400ppm

[Trakar]

http://www.sciencewa.net.au/topics/environment-a-conservation/item/2162-new-model-shows-responsive-plant-species-to-climate-change.html
Interesting new science understanding demonstrates some of the problems inherent to rapid changes of climate.

…Researchers have developed a dynamic model, Plant Persistence under Climate Change (PPunCC), which identifies a plant species’ ability to migrate fast enough to avoid extinction due to changing climate.

“The likelihood of a plant species persisting will depend on rate of climate change, amount of landscape fragmentation, as well as species lifecycle,” study co-author and UWA School of Plant Biology’s Dr Michael Renton says…

Of particular interest is that this study does more than just identify the problems of previous studies and examinations of the issue, it also examines some of the potential and proposed addressments to the problem of fragmented ecosystems in a rapidly changing climate backdrop.

… It also explored whether targeted restoration of fragmented landscapes increases the probability of species survival.

The PPunCC model predicted that 16 per cent of annuals and perennials will migrate fast enough in fragmented landscapes to survive. For annuals, targeted restoration increases survival to 40 per cent, with a bleaker 24 per cent for perennials.
The worst case was trees—restoration increases their survival to 16 per cent. Trees are particularly vulnerable because they take longer to mature and produce seed.
“Under current and predicted rates of climate change, many species are likely to become extinct unless we consider options such as assisted relocation. Worst affected are likely to be iconic tree species that people tend to care about the most,” says Dr Renton.
“We didn’t expect such big differences between the annuals and the trees, nor such bleak outcomes overall.”…

Reference:
“Plant migration and persistence under climate change in fragmented landscapes: Does it depend on the key point of vulnerability within the lifecycle?” - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380012003304

 

[Trakar]

Guy Stewart Callendar
75 years ago April, Guy Stewart Callendar had a landmark paper published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, entitled “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature.” This led to the phenomenon of planetary climate warming due primarily to the addition of CO2 being called “the Callendar Effect” through the 1940s and ‘50s. For the last couple of decades, it has generally been labeled AGW or HFCC (Human Forced Climate Change). In April of this year, Drs. Hawkins and Jones, were published in the same journal with a paper examining and assessing Callendar’s original paper, how it compares to modern Climate science understandings, and the impact all of the early foundational climate science work has had upon modern climate theory:

Abstract

In 1938, Guy Stewart Callendar was the first to demonstrate that the Earth’s land surface was warming. Callendar also suggested that the production of carbon dioxide by the combustion of fossil fuels was responsible for much of this modern change in climate. This short note marks the 75th anniversary of Callendar’s landmark study and demonstrates that his global land temperature estimates agree remarkably well with more recent analyses…
…A large part of Callendar (1938) discusses the change in global temperatures that would have been expected given the observed increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The calculations were somewhat hindered by the existing understanding of atmospheric radiative physics, and by the limited available observations of the infrared absorption spectrum and carbon dioxide concentrations. In addition, he considered the energy balance at the surface instead of the top of the atmosphere. Nevertheless, Callendar estimated that global temperatures should have warmed by around 0.03K/decade due to the increasing levels of carbon dioxide. The global temperature estimates exhibited a larger trend of 0.06K/decade, leading to his conclusion that the combustion of fossil fuels was making a significant contribution to the observed warming…

Nice little paper, easy to read, with references to many of the foundational papers of modern Climate science.
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/home/hawkins_jones_2013_Callendar.pdf

 

[Trakar]

Four Hundred Parts per Million
Suppose that all increases in atmospheric CO2 could be stopped so that the current levels could not increase above where they are at right now. What would the world look like after a couple hundred years and the natural environment had fully equilibrated to the 400ppm of CO2 level of atmospheric CO2?
Luckily we aren’t solely reliant upon the speculations of amateur and professional speculators, there are a few rare confluences of geological conditions that have preserved snap-shots of the Earth’s past where naturally released pCO2 levels matched today’s.

… Evidence from Lake El’gygytgyn, NE Arctic Russia, shows that 3.6-3.4 million years ago, summer temperatures were ~8°C warmer than today when pCO2 was ~400 ppm. Multiproxy evidence suggests extreme warmth and polar amplification during the middle Pliocene, sudden stepped cooling events during the Pliocene-Pleistocene transition, and warmer than present Arctic summers until ~2.2 Ma, after the onset of Northern Hemispheric glaciation. Our data are consistent with sea-level records and other proxies indicating that Arctic cooling was insufficient to support large-scale ice sheets until the early Pleistocene…

Oceans 30-40 meters higher than they are currently, temps averaged 6-12°C higher than current (depending on latitude), sounds pretty rough, what’s worse though, is the fact that we don’t have a magic wand to stop CO2 levels at their current rate and we are very likely to top 6-800ppm CO2 over the next century.
Reference: Science Magazine: Sign In

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW...still not science

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Old Rocks]

Four Hundred Parts per Million
Suppose that all increases in atmospheric CO2 could be stopped so that the current levels could not increase above where they are at right now. What would the world look like after a couple hundred years and the natural environment had fully equilibrated to the 400ppm of CO2 level of atmospheric CO2?
Luckily we aren’t solely reliant upon the speculations of amateur and professional speculators, there are a few rare confluences of geological conditions that have preserved snap-shots of the Earth’s past where naturally released pCO2 levels matched today’s.

… Evidence from Lake El’gygytgyn, NE Arctic Russia, shows that 3.6-3.4 million years ago, summer temperatures were ~8°C warmer than today when pCO2 was ~400 ppm. Multiproxy evidence suggests extreme warmth and polar amplification during the middle Pliocene, sudden stepped cooling events during the Pliocene-Pleistocene transition, and warmer than present Arctic summers until ~2.2 Ma, after the onset of Northern Hemispheric glaciation. Our data are consistent with sea-level records and other proxies indicating that Arctic cooling was insufficient to support large-scale ice sheets until the early Pleistocene…

Oceans 30-40 meters higher than they are currently, temps averaged 6-12°C higher than current (depending on latitude), sounds pretty rough, what’s worse though, is the fact that we don’t have a magic wand to stop CO2 levels at their current rate and we are very likely to top 6-800ppm CO2 over the next century.
Reference: Science Magazine: Sign In

And that is not factoring in the CH4. In the short term, a decade, CH4 is 60 to 100 times as effective a GHG as CO2.

Several studies have noted that most of the present heat is going into the oceans. We have found clathrates off both coasts, and then there are the very shallow arctic ocean clathrates, which have already been observed creating kilometer wide boils, venting CH4 directly to the atmosphere.

And as the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere increases, the amount of hydroxyl decreases, and the residence time of CH4 increases.

At present, we do not really know where the tripping point is at. But if we start seeing massive outgassing of clathrates, we will know then.

 

[westwall]

Who cares. The levels have been higher before and will be higher again...and no catastrophe will occur.

 

[westwall]

"The MoS has campaigned tirelessly against the folly of Britain’s eco-obsessed energy policy. Now comes a game-changing intervention... from an expert respected by the green fanatics themselves

Last week, I was part of a group of academics who published a paper saying that the faster, more alarming, projections of the rate at which the globe is warming look less likely than previously thought.


That may mean we can afford to reduce carbon dioxide emissions slightly slower than some previously feared – but as almost everyone agrees, they still have to come down.


So the time has come to focus on something just as important: that 90 per cent of the measures adopted in Britain and elsewhere since the 1997 Kyoto agreement to cut global emissions are a waste of time and money – including windfarms in Scotland, carbon taxes and Byzantine carbon trading systems."


Read more: Why I think we're wasting billions on global warming, by top British climate scientist | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Trakar]

The Keeling Curve | What Does 400 ppm Look Like?

Recent estimates suggest CO2 levels reached as much as 415 parts per million (ppm) during the Pliocene. With that came global average temperatures that eventually reached 3 or 4 degrees C (5.4-7.2 degrees F) higher than today’s and as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) warmer at the poles. Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today.

How about 1000ppm:

Science 14 January 2011:
Vol. 331 no. 6014 pp. 158-159

DOI: 10.1126/science.1199380
Climate Change

Lessons from Earth's Past

Jeffrey Kiehl

When was the last time the atmosphere contained ~1000 ppmv of CO2? Recent reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 concentrations through history indicate that it has been ~30 to 100 million years since this concentration existed in the atmosphere (the range in time is due to uncertainty in proxy values of CO2). The data also reveal that the reduction of CO2 from this high level to the lower levels of the recent past took tens of millions of years. Through the burning of fossil fuels, the atmosphere will return to this concentration in a matter of a century. Thus, the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is unprecedented in Earth's history.

 

[skookerasbil]

Irrelevant thread.


The models are meaningless in terms of predictions........

The ?ensemble? of models is completely meaningless, statistically | Watts Up With That?

 

[skookerasbil]

And anyway..........

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]



I laugh my ass off every time I post this gem up!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[mamooth]

I laugh my ass off every time I post this gem up!!!

And we always laugh our asses off at what a retard you are for posting it. "CO2 is a trace gas" is a dogshit stupid argument, and thus the 'tards love it.

Skook, any thread you show up on immediately gets dumber. It's what defines you. You really hit your prime in the 2012, with the endless retard cartoons about the upcoming Mitt Romney landslide victory. Are you trying to recapture some of those 'tard glory days now? And do you consider the spreading of retardation to be your calling in life?

 

[SSDD]

The Keeling Curve | What Does 400 ppm Look Like?

Recent estimates suggest CO2 levels reached as much as 415 parts per million (ppm) during the Pliocene. With that came global average temperatures that eventually reached 3 or 4 degrees C (5.4-7.2 degrees F) higher than today’s and as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) warmer at the poles. Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today.

How about 1000ppm:

Science 14 January 2011:
Vol. 331 no. 6014 pp. 158-159

DOI: 10.1126/science.1199380
Climate Change

Lessons from Earth's Past

Jeffrey Kiehl

When was the last time the atmosphere contained ~1000 ppmv of CO2? Recent reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 concentrations through history indicate that it has been ~30 to 100 million years since this concentration existed in the atmosphere (the range in time is due to uncertainty in proxy values of CO2). The data also reveal that the reduction of CO2 from this high level to the lower levels of the recent past took tens of millions of years. Through the burning of fossil fuels, the atmosphere will return to this concentration in a matter of a century. Thus, the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is unprecedented in Earth's history.

The atmospheric CO2 concentration reached that high because temperatures got that warm. CO2 follows temperature, it does not cause an increase in temperature.

 

[Trakar]

The Keeling Curve | What Does 400 ppm Look Like?

Recent estimates suggest CO2 levels reached as much as 415 parts per million (ppm) during the Pliocene. With that came global average temperatures that eventually reached 3 or 4 degrees C (5.4-7.2 degrees F) higher than today’s and as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) warmer at the poles. Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today.

How about 1000ppm:

Science 14 January 2011:
Vol. 331 no. 6014 pp. 158-159

DOI: 10.1126/science.1199380
Climate Change

Lessons from Earth's Past

Jeffrey Kiehl

When was the last time the atmosphere contained ~1000 ppmv of CO2? Recent reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 concentrations through history indicate that it has been ~30 to 100 million years since this concentration existed in the atmosphere (the range in time is due to uncertainty in proxy values of CO2). The data also reveal that the reduction of CO2 from this high level to the lower levels of the recent past took tens of millions of years. Through the burning of fossil fuels, the atmosphere will return to this concentration in a matter of a century. Thus, the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is unprecedented in Earth's history.

The atmospheric CO2 concentration reached that high because temperatures got that warm. CO2 follows temperature, it does not cause an increase in temperature.

CO2 does both, it is a feedback mechanism in most cases, because it generally only acts upon CO2 sources that are temporarily stored in the active carbon cycle of the Earth's environment.

In natural cycles such as those that give rise to the interglacial epochs, a little bit of average warming caused by natural changes in the shape of our planet's orbit around the Sun, stimulate the release of some temporarily stored CO2, which feeds back into the system causing more warming stimulating the release of more CO2 and so on until a new balance in the system is achieved. In the current epoch, we can identify the source of the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere both through isotope measurements and industry records. The anthropogenic CO2 is both warming the planet and generating the release of additional sequestered CO2 from natural stores.

References:
Milankovitch Tutorial

Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Cookies Required

http://www.bris.ac.uk/chemistry/research/ogu/content/badger2011paper1.pdf

 

[westwall]

The Keeling Curve | What Does 400 ppm Look Like?



How about 1000ppm:

Science 14 January 2011:
Vol. 331 no. 6014 pp. 158-159

DOI: 10.1126/science.1199380
Climate Change

Lessons from Earth's Past

Jeffrey Kiehl

The atmospheric CO2 concentration reached that high because temperatures got that warm. CO2 follows temperature, it does not cause an increase in temperature.

CO2 does both, it is a feedback mechanism in most cases, because it generally only acts upon CO2 sources that are temporarily stored in the active carbon cycle of the Earth's environment.

In natural cycles such as those that give rise to the interglacial epochs, a little bit of average warming caused by natural changes in the shape of our planet's orbit around the Sun, stimulate the release of some temporarily stored CO2, which feeds back into the system causing more warming stimulating the release of more CO2 and so on until a new balance in the system is achieved. In the current epoch, we can identify the source of the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere both through isotope measurements and industry records. The anthropogenic CO2 is both warming the planet and generating the release of additional sequestered CO2 from natural stores.

References:
Milankovitch Tutorial

Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Cookies Required

http://www.bris.ac.uk/chemistry/research/ogu/content/badger2011paper1.pdf

None of your links addresses the 15 to 17 year pause in warming that CO2 theory states can't happen. How do you address that serious flaw in the theory?

 

[Old Rocks]

Nice strawman there, ol' Walleyes. Nobody said that there won't be humps and bumps in the warming graph.

UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2013: +0.07 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

And all ten of the warmest years on record have occurred in that time period. That is some pause, silly person.

NASA: 2012 Was 9th Warmest Year on Record. The 9 Warmest Years Have All Occurred Since 1998. - Dan's Wild Wild Science Journal - AGU Blogosphere

 

[westwall]

Nice strawman there, ol' Walleyes. Nobody said that there won't be humps and bumps in the warming graph.

UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2013: +0.07 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

And all ten of the warmest years on record have occurred in that time period. That is some pause, silly person.

NASA: 2012 Was 9th Warmest Year on Record. The 9 Warmest Years Have All Occurred Since 1998. - Dan's Wild Wild Science Journal - AGU Blogosphere

Your factoids have been proven false by the simple fact that there has been no warming for the last 15 to 17 years. A thinking person would understand that. A propagandist on the other hand, especially one with no education or critical thinking skills, will blissfully continue on with the party line.

 

[Trakar]

The atmospheric CO2 concentration reached that high because temperatures got that warm. CO2 follows temperature, it does not cause an increase in temperature.

CO2 does both, it is a feedback mechanism in most cases, because it generally only acts upon CO2 sources that are temporarily stored in the active carbon cycle of the Earth's environment.

In natural cycles such as those that give rise to the interglacial epochs, a little bit of average warming caused by natural changes in the shape of our planet's orbit around the Sun, stimulate the release of some temporarily stored CO2, which feeds back into the system causing more warming stimulating the release of more CO2 and so on until a new balance in the system is achieved. In the current epoch, we can identify the source of the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere both through isotope measurements and industry records. The anthropogenic CO2 is both warming the planet and generating the release of additional sequestered CO2 from natural stores.

References:
Milankovitch Tutorial

Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Cookies Required

http://www.bris.ac.uk/chemistry/research/ogu/content/badger2011paper1.pdf

None of your links addresses the 15 to 17 year pause in warming that CO2 theory states can't happen. How do you address that serious flaw in the theory?

Please reference and link the evidence compellingly supporting your highlighted assertion.

 

[westwall]

CO2 does both, it is a feedback mechanism in most cases, because it generally only acts upon CO2 sources that are temporarily stored in the active carbon cycle of the Earth's environment.

In natural cycles such as those that give rise to the interglacial epochs, a little bit of average warming caused by natural changes in the shape of our planet's orbit around the Sun, stimulate the release of some temporarily stored CO2, which feeds back into the system causing more warming stimulating the release of more CO2 and so on until a new balance in the system is achieved. In the current epoch, we can identify the source of the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere both through isotope measurements and industry records. The anthropogenic CO2 is both warming the planet and generating the release of additional sequestered CO2 from natural stores.

References:
Milankovitch Tutorial

Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Cookies Required

http://www.bris.ac.uk/chemistry/research/ogu/content/badger2011paper1.pdf

None of your links addresses the 15 to 17 year pause in warming that CO2 theory states can't happen. How do you address that serious flaw in the theory?

Please reference and link the evidence compellingly supporting your highlighted assertion.

I had to link to different stories and reports obviously but the first half deal with the cooling and the second half deals with the revisionists "inexorable warming" mantra. NOWHERE do they ever state there could be a pause in warming. Instead they use words like inexorable, steady, inevitable, etc.

Live by hyperbole, die by hyperbole.





http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=2&

UW-Milwaukee Professor Predicts 50 Years of Global Cooling | MacIver Institute

Experts Divided On Implications Of Brutal Cold Spell - Science News - redOrbit

The New Nostradamus of the North: Russia's Pulkovo Observatory: "we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years"

Extreme hot spells rising | Environment | Science News

Effects of Global Warming | The Earth Times | Encyclopaedia

Human activity continues to warm the planet over the past 16 years


Please link to a SINGLE paper, written before 2010, that states there will be a pause in global temps written by one of the major players in your little fraud. You know, Mann, Trenberth, Hansen, etc. Just one....

 

[Trakar]

None of your links addresses the 15 to 17 year pause in warming that CO2 theory states can't happen. How do you address that serious flaw in the theory?

Please reference and link the evidence compellingly supporting your highlighted assertion.

I had to link to different stories and reports obviously but the first half deal with the cooling and the second half deals with the revisionists "inexorable warming" mantra. NOWHERE do they ever state there could be a pause in warming. Instead they use words like inexorable, steady, inevitable, etc.

Live by hyperbole, die by hyperbole.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=2&

UW-Milwaukee Professor Predicts 50 Years of Global Cooling | MacIver Institute

Experts Divided On Implications Of Brutal Cold Spell - Science News - redOrbit

The New Nostradamus of the North: Russia's Pulkovo Observatory: "we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years"

Extreme hot spells rising | Environment | Science News

Effects of Global Warming | The Earth Times | Encyclopaedia

Human activity continues to warm the planet over the past 16 years


Please link to a SINGLE paper, written before 2010, that states there will be a pause in global temps written by one of the major players in your little fraud. You know, Mann, Trenberth, Hansen, etc. Just one....

You do realize that none of the actual papers you present actually support your assertions,...don't you?

There is no compelling evidence that there has ever been a "pause in warming," there are certainly warmer and cooler atmospheric temperature years even on a global average. This has to do with differentials in the way in which energy is distributed throughout the surface air, waters and land of our planet, but as CO2 levels rise, increasing amounts of energy are being retained by our atmosphere and distributed through our planet's surface environments.

Please link to any journal published scientific paper or proposal of AGW that states that AGW will result in an unceasing, year to year increase of average global temperatures, which is what your assertion claims:

None of your links addresses the 15 to 17 year pause in warming that CO2 theory states can't happen. How do you address that serious flaw in the theory?

As to Mainstream Climate Science (pre-2010, which is a curious choice of timing) which state that warming will be an irregular process on less than climatically relevant timeframes (eg. <30year spans):

1998 Increased El Nino frequency in a climate model forced by future greenhouse warming : Abstract : Nature

2005 Climate Variability and Change: Past, Present and Future ? an Overview - Springer

1999 (Hansen) GISS analysis of surface temperature change - Hansen - 2012 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984?2012) - Wiley Online Library

1998 Seasonal and interannual variations of atmospheric CO2 and climate - DETTINGER - 2002 - Tellus B - Wiley Online Library

2005 (Mann) An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Many more available for the interested.

As a final note, it should be remembered that even though AGW is the greatest current long-term climate forcing agent, it is not the only climate forcing agent. The impact and interplay of other, short-term forcing agents is sufficient to occasionally offset or enhance the CO2 climate impact.