Ice, again

[Abraham3]

What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?

Hint: the date is on your desk calendar and you probably don't even have to flip a page.

Fisrst off, the ice age we are presently exiting has been going on for a hell of a lot longer than 10000 years.

Second...read em and weep...chemical analysis.... more accurate than the IR analysis being used by modern climate science.

Let me get this straight. You're now contending that CO2 levels are not rising; that the Keeling curve from the Mauna Loa Observatory is grossly inaccurate? Wow.

Keeling Curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Keeling Curve is a graph which plots the ongoing change in concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere since 1958. It is based on continuous measurements taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii that began under the supervision of Charles David Keeling. Keeling's measurements showed the first significant evidence of rapidly increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Many scientists credit Keeling's graph with first bringing the world's attention to the current increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.[1]
Charles David Keeling, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego, was the first person to make frequent regular measurements of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration, taking readings at the South Pole and in Hawaii from 1958 onwards.[2]
Prior to Keeling, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was thought to be affected by constant variability. Keeling had perfected the measurement techniques and observed "strong diurnal behavior with steady values of about 310 ppm in the afternoon" at three locations: (Big Sur near Monterey, the rain forests of Olympic Peninsula and high mountain forests in Arizona).[3] By measuring the ratio of two isotopes of carbon, Keeling attributed the diurnal change to respiration from local plants and soils, with afternoon values representative of the "free atmosphere". By 1960, Keeling and his group had determined that the measurement records from California, Antarctica, and Hawaii were long enough to see not just the diurnal and seasonal variations, but also a year-on-year increase that roughly matched the amount of fossil fuels burned per year. In the article that made him famous, Keeling observed, "at the South Pole the observed rate of increase is nearly that to be expected from the combustion of fossil fuel".[4]

How about some links to your graphs? You failed to provide any with your initial post.

References:

1) Briggs, Helen (December 1, 2007). "50 years on: The Keeling Curve legacy". BBC News.
2) Rose Kahele (October/November 2007). "Behind the Inconvenient Truth". Hana Hou! vol. 10, No. 5.
3) The Early Keeling Curve. Scripps CO2 Program
4) C. D. Keeling, The Concentration and Isotopic Abundances of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere, Tellus, 12, 200-203, 1960

 

[SSDD]

What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?

Hint: the date is on your desk calendar and you probably don't even have to flip a page.

Fisrst off, the ice age we are presently exiting has been going on for a hell of a lot longer than 10000 years.

Second...read em and weep...chemical analysis.... more accurate than the IR analysis being used by modern climate science.

Let me get this straight. You're now contending that CO2 levels are not rising; that the Keeling curve from the Mauna Loa Observatory is grossly inaccurate? Wow.

Keeling Curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Keeling Curve is a graph which plots the ongoing change in concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere since 1958. It is based on continuous measurements taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii that began under the supervision of Charles David Keeling. Keeling's measurements showed the first significant evidence of rapidly increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Many scientists credit Keeling's graph with first bringing the world's attention to the current increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.[1]
Charles David Keeling, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego, was the first person to make frequent regular measurements of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration, taking readings at the South Pole and in Hawaii from 1958 onwards.[2]
Prior to Keeling, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was thought to be affected by constant variability. Keeling had perfected the measurement techniques and observed "strong diurnal behavior with steady values of about 310 ppm in the afternoon" at three locations: (Big Sur near Monterey, the rain forests of Olympic Peninsula and high mountain forests in Arizona).[3] By measuring the ratio of two isotopes of carbon, Keeling attributed the diurnal change to respiration from local plants and soils, with afternoon values representative of the "free atmosphere". By 1960, Keeling and his group had determined that the measurement records from California, Antarctica, and Hawaii were long enough to see not just the diurnal and seasonal variations, but also a year-on-year increase that roughly matched the amount of fossil fuels burned per year. In the article that made him famous, Keeling observed, "at the South Pole the observed rate of increase is nearly that to be expected from the combustion of fossil fuel".[4]

How about some links to your graphs? You failed to provide any with your initial post.

What I am saying, and provided the references is that CO2 levels have been found via chemical testing to have been above 450ppm in the recent past. If you care to prove those chemical analyses of the atmosphere wrong, then do it.

Look at each graph.....see the names....each represents the author whose finding is shown. Are you to damned lazy to even read the graphs.

 

[SSDD]

we know that the earth prior to the ice age wasn't that different from the one we live in now.....except for the ice age part.

Hmmm, I thought ice ages brought about significant change. TO you the only difference is the ice age, everything remains the same. How is that possible when ice is covering large swaths of land that weren't covered before? Doesn't this significantly impact that region and if large enough, the globe?

Tell us what brings on ice ages...and what ends them. I am sure there is a nobel in it for anyone who can actually achieve that feat. You pretend to know a great deal but show no evidence of any such knowledge.

 

[SSDD]

Wrong on all counts. I do not have "faith" in the theory of AGW. My opinion, based on the overwhelming consensus of the experts....

So your opinion is based on a logical fallacy....how surprising is that?

 

[Abraham3]

You're willfully ignorant. How surprising is that?

 

[mamooth]

This link talks about the historical chemical CO2 testing that SSDD has decided is the new RealTruth.

Beck's historical CO2 measurements

The main points are:

1. Chemical testing has poor accuracy.

2. The siting of samples was terrible, at ground level, where CO2 levels are much higher and vary much more. There's a reason sampling is now done on mountaintops.

3. The wild CO2 swings showed by such measurements are physically impossible. The are no sinks and sources on the planet that could belch or absorb so much CO2 so quickly.

 

[Old Rocks]

What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?

Fail. Humans have been around for over two million years.

Homonids have been around 2 million years, Homo Sap only about 200,000 years.

 

[Old Rocks]

What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?

Hint: the date is on your desk calendar and you probably don't even have to flip a page.

Fisrst off, the ice age we are presently exiting has been going on for a hell of a lot longer than 10000 years.

Second...read em and weep...chemical analysis.... more accurate than the IR analysis being used by modern climate science.

Now that is the most bullshit I have ever seen in one post. Absolutely laughable.

 

[Old Rocks]

ESL?

CIVILIZATION:
1.
an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
2.
those people or nations that have reached such a state.
3.
any type of culture, society, etc., of a specific place, time, or group: Greek civilization.
4.
the act or process of civilizing or being civilized: Rome's civilization of barbaric tribes was admirable.
5.
cultural refinement; refinement of thought and cultural appreciation: The letters of Madame de Sévigné reveal her wit and civilization.

You seriously don't know what you are talking about. Your ignorance is showing more and more every single day.

'The oldest work of art ever': 42,000-year-old paintings of seals found in Spanish cave | Mail Online


Where there's art, there's civilization.

Funny thing is he claims to be worried about the earth and then only wants to know about CO2 concentrations for 10k years knowing that during that time the earth has been in an ice age and if one looks back to the beginning of the present ice age CO2 levels over 1000ppm are the norm and we know that the earth prior to the ice age wasn't that different from the one we live in now.....except for the ice age part.

Crap. You are completely full of shit.

Climate Milestone: Earth's CO2 Level Nears 400 ppm

An instrument near the summit of Mauna Loa in Hawaii has recorded a long-awaited climate milestone: the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere there has exceeded 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in 55 years of measurement—and probably more than 3 million years of Earth history.


The last time the concentration of Earth's main greenhouse gas reached this mark, horses and camels lived in the high Arctic. Seas were at least 30 feet higher—at a level that today would inundate major cities around the world.


The planet was about 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer. But the Earth then was in the final stage of a prolonged greenhouse epoch, and CO2 concentrations were on their way down. This time, 400 ppm is a milepost on a far more rapid uphill climb toward an uncertain climate future

 

[SwimExpert]

Human ancestors have been around for roughly 2 million years.

Just when I think the dumbest thing ever said in this forum has been said, someone manages to up the ante.

Humans first appeared over 2 million years ago. The fact that you would even question this shows that you're completely ignorant.

But Abraham obviously states civilization, which differs from pro-type humans.

What the Hell is a pro-type human?

Then you have the cajones to correct yourself by saying human civilization goes back to 42,000 years or so. That is distinctly different from 2 million years.

No. I said that humans have been around for about 2 million years. I said it then, I say it now. I also said that where there's art, there's culture. Those two things are not inconsistent with each other.

You celebrate your own correction as if you have just corrected Abraham. This is hilarious and it shows to what length you are willing to claim "victory" despite that victory really being your own stupidity being brought to light.

There is no correction. Observe:

Fact: Humans first appeared on Earth about 2 million years ago.
Fact: Where there's art, there is culture.
Fact: The oldest discovered works of human art date back to 42,000 years ago.

I like your style, either way, you can't possibly loose. You win if youre right, you win if youre wrong!

Okay, I'm going to put on the serious hat for a moment here.

You know nothing of my "style." The fact that you went on that little tirade demonstrates that my points were entirely over your head. The details I presented, which you think you are cleverly rebutting, are intended to be red herrings. Whether humans have been around for 2 million years or not, what species those humans were, or exactly how long human "civilization" (an extremely subjective and difficult to define concept) has existed are not the issue here. What I am addressing Abby on is the fact that he is very selectively picking and choosing arbitrary reference frames for his own convenience. And then coming up with post hoc rationales for why his chosen reference frames have some kind of special relevance. This fact is illustrated by Abby's demonstrable ignorance on the characteristics he tries to claim lend his reference frames as significant. His claim that human "civilization" started 10,000 years ago is tenuous at best. And even if it were true, there is nothing about the "beginning" of "civilization that is remarkable in order to justify using it as a reference point for anything here. Why not go back an additional 10,000 years? Another 50,000 years?

All of this betrays the most fundamental flaw in everything Abby says and believes in regards to everything he says in this forum. That flaw is the fact that Abby's entire perspective is extremely ego/anthro centric. In his view "civilization" refers to his version. Culture refers to his standards. He's not much different than the ancient Romans who referred to all non Romans as barbarians. When the truth is that all those other peoples had very rich and profound culture and were perfectly civilized. Their culture and form of civilization was just different. His practice here of defining these things in terms of his own preferences is right in step with his habit of defining the Earth's climate in terms of the climate he experiences now, and with trends that occur proximate to his own life span.

 

[SwimExpert]

What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?

Fail. Humans have been around for over two million years.

Homonids have been around 2 million years, Homo Sap only about 200,000 years.

H. Sapiens are not the only humans to have ever walked the Earth. Bet that really chaps you to hear someone say, doesn't it? Here we go.....they're not "real" humans, they're not "modern" humans, blah, blah, blah.

Save it, because I have news for you. H. Habilus, H. Erectus, N. Neanderthalensis, and all the various sub-species and proposed unique species.....They were human beings just as much as you and I are, no less human than us, no less people than us.

 

[gnarlylove]

SWIM

Your ability is stupendous. You did it again, you turned a statement of fact into a victory dance. First you mis-read Abraham's post confusing humans in civilization for humans in general. 2 million is different from 42,000 years. It's a simple mistake but you go to claim that Abraham is the one at fault. Outstanding show!

Then when an opponent claims humans have been around 2 million years you flip it into your opponent is denying it. I assure you when a sentence has a period at the end, it is not calling the sentence into question. I'm sorry it was confusing but maybe next time tone down the drive to verbally execute someone and we might be able to have some genuine discussion.

And forgive me on the pro-type, I meant proto-type.

 

[westwall]

What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?

Hint: the date is on your desk calendar and you probably don't even have to flip a page.

Who cares. CO2 lags temperature so it clearly has nothing to do with anything. The Holocene Thermal Maximum of 8000 years ago was WAY hotter than today and the CO2 levels were low.

What more evidence do you need to show you that CO2 is meaningless?

 

[SwimExpert]

SWIM

Your ability is stupendous. You did it again, you turned a statement of fact into a victory dance. First you mis-read Abraham's post confusing humans in civilization for humans in general. 2 million is different from 42,000 years. It's a simple mistake but you go to claim that Abraham is the one at fault. Outstanding show!

Then when an opponent claims humans have been around 2 million years you flip it into your opponent is denying it. I assure you when a sentence has a period at the end, it is not calling the sentence into question. I'm sorry it was confusing but maybe next time tone down the drive to verbally execute someone and we might be able to have some genuine discussion.

And forgive me on the pro-type, I meant proto-type.

*shakes head*

The sad part is that I think you really, truly, believe that you think you actually understood what I said.

 

[westwall]

You're willfully ignorant. How surprising is that?

You present a wiki article and SSDD presents you with peer reviewed studies and you say he's the willfully ignorant one

 

[westwall]

What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?

Hint: the date is on your desk calendar and you probably don't even have to flip a page.

Fisrst off, the ice age we are presently exiting has been going on for a hell of a lot longer than 10000 years.

Second...read em and weep...chemical analysis.... more accurate than the IR analysis being used by modern climate science.

Now that is the most bullshit I have ever seen in one post. Absolutely laughable.

Then show how they're wrong.

 

[Abraham3]

A-HAH!!!

Global warming is caused by WIND!

From Beck's historical CO2 measurements that Mamooth located. Thank you Mamooth. Now, if only we can catch the wind!

 

[SSDD]

What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?

Hint: the date is on your desk calendar and you probably don't even have to flip a page.

Who cares. CO2 lags temperature so it clearly has nothing to do with anything. The Holocene Thermal Maximum of 8000 years ago was WAY hotter than today and the CO2 levels were low.

What more evidence do you need to show you that CO2 is meaningless?

His hypothesis is unfalsifiable....there is no evidence that would convince him it is wrong.

 

[SSDD]

A-HAH!!!

Global warming is caused by WIND!

From Beck's historical CO2 measurements that Mamooth located. Thank you Mamooth. Now, if only we can catch the wind!

Stupid enough to think that CO2 causes warming....but now you think wind causes warming. Not surprised.

 

[Abraham3]

Whooosh! Right over your head, eh?