koch brothers, republicans, big oil, and deniers to make claims about AGW and it's effects look ridiculous.

... or is Sagebrush just repeating one of the many skeptic myths?

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140616223649AADesoe

"They said.. they said"

Let's separate what scientists said from what the press or politicians said.

A quick google check for runaway warming has a myriad of idiotic claims from alarmists. Why aren't you railing against one them?

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=run...

http://peakoil.com/forums/runaway-global...

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11...

http://www.zero-carbon-or-climate-catast...

I wouldn't say that no one has, but no one who is informed would have made such a claim.

After scores of Wattsup copy-paste fake questions, Zipplie seeks to graduate from Anti-Science for Complete Dummies to Anti-Science for Half Wits by putting up a "question" using something along the lines of the following procedure:

a) Copying something like this Wattsup piece from yesterday

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/16/na...

b) Googling "runaway greenhouse effect" leading to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kombayashi-...

c) Making up a bogus question based on it.



Sage, who is barely able to grasp the concept of copy-pasting Wattup, and who racked up over a thousand "best answers" by posting quotes from Goebbels in response to "questions" such "Shouldn't environmentalists being trying to stop Al Gore?" https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index... self-projects in answering Zippies "question" ("I think these theories are dreamt up by high school kids long on imagination and short on science. They certainly don't have facts on their side") making up an answer in response, and then accusing of others of doing what he does.

Whether he is too senile to remember that he never actually read that 400ppm CO2 means runaway climate change, or misremembered but doesn't care to check, or just lies his behind off 24-7 regardless, or all of the abovem is immaterial to your question here, Darwinist. SageB's remarks are quite often, and this certainly seems to be such a case, NOT a repeat of stock denier myths, because he is too lazy and dumb to properly repeat them, let alone understand them, let even more alone understand actual climate science.

JimZ meanwhile -who in contrast to SageB has set foot inside a college lecture hall- uses his degree in Abiotic Oil Geology, in his post on this page, to argue against a century of massive science and hundreds of Nobel Prize winners by citing a Google search results list, two blog entries by non-scientists, and a third blog piece by amateur scientist Romm which in effect says: if you are driving 60 mph straight at a brick wall, the closer you get, the harder you have to hit the brakes, in order to stop before crashing into it.