It’s Official: This Was America’s Warmest Winter on Record In news that will surprise exactly

[Crick]

Your graph clearly shows two things. CO2 has not been at it CURRENT level in more than 400,000 years. And at no time in the last 400,000 years have CO2 levels risen as fast as they have been driven upward by human emissions.

That rate of change is a critical parameter. The geologically slow rate of change seen in Earth's past allowed time for the weathering of carbonate minerals to buffer the ocean's pH. On those few occasions where CO2 changed as rapidly as it is doing now, it resulted in massive marine extinction events.

 

[mamooth]

There is a reason you people only show graphs for the past 1,000 years. When you do that with a planet millions of years old, you can hide the facts that contradict the alarmist theory you're trying to promote.

Your stupid implied claim here is that the present must act exactly like the past, even if conditions in the present are wildly different from the past.

That's exactly like claiming that since forest fires always used to be naturally caused, it's impossible for humans to cause forest fires.

Hence, it's another hilarious failuire on your part.

Now, another thing that keeps happening here is, you goobs continue distorting things I say...

Oh goodie, a butthurt rant.

I never said there was not plentiful vegetation during the little ice age (or the big ice age). I merely made the point that plants convert CO2 into oxygen. More CO2 means plant life thrives and produces more oxygen.

Highly debatable, as water is much more important to plants, and more CO2 causes droughts and less plant growth. In field trials, CO2 fertilization has little effect on "good" plants like crops and trees.

During the little ice age when the CO2 was relatively lower than now, the trees grew slower and the wood was more dense...

No, trees grew slower because it was colder. That's how the world actually works.

we created the Stradivarius violin. Wood grows faster today because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere and so, we can't duplicate the Stradivarius

We can duplicate the Strads, of course. Blind tests show modern top-end violins to be just as good.

BUT.... What a rising CO2 level means for you? Well, you can plant a tree farm! Nature has provided you with an abundance of nutritional free resources and you can use free market capitalism to make yourself a fortune. Trees are much more lucrative than they would have been during the little ice age because they can grow faster.

And the faster growing vines and weeds will choke them, and the drought will kill them, and the much more numerous insects will eat them, and the fungus will destroy them, and they won't grow any faster anyways. Still try to plant them, but understand how difficult it will be.

You can feel good about making your fortune because they also absorb that nasty CO2 you've come to loathe and hate, AND... the trees can be turned into paper so that your hero Al Gore can write another book to sell to gullible nitwits who believe his insane rantings.

You understand we're all laughing at your crybaby act, right?

Just give up, kook. Accept that your cult brainwashing has made you a stupid person who is way out of his league here.

 

[Boss]

Your graph clearly shows two things. CO2 has not been at it CURRENT level in more than 400,000 years. And at no time in the last 400,000 years have CO2 levels risen as fast as they have been driven upward by human emissions.

That rate of change is a critical parameter. The geologically slow rate of change seen in Earth's past allowed time for the weathering of carbonate minerals to buffer the ocean's pH. On those few occasions where CO2 changed as rapidly as it is doing now, it resulted in massive marine extinction events.

Again... 400k years ago, we didn't have high-tech instruments in Antarctica measuring precisely how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere every second of every day. We have to rely on ice core samples which give us a general idea of about how much there was at a given point in time and this doesn't account for any extreme spikes that may have occurred. With the advent of modern technology, we can get a much more detailed picture but that doesn't mean the picture didn't have detail before.

You mention the oceans and it's important to note, the oceans absorb most of the carbon dioxide. It does not result in mass extinction events, it results in mineral development which encourages habitat for marine life.

You are being propagandized by a multi-decade-long effort on the part of Socialists. Man's contribution to CO2 in nature is minimal at best. Our planet handles it just like it handles the oil spills and nuclear reactor meltdowns we occasionally have. Those things are bad, don't get me wrong, but they're not going to ever spell doom for our planet or our species.

 

[Old Rocks]

Boss, you are talking out of your ass. You apparently know absolutely nothing about the geological past. There have been several times of very rapid change in the GHGs in the atmosphere. And those times have been characterized by extinction events. The worst of which, the PT event, killed over 95% of the then existing species. You might consider that there really was a lot of science to learn past the 7th grade.

 

[mamooth]

Again... 400k years ago, we didn't have high-tech instruments in Antarctica measuring precisely how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere every second of every day. We have to rely on ice core samples which give us a general idea of about how much there was at a given point in time and this doesn't account for any extreme spikes that may have occurred. With the advent of modern technology, we can get a much more detailed picture but that doesn't mean the picture didn't have detail before

Given that we measure CO2 now and know, with 100% certainty, that humans are causing the CO2 increase, what's the point of invoking the possibility of past miraculous unexplained short-term CO2 spikes?

Even if it wasn't handwaving woo, it would have no bearing on the present situation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Boss, you are talking out of your ass. You apparently know absolutely nothing about the geological past. There have been several times of very rapid change in the GHGs in the atmosphere. And those times have been characterized by extinction events. The worst of which, the PT event, killed over 95% of the then existing species. You might consider that there really was a lot of science to learn past the 7th grade.

Once again Old Fraud shows his ignorance on what actually happens in our atmosphere. CO2 has NO EFFECT beyond 1/2 of its lab log trend in our atmosphere by empirical evidence. In other words, water is having a NEGATIVE FORCING EFFECT and not a positive effect as CO2's potential warming is being thwarted by natural convection.

You have yet to produce any evidence to prove the specie's that have died were as a result of CO2.

 

[Crick]

So, CO2 acts completely in isolation in the Earth's atmosphere. The heat it accumulates is prevented from affecting the evaporation of water... how? The heat it accumulates is prevented from melting the Arctic tundra... how? The shrinking Arctic ice cover it causes is prevented from decreasing the Earth's albedo... how? You've just clearly claimed that there are no feedback mechanisms and I'm sure a well-educated fellow such as you can easily explain these seeming... issues. Standing by.

 

[Boss]

Again... 400k years ago, we didn't have high-tech instruments in Antarctica measuring precisely how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere every second of every day. We have to rely on ice core samples which give us a general idea of about how much there was at a given point in time and this doesn't account for any extreme spikes that may have occurred. With the advent of modern technology, we can get a much more detailed picture but that doesn't mean the picture didn't have detail before

Given that we measure CO2 now and know, with 100% certainty, that humans are causing the CO2 increase, what's the point of invoking the possibility of past miraculous unexplained short-term CO2 spikes?

Even if it wasn't handwaving woo, it would have no bearing on the present situation.

I just posted a graph that shows us 400k years of CO2 levels rising and falling dramatically in cycles but you're stuck on stupid claiming that humans are causing the increase. The planet also warms and cools in cycles and it has nothing to do with man.

The present situation is, charlatans see an opportunity to use modern media to spread socialist propaganda to the gullible and further their cockamamie agenda of trying to bilk capitalists with their fairy tale.

 

[mamooth]

I just posted a graph that shows us 400k years of CO2 levels rising and falling dramatically in cycles but you're stuck on stupid claiming that humans are causing the increase.

I don't claim it. The evidence proves it. Isotope ratios prove conclusively that humans emissions are the cause.

Thus, your ravings about how CO2 fluctuated naturally in the past are irrelevant, being we know with 100% certainty that humans are causing the increase now.

And yes, I understand how you knew nothing of that science. After all, you know nothing about any of the science. If your cult didn't spoon feed it to you, you're ignorant of it.

 

[mamooth]

And let's check out how CO2 is making the trees grow better.

Risk level rises for North American forests - Climate News Network
---
Other research has already delivered ominous predictions for the forests of the US southwest, but the scientists warn that other, normally leafier parts of the continent face increasing stress. Dieback, bark beetle infestation and wildfire risk may no longer be confined to the western uplands.
---

Oh look, another thing Boss got totally wrong.

 

[Boss]

I just posted a graph that shows us 400k years of CO2 levels rising and falling dramatically in cycles but you're stuck on stupid claiming that humans are causing the increase.

I don't claim it. The evidence proves it. Isotope ratios prove conclusively that humans emissions are the cause.

Thus, your ravings about how CO2 fluctuated naturally in the past are irrelevant, being we know with 100% certainty that humans are causing the increase now.

And yes, I understand how you knew nothing of that science. After all, you know nothing about any of the science. If your cult didn't spoon feed it to you, you're ignorant of it.

Sorry, I can't accept that CO2 rose and fell for at least 200k years before man existed and another 199.5k years before man was industrialized but all of a sudden it is rising because of man.

 

[mamooth]

That's nice. However, you refusing to change your religious beliefs will not change reality.

 

[Boss]

And let's check out how CO2 is making the trees grow better.

Risk level rises for North American forests - Climate News Network
---
Other research has already delivered ominous predictions for the forests of the US southwest, but the scientists warn that other, normally leafier parts of the continent face increasing stress. Dieback, bark beetle infestation and wildfire risk may no longer be confined to the western uplands.
---

Oh look, another thing Boss got totally wrong.

Well... no... you're running off the course to wave another shiny pom-pom to distract from the ass owning I am doing in this argument. I merely pointed out something you should have learned in the 5-7th grade. Plants process CO2 into oxygen. Go to just about any commercial greenhouse in this country and you will find they pump CO2 in to help the plants grow.... that is, if the EPA Gestapo hasn't stopped them from doing that.

 

[Boss]

That's nice. However, you refusing to change your religious beliefs will not change reality.

Reality is, nature doesn't change behavior because Al Gore wrote a book.

 

[Crick]

Your graph clearly shows two things. CO2 has not been at it CURRENT level in more than 400,000 years. And at no time in the last 400,000 years have CO2 levels risen as fast as they have been driven upward by human emissions.

That rate of change is a critical parameter. The geologically slow rate of change seen in Earth's past allowed time for the weathering of carbonate minerals to buffer the ocean's pH. On those few occasions where CO2 changed as rapidly as it is doing now, it resulted in massive marine extinction events.

Again... 400k years ago, we didn't have high-tech instruments in Antarctica measuring precisely how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere every second of every day.

But now we have high tech instruments and advanced techniques we can apply to those cores and have an excellent understanding as to what information we can get from ice cores and what effects, time and diffusion have had. And why would I need measurements every second? We'd be looking for an event that lasted at least 300 years.

We have to rely on ice core samples which give us a general idea of about how much there was at a given point in time and this doesn't account for any extreme spikes that may have occurred. With the advent of modern technology, we can get a much more detailed picture but that doesn't mean the picture didn't have detail before.

If you're going to make the argument that a spike in CO2 or temperature could have happened within the chronological resolution of the ice cores, there are a few points you have to address. The process that reduces resolution in ice cores is diffusion. Many people think of the problem on a digital basis, as if the system takes discrete samples in time that become more widely separated, creating growing gaps in the record. But that is not the case.

The effect of a change in a diffused parameter is simply to reduce its peak magnitude and spread it's span primarily into the past. The deeper and further back we look in a core, the greater the diffusion we see. Yet the spikes we do see in the ice core records are all very close to the same magnitude. That indicates that those events were considerably longer than the record's chronological resolution and that they are accurately displayed.

Another issue is the unrealistic nature of what you are expecting to have taken place. Events have causes and the more dynamic and energetic an event, the more dynamic and energetic must have been the cause (ignoring catalysis and chaos for the moment). We have a completely unnatural cause for the current spike in CO2. Similar spikes in the past (all, as Old Rocks and I both told you, associated with extinction events) had causes: massive vulcanism and major meteorite strikes. If you suspect other such spikes have taken place, you need to find a cause and one that has apparently left no other evidence. NEXT, you need to find an extraordinarily effective CURE. Look at the spikes in your record. Many of them rise rapidly (though none within orders of magnitude of the current situation). But all of them decline s-l-o-w-l-y. Over thousands or tens of thousands of years. To make your spike invisible, it must disappear as rapidly as it appeared. So far, NO ONE has conceived of a process that will do such a thing. If you think you've got one, the world would love to hear about it.

So, when you have a cause for such a spike and have a process by which such a spike could be ended and undone in a geological instant and some corroborating evidence that such an event ever took place (CO2 levels are recorded widely by carbonate fixing organisms) and you can locate a corresponding diffused rise in the ice core record... then perhaps we can suspect that a situation similar to the current situation has taken place in the past.

Unfortunately, that will do you no good. Isotopic analysis clearly shows that virtually every molecule of CO2 in our atmosphere above the Industrial Revolution's 280 ppm originated from the combustion of fossil fuel. The amounts of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution can be directly estimated from records of fuel consumption and they agree as perfectly as they could agree with the isotopic analysis. The CO2 that raised the Earth's atmosphere from 280 ppm CO2 to 400 ppm CO2 is of human origin.

You mention the oceans and it's important to note, the oceans absorb most of the carbon dioxide. It does not result in mass extinction events, it results in mineral development which encourages habitat for marine life.

I strongly suggest you read Permian–Triassic extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I also suggest some basic chemistry. The solution of CO2 in the world's oceans INCREASES its aragonite (limestone, CaCO3) solubility. It does NOT encourage "mineral development". You have that precisely wrong. Ask anyone you know who's passed chemistry 101.

You are being propagandized by a multi-decade-long effort on the part of Socialists.

Socialists? Really? You believe there is no evidence or science to support AGW? You believe it is a vast political conspiracy which has suborned virtually every single one of the world's scientists? Do you have any evidence? Any confessions? Any surveillance recordings? Any hard science that shows CO2 does NOT support the greenhouse effect? Any hard science that shows the added CO2 is from some other source?

Man's contribution to CO2 in nature is minimal at best.

42% of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is from humans burning fossil fuels. Fact..

Our planet handles it just like it handles the oil spills and nuclear reactor meltdowns we occasionally have. Those things are bad, don't get me wrong, but they're not going to ever spell doom for our planet or our species.

Our planet handles it? What the fuck is that supposed to mean? The Earth continues to spin on its axis and orbit the sun, so everything is okay? Oil spills, reactor meltdowns and global warming hurt people and hurt animals and hurt plants. No one has ever claimed that global warming was a threat to the survival of the human species but if you think that is the minimum level of a threat to which we should respond, then I am very glad you seem to be in charge of nothing.

AND

I just posted a graph that shows us 400k years of CO2 levels rising and falling dramatically in cycles but you're stuck on stupid claiming that humans are causing the increase. The planet also warms and cools in cycles and it has nothing to do with man.

On what do you base that belief? That we couldn't do it because it never happened before? If the logical fallacy of such a position is not obvious to you, I'm not certain I or anyone else can help you.

The present situation is, charlatans see an opportunity to use modern media to spread socialist propaganda to the gullible and further their cockamamie agenda of trying to bilk capitalists with their fairy tale.

AGW is based on science, not on politics. Scientists from all over the world, living under all manner of governments, all agree that the Earth is warming that our activities are the dominant cause. If you have some science that says something else, why don't you bring it forward.

I don't believe we've debated before. Welcome to the forum.

 

[Boss]

But now we have high tech instruments and advanced techniques we can apply to those cores and have an excellent understanding as to what information we can get from ice cores and what effects, time and diffusion have had. And why would I need measurements every second? We'd be looking for an event that lasted at least 300 years.

Sorry but we cannot look at an ice core sample and determine that on a certain day of a certain year, the CO2 ppm was over 400.... it's not possible to attain that level of detail. We can read generally what the levels were... an approximation. Today, we can see the spikes as they happen in real time. Those aren't recorded in the ice core because they don't last long enough.

 

[Boss]

AGW is based on science, not on politics. Scientists from all over the world, living under all manner of governments, all agree that the Earth is warming that our activities are the dominant cause.

Well... NO... they don't. Sorry.

The latest scientific data suggests we aren't warming anymore. We're actually entering a cooling phase. And NO... science has never proven that human activity contributes significantly to the natural rise and fall of carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere. They have CLAIMED it... they haven't PROVED it!

 

[edthecynic]

Plants process CO2 into oxygen. Go to just about any commercial greenhouse in this country and you will find they pump CO2 in to help the plants grow.... that is, if the EPA Gestapo hasn't stopped them from doing that.

Increases in CO2 causes decreases in whole plant water use of 5–20% under elevated CO2. This in turn can have consequences for the hydrological cycle of entire ecosystems, with soil moisture levels and runoff both increasing under elevated CO2.
Increases in CO2 also causes changes in the chemical composition of plant tissues including a decrease in nitrogen. Protein concentrations in plant tissues are closely tied to plant nitrogen status and thus protein concentrations in grains of wheat, rice and barley, and in potato tubers, are decreased by 5–14% under elevated CO2, so any increased yield is offset by the need to consume more to get the same nutritional value. Crop concentrations of nutritionally important minerals including calcium, magnesium and phosphorus may also be decreased under elevated CO2.

So in reality increases of CO2 have BOTH positive AND negative effects on plant growth and thus the food supply.

 

[edthecynic]

The latest scientific data suggests we aren't warming anymore. We're actually entering a cooling phase.

Latest scientific data suggests you are a LIAR!

 

[Crick]

But now we have high tech instruments and advanced techniques we can apply to those cores and have an excellent understanding as to what information we can get from ice cores and what effects, time and diffusion have had. And why would I need measurements every second? We'd be looking for an event that lasted at least 300 years.

Sorry but we cannot look at an ice core sample and determine that on a certain day of a certain year, the CO2 ppm was over 400.... it's not possible to attain that level of detail. We can read generally what the levels were... an approximation. Today, we can see the spikes as they happen in real time. Those aren't recorded in the ice core because they don't last long enough.

I'm sorry to say this, but you really don't know what you're talking about.

Ice cores "record" data, not only when it snows but constantly, as the snow-covered surface is exposed to the atmosphere. The problem in resolution is, as I stated, from diffusion in the core over time - a great deal of time.

Why do you think it is necessary to be able to read an ice core to a specific day? You don't seem to understand the very basics of the processes we're discussing here.

Why do you think the pre-human history precludes humans from affecting atmospheric CO2 levels?

Where do you think all the CO2 humans have produced burning coal and oil has gone?

Do you understand how you got the effect of dissolved CO2 in seawater exactly wrong?