Scientists confirm basic physics - CO2 makes it hotter.

[Billy_Bob]

No. It would not be more prudent to err on the side of caution. No evidence suggests or provides whether more, less, or the same amount of co2 is better or worse on "temperatures." CO2 is not pollution. It's naturally occurring and it's good for the environment. ZERO EVIDENCE EXISTS to the contrary. The people screaming the end is nigh are "lunatics" like old rocks and crooks like Al Gore.

Who said anything about pollution? Its a known fact CO2 caused the last warming that resulted in the time periods the dinosaurs were around.,

You got it backwards... it was warmer, so much so that most of the world was much more amiable to life than this current cold snap we are living under. The result of the additional life and warmth was more CO2.

You have it backwards. It was warmer due to the abundance of CO2. Can you tell me what gas plants emit? After you do that explain to me the concept of a green house.

A greenhouse is an environmentally controlled structure designed to extend growing seasons. Our atmosphere is not a greenhouse.

Plants consume / use CO2 through a process called photosynthesis. Some of the CO2 they consume gets converted to sugars, for example glucose C6H12O6, some exhaled, some stored.

While you could argue that plants produce CO2 that would be a half truth, as really they are just temporarily storing it.

Sorry bud. Our atmosphere works just like a greenhouse. CO2 is an insulator that works just like the glass in a greenhouse.

Plants actually produce way more oxygen than CO2 However, it absolutely needs CO2 in order to survive. That proves the CO2 has to be in the environment prior to the plant gaining the large sizes it did during the periods of high heat.

A green house has a roof... The earth does not and it also has a water convection cycle that a true green house does not allow... Epic Fail..

 

[Billy_Bob]

n argument used against the warming effect of carbon dioxide is that millions of years ago,CO2 levels were higher during periods where large glaciers formed over the Earth's poles. This argument fails to take into account that solar output was also lower during these periods. The combined effect of sun and CO2 show good correlation with climate (Royer 2006). The one period that until recently puzzled paleoclimatologists was the late Ordovician, around 444 million years ago. At this time, CO2 levels were very high, around 5600 parts per million (in contrast, current CO2 levels are 389 parts per million). However,glaciers were so far-reaching during the late Ordovician, it coincided with one of the largest marine mass extinction events in Earth history. How did glaciation occur with such highCO2 levels? Recent data has revealed CO2 levels at the time of the late Ordovician ice agewere not that high after all.

Past studies on the Ordovician period calculated CO2 levels at 10 million year intervals. The problem with such coarse data sampling is the Ordovician ice age lasted only half a million years. To fill in the gaps, a 2009 study examined strontium isotopes in the sediment record (Young 2009). Strontium is produced by rock weathering, the process that removes CO2from the air. Consequently, the ratio of strontium isotopes can be used to determine how quickly rock weathering removed CO2 from the atmosphere in the past. Using strontium levels, Young determined that during the late Ordovician, rock weathering was at high levels while volcanic activity, which adds CO2 to the atmosphere, dropped. This led to CO2 levels falling below 3000 parts per million which was low enough to initiate glaciation - the growing of ice sheets.

Last week, another study headed by Seth Young further examined this period by extracting sediment cores from Estonia and Anticosti Island, Canada (Young 2010). The cores were used to construct a sequence of carbon-13 levels from rocks formed during the Ordovician. This was used as a proxy for atmospheric CO2 levels, at a much higher resolution than previous data. What they found was consistent with the strontium results in Young 2009 -CO2 levels dropped at the same time that sea surface temperatures dropped and ice sheets expanded. As the ice sheets grew to cover the continent, rock weathering decreased. This led to an increase in atmospheric CO2 which caused global warming and a retreat of the glaciers.

Thus arguments that Ordovician glaciation disproves the warming effect of CO2 are groundless. On the contrary, the CO2 record over the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.

CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician

And yet the temperatures DROPPED and we glaciated.. proving the paper is baseless and wrong... Your own post disproves the meme..

 

[orogenicman]

Who said anything about pollution? Its a known fact CO2 caused the last warming that resulted in the time periods the dinosaurs were around.,

You got it backwards... it was warmer, so much so that most of the world was much more amiable to life than this current cold snap we are living under. The result of the additional life and warmth was more CO2.

You have it backwards. It was warmer due to the abundance of CO2. Can you tell me what gas plants emit? After you do that explain to me the concept of a green house.

A greenhouse is an environmentally controlled structure designed to extend growing seasons. Our atmosphere is not a greenhouse.

Plants consume / use CO2 through a process called photosynthesis. Some of the CO2 they consume gets converted to sugars, for example glucose C6H12O6, some exhaled, some stored.

While you could argue that plants produce CO2 that would be a half truth, as really they are just temporarily storing it.

Sorry bud. Our atmosphere works just like a greenhouse. CO2 is an insulator that works just like the glass in a greenhouse.

Plants actually produce way more oxygen than CO2 However, it absolutely needs CO2 in order to survive. That proves the CO2 has to be in the environment prior to the plant gaining the large sizes it did during the periods of high heat.

A green house has a roof... The earth does not and it also has a water convection cycle that a true green house does not allow... Epic Fail..

This is your rebuttal of 100 years of chemistry and physics? Bhwhahahahahahahaha!

 

[orogenicman]

n argument used against the warming effect of carbon dioxide is that millions of years ago,CO2 levels were higher during periods where large glaciers formed over the Earth's poles. This argument fails to take into account that solar output was also lower during these periods. The combined effect of sun and CO2 show good correlation with climate (Royer 2006). The one period that until recently puzzled paleoclimatologists was the late Ordovician, around 444 million years ago. At this time, CO2 levels were very high, around 5600 parts per million (in contrast, current CO2 levels are 389 parts per million). However,glaciers were so far-reaching during the late Ordovician, it coincided with one of the largest marine mass extinction events in Earth history. How did glaciation occur with such highCO2 levels? Recent data has revealed CO2 levels at the time of the late Ordovician ice agewere not that high after all.

Past studies on the Ordovician period calculated CO2 levels at 10 million year intervals. The problem with such coarse data sampling is the Ordovician ice age lasted only half a million years. To fill in the gaps, a 2009 study examined strontium isotopes in the sediment record (Young 2009). Strontium is produced by rock weathering, the process that removes CO2from the air. Consequently, the ratio of strontium isotopes can be used to determine how quickly rock weathering removed CO2 from the atmosphere in the past. Using strontium levels, Young determined that during the late Ordovician, rock weathering was at high levels while volcanic activity, which adds CO2 to the atmosphere, dropped. This led to CO2 levels falling below 3000 parts per million which was low enough to initiate glaciation - the growing of ice sheets.

Last week, another study headed by Seth Young further examined this period by extracting sediment cores from Estonia and Anticosti Island, Canada (Young 2010). The cores were used to construct a sequence of carbon-13 levels from rocks formed during the Ordovician. This was used as a proxy for atmospheric CO2 levels, at a much higher resolution than previous data. What they found was consistent with the strontium results in Young 2009 -CO2 levels dropped at the same time that sea surface temperatures dropped and ice sheets expanded. As the ice sheets grew to cover the continent, rock weathering decreased. This led to an increase in atmospheric CO2 which caused global warming and a retreat of the glaciers.

Thus arguments that Ordovician glaciation disproves the warming effect of CO2 are groundless. On the contrary, the CO2 record over the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.

CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician

And yet the temperatures DROPPED and we glaciated.. proving the paper is baseless and wrong... Your own post disproves the meme..

Bathymetric and isotopic evidence for a short-lived Late Ordovician glaciation in a greenhouse period

The end Ordovician glaciation is distinct among Phanerozoic glaciations in that CO2, levels were generally high, yet major continental ice sheets accumulated on the Gondwana supercontinent. New oxygen isotopic data indicate substantial changes in sea-water temperatures and ice volume coinciding with glacio-eustatic changes in sea level reflecting the growth and decay of the Gondwana ice cap. Major glaciation was apparently confined to the Hirnantian and was 0.5-1 m.y. long, rather than the 35 m.y. of earlier estimates. Carbon isotope values indicate significant changes in carbon cycling as the oceans changed from a state with warm saline bottom waters to a state with cold deep-water circulation and then back again. We believe that the changes in the carbon cycle effected a reduction in PCO2 levels in the oceans and atmosphere and thus promoted glaciation but were unable to sustain icehouse conditions in a greenhouse world.

 

[Old Rocks]

A Cenozoic-style scenario for the end-Ordovician glaciation Nature Communications Nature Publishing Group

The end-Ordovician was an enigmatic interval in the Phanerozoic, known for massive glaciation potentially at elevated CO2 levels, biogeochemical cycle disruptions recorded as large isotope anomalies and a devastating extinction event. Ice-sheet volumes claimed to be twice those of the Last Glacial Maximum paradoxically coincided with oceans as warm as today. Here we argue that some of these remarkable claims arise from undersampling of incomplete geological sections that led to apparent temporal correlations within the relatively coarse resolution capability of Palaeozoic biochronostratigraphy. We examine exceptionally complete sedimentary records from two, low and high, palaeolatitude settings. Their correlation framework reveals a Cenozoic-style scenario including three main glacial cycles and higher-order phenomena. This necessitates revision of mechanisms for the end-Ordovician events, as the first extinction is tied to an early phase of melting, not to initial cooling, and the largest δ13C excursion occurs during final deglaciation, not at the glacial apex.

Looks like the extinction period was at the beginning of the warmup period coming out of the glaciation. Brings up some interesting questions.

 

[Asclepias]

Who said anything about pollution? Its a known fact CO2 caused the last warming that resulted in the time periods the dinosaurs were around.,

You got it backwards... it was warmer, so much so that most of the world was much more amiable to life than this current cold snap we are living under. The result of the additional life and warmth was more CO2.

You have it backwards. It was warmer due to the abundance of CO2. Can you tell me what gas plants emit? After you do that explain to me the concept of a green house.

A greenhouse is an environmentally controlled structure designed to extend growing seasons. Our atmosphere is not a greenhouse.

Plants consume / use CO2 through a process called photosynthesis. Some of the CO2 they consume gets converted to sugars, for example glucose C6H12O6, some exhaled, some stored.

While you could argue that plants produce CO2 that would be a half truth, as really they are just temporarily storing it.

Sorry bud. Our atmosphere works just like a greenhouse. CO2 is an insulator that works just like the glass in a greenhouse.

Plants actually produce way more oxygen than CO2 However, it absolutely needs CO2 in order to survive. That proves the CO2 has to be in the environment prior to the plant gaining the large sizes it did during the periods of high heat.

A green house has a roof... The earth does not and it also has a water convection cycle that a true green house does not allow... Epic Fail..

Yeah the earth has a roof fool. Its called the atmosphere. You must not understand basic science. A greenhouse has a water convection cycle as well. Why do you think they use the "greenhouse effect" as another term for global warming?

 

[RKMBrown]

OK, Brownie, so you know a bit of grade school level biology. That's nice.

In the meantime, what we are discussing is atmospheric physics. Without the GHGs in the atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. With too high a load of GHGs in the atmosphere, the climate becomes inhospitable to life. Like Venus. In the the zone where life can exist, from very cold to very hot, is quite a large variety of climates. However, there is a real caveat concerning rapidly increasing or decreasing the GHG levels. In geological history, whenever we see a rapid change in the GHG levels, we see periods of extinctions. And we are already in the midst of the sixth great extinction period, from our actions in usurping habitat that other animals have to have to survive. Add a rapid warmup to that, and that speeds up the rate of extinction. Which, in a world of at present, 7 billion+ humans, may lead to a rapid reduction of that number.

You are conflating cause and effect and we are not living on Venus. Life on Earth has evolved to produce and consume a large range of ppm of CO2. Your concern is that humans are not unlike a large asteroid or comet impact on the Earth's atmosphere. In the case of deforestation, killing off entire species of whales and such, you are not far off. However, when you start talking about the minor effect that humans have on ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere, from my view, you have gone off the deep end. We are going to warm up... and the primary driver is the mere fact that the ice age is ending, which is a solar / planetary event / cycle, get used to it.

 

[Asclepias]

OK, Brownie, so you know a bit of grade school level biology. That's nice.

In the meantime, what we are discussing is atmospheric physics. Without the GHGs in the atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. With too high a load of GHGs in the atmosphere, the climate becomes inhospitable to life. Like Venus. In the the zone where life can exist, from very cold to very hot, is quite a large variety of climates. However, there is a real caveat concerning rapidly increasing or decreasing the GHG levels. In geological history, whenever we see a rapid change in the GHG levels, we see periods of extinctions. And we are already in the midst of the sixth great extinction period, from our actions in usurping habitat that other animals have to have to survive. Add a rapid warmup to that, and that speeds up the rate of extinction. Which, in a world of at present, 7 billion+ humans, may lead to a rapid reduction of that number.

You are conflating cause and effect and we are not living on Venus. Life on Earth has evolved to produce and consume a large range of ppm of CO2. Your concern is that humans are not unlike a large asteroid or comet impact on the Earth's atmosphere. In the case of deforestation, killing off entire species of whales and such, you are not far off. However, when you start talking about the minor effect that humans have on ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere, from my view, you have gone off the deep end. We are going to warm up... and the primary driver is the mere fact that the ice age is ending, which is a solar / planetary event / cycle, get used to it.

I guess you are forgetting that deforestation is also a man made contribution to the ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere? Not only are we adding CO2 we are taking away the variable that reduces the ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere.

 

[RKMBrown]

No. It would not be more prudent to err on the side of caution. No evidence suggests or provides whether more, less, or the same amount of co2 is better or worse on "temperatures." CO2 is not pollution. It's naturally occurring and it's good for the environment. ZERO EVIDENCE EXISTS to the contrary. The people screaming the end is nigh are "lunatics" like old rocks and crooks like Al Gore.

Who said anything about pollution? Its a known fact CO2 caused the last warming that resulted in the time periods the dinosaurs were around.,

You got it backwards... it was warmer, so much so that most of the world was much more amiable to life than this current cold snap we are living under. The result of the additional life and warmth was more CO2.

You have it backwards. It was warmer due to the abundance of CO2. Can you tell me what gas plants emit? After you do that explain to me the concept of a green house.

A greenhouse is an environmentally controlled structure designed to extend growing seasons. Our atmosphere is not a greenhouse.

Plants consume / use CO2 through a process called photosynthesis. Some of the CO2 they consume gets converted to sugars, for example glucose C6H12O6, some exhaled, some stored.

While you could argue that plants produce CO2 that would be a half truth, as really they are just temporarily storing it.

Sorry bud. Our atmosphere works just like a greenhouse. CO2 is an insulator that works just like the glass in a greenhouse.

Plants actually produce way more oxygen than CO2 However, it absolutely needs CO2 in order to survive. That proves the CO2 has to be in the environment prior to the plant gaining the large sizes it did during the periods of high heat.

Water vapor is also an insulator. But no, our atmosphere does not work just like a greenhouse. If it did rockets would break the glass container we are living in, but that does not happen, and there is no cheese on the moon either

Plants produce oxygen from h20. With more CO2, most plants are more efficient and don't need as much water to grow. That does not make it "warmer" that just means you have more plants. More plants is a good thing, no? Temperate climate is better than ice and desert. Cold means ice, less water vapor. Less water vapor even colder.. less plants, less food, less animals, ... cold bad.

Warm good.

 

[RKMBrown]

OK, Brownie, so you know a bit of grade school level biology. That's nice.

In the meantime, what we are discussing is atmospheric physics. Without the GHGs in the atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. With too high a load of GHGs in the atmosphere, the climate becomes inhospitable to life. Like Venus. In the the zone where life can exist, from very cold to very hot, is quite a large variety of climates. However, there is a real caveat concerning rapidly increasing or decreasing the GHG levels. In geological history, whenever we see a rapid change in the GHG levels, we see periods of extinctions. And we are already in the midst of the sixth great extinction period, from our actions in usurping habitat that other animals have to have to survive. Add a rapid warmup to that, and that speeds up the rate of extinction. Which, in a world of at present, 7 billion+ humans, may lead to a rapid reduction of that number.

You are conflating cause and effect and we are not living on Venus. Life on Earth has evolved to produce and consume a large range of ppm of CO2. Your concern is that humans are not unlike a large asteroid or comet impact on the Earth's atmosphere. In the case of deforestation, killing off entire species of whales and such, you are not far off. However, when you start talking about the minor effect that humans have on ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere, from my view, you have gone off the deep end. We are going to warm up... and the primary driver is the mere fact that the ice age is ending, which is a solar / planetary event / cycle, get used to it.

I guess you are forgetting that deforestation is also a man made contribution to the ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere? Not only are we adding CO2 we are taking away the variable that reduces the ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere.

Cause and effect are different issues. Deforestation: bad. CO2: good. One way to do deforestation, is to freeze the plants out , reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and route water away from the plants.. Don't you think it even remotely odd that some scientists are claiming that CO2 is bad when CO2 is one of the main components of what plants need? They might as well be saying man made water is causing global warming.

This whole global warming crusade is ludicrous.

 

[Asclepias]

Who said anything about pollution? Its a known fact CO2 caused the last warming that resulted in the time periods the dinosaurs were around.,

You got it backwards... it was warmer, so much so that most of the world was much more amiable to life than this current cold snap we are living under. The result of the additional life and warmth was more CO2.

You have it backwards. It was warmer due to the abundance of CO2. Can you tell me what gas plants emit? After you do that explain to me the concept of a green house.

A greenhouse is an environmentally controlled structure designed to extend growing seasons. Our atmosphere is not a greenhouse.

Plants consume / use CO2 through a process called photosynthesis. Some of the CO2 they consume gets converted to sugars, for example glucose C6H12O6, some exhaled, some stored.

While you could argue that plants produce CO2 that would be a half truth, as really they are just temporarily storing it.

Sorry bud. Our atmosphere works just like a greenhouse. CO2 is an insulator that works just like the glass in a greenhouse.

Plants actually produce way more oxygen than CO2 However, it absolutely needs CO2 in order to survive. That proves the CO2 has to be in the environment prior to the plant gaining the large sizes it did during the periods of high heat.

Water vapor is also an insulator. But no, our atmosphere does not work just like a greenhouse. If it did rockets would break the glass container we are living in, but that does not happen, and there is no cheese on the moon either

Plants produce oxygen from h20. With more CO2, most plants are more efficient and don't need as much water to grow. That does not make it "warmer" that just means you have more plants. More plants is a good thing, no? Temperate climate is better than ice and desert. Cold means ice, less water vapor. Less water vapor even colder.. less plants, less food, less animals, ... cold bad.

Warm good.

Sorry there Brown but I said it works like a greenhouse. I didnt say it was constructed of glass.

Nice try.

Yes water vapor can function as a insulator but since its falling to the ground instead of staying in the atmosphere like CO2 its insulating ability is minimized. The more CO2 taken in the more H2O needed. Plants need H2O to produce carbohydrates in conjunction with the CO2 as you already admitted so thats strike 2. The presence of CO2 builds an insulating wall in the atmosphere which gradually warms the earth. Science 101. More plants is always a good thing. That means there is a balance and the earth is sustaining life. Plants are at the root of that cycle. The plants grow. The animals eat the plants. They recycle the plants and it starts all over again.

 

[Asclepias]

OK, Brownie, so you know a bit of grade school level biology. That's nice.

In the meantime, what we are discussing is atmospheric physics. Without the GHGs in the atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. With too high a load of GHGs in the atmosphere, the climate becomes inhospitable to life. Like Venus. In the the zone where life can exist, from very cold to very hot, is quite a large variety of climates. However, there is a real caveat concerning rapidly increasing or decreasing the GHG levels. In geological history, whenever we see a rapid change in the GHG levels, we see periods of extinctions. And we are already in the midst of the sixth great extinction period, from our actions in usurping habitat that other animals have to have to survive. Add a rapid warmup to that, and that speeds up the rate of extinction. Which, in a world of at present, 7 billion+ humans, may lead to a rapid reduction of that number.

You are conflating cause and effect and we are not living on Venus. Life on Earth has evolved to produce and consume a large range of ppm of CO2. Your concern is that humans are not unlike a large asteroid or comet impact on the Earth's atmosphere. In the case of deforestation, killing off entire species of whales and such, you are not far off. However, when you start talking about the minor effect that humans have on ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere, from my view, you have gone off the deep end. We are going to warm up... and the primary driver is the mere fact that the ice age is ending, which is a solar / planetary event / cycle, get used to it.

I guess you are forgetting that deforestation is also a man made contribution to the ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere? Not only are we adding CO2 we are taking away the variable that reduces the ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere.

Cause and effect are different issues. Deforestation: bad. CO2: good. One way to do deforestation, is to freeze the plants out , reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and route water away from the plants.. Don't you think it even remotely odd that some scientists are claiming that CO2 is bad when CO2 is one of the main components of what plants need? They might as well be saying man made water is causing global warming.

This whole global warming crusade is ludicrous.

Your post doesnt make sense. If there are less plants to deal with more CO2, how is that a good thing? CO2 doest produce plants. It just helps the plants that are there as long as water is available. If there is more CO2 existing than O what do you think about our prospects for breathing look like? The cycle of CO2 vs O is out of whack. Humans have done this on both sides of the equation by adding CO2 to the atmosphere and removing the variable that reduces CO2

 

[RKMBrown]

You got it backwards... it was warmer, so much so that most of the world was much more amiable to life than this current cold snap we are living under. The result of the additional life and warmth was more CO2.

You have it backwards. It was warmer due to the abundance of CO2. Can you tell me what gas plants emit? After you do that explain to me the concept of a green house.

A greenhouse is an environmentally controlled structure designed to extend growing seasons. Our atmosphere is not a greenhouse.

Plants consume / use CO2 through a process called photosynthesis. Some of the CO2 they consume gets converted to sugars, for example glucose C6H12O6, some exhaled, some stored.

While you could argue that plants produce CO2 that would be a half truth, as really they are just temporarily storing it.

Sorry bud. Our atmosphere works just like a greenhouse. CO2 is an insulator that works just like the glass in a greenhouse.

Plants actually produce way more oxygen than CO2 However, it absolutely needs CO2 in order to survive. That proves the CO2 has to be in the environment prior to the plant gaining the large sizes it did during the periods of high heat.

Water vapor is also an insulator. But no, our atmosphere does not work just like a greenhouse. If it did rockets would break the glass container we are living in, but that does not happen, and there is no cheese on the moon either

Plants produce oxygen from h20. With more CO2, most plants are more efficient and don't need as much water to grow. That does not make it "warmer" that just means you have more plants. More plants is a good thing, no? Temperate climate is better than ice and desert. Cold means ice, less water vapor. Less water vapor even colder.. less plants, less food, less animals, ... cold bad.

Warm good.

Sorry there Brown but I said it works like a greenhouse. I didnt say it was constructed of glass.

Nice try.

Yes water vapor can function as a insulator but since its falling to the ground instead of staying in the atmosphere like CO2 its insulating ability is minimized. The more CO2 taken in the more H2O needed. Plants need H2O to produce carbohydrates in conjunction with the CO2 as you already admitted so thats strike 2. The presence of CO2 builds an insulating wall in the atmosphere which gradually warms the earth. Science 101. More plants is always a good thing. That means there is a balance and the earth is sustaining life. Plants are at the root of that cycle. The plants grow. The animals eat the plants. They recycle the plants and it starts all over again.

ROFL.. cmon dude what part of water vapor being the majority of our atmosphere is confusing you? CO2 is miniscule portion and even if there was more it's not as good at insulating as water is. You are wrong, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the less water plants need to survive. How is my definition of the process being accurate a "strike against" me? Huh?

You are wrong, the presense of CO2 in our atmosphere is not an INSULATING WALL. That's just nonsense.

More CO2 results in more plants, more plants results in an increase in the volume of life participating in the cycle of life.

More CO2 GOOD. Less CO2 BAD.

Yes theoretically if there was seventy thousand times more CO2 in our atmosphere than the current amount that would probably be a bad thing.

 

[RKMBrown]

OK, Brownie, so you know a bit of grade school level biology. That's nice.

In the meantime, what we are discussing is atmospheric physics. Without the GHGs in the atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. With too high a load of GHGs in the atmosphere, the climate becomes inhospitable to life. Like Venus. In the the zone where life can exist, from very cold to very hot, is quite a large variety of climates. However, there is a real caveat concerning rapidly increasing or decreasing the GHG levels. In geological history, whenever we see a rapid change in the GHG levels, we see periods of extinctions. And we are already in the midst of the sixth great extinction period, from our actions in usurping habitat that other animals have to have to survive. Add a rapid warmup to that, and that speeds up the rate of extinction. Which, in a world of at present, 7 billion+ humans, may lead to a rapid reduction of that number.

You are conflating cause and effect and we are not living on Venus. Life on Earth has evolved to produce and consume a large range of ppm of CO2. Your concern is that humans are not unlike a large asteroid or comet impact on the Earth's atmosphere. In the case of deforestation, killing off entire species of whales and such, you are not far off. However, when you start talking about the minor effect that humans have on ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere, from my view, you have gone off the deep end. We are going to warm up... and the primary driver is the mere fact that the ice age is ending, which is a solar / planetary event / cycle, get used to it.

I guess you are forgetting that deforestation is also a man made contribution to the ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere? Not only are we adding CO2 we are taking away the variable that reduces the ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere.

Cause and effect are different issues. Deforestation: bad. CO2: good. One way to do deforestation, is to freeze the plants out , reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and route water away from the plants.. Don't you think it even remotely odd that some scientists are claiming that CO2 is bad when CO2 is one of the main components of what plants need? They might as well be saying man made water is causing global warming.

This whole global warming crusade is ludicrous.

Your post doesnt make sense. If there are less plants to deal with more CO2, how is that a good thing? CO2 doest produce plants. It just helps the plants that are there as long as water is available. If there is more CO2 existing than O what do you think about our prospects for breathing look like? The cycle of CO2 vs O is out of whack. Humans have done this on both sides of the equation by adding CO2 to the atmosphere and removing the variable that reduces CO2

No one, AND I REPEAT, no one ever said DEFORESTATION IS GOOD. Yet the global warming nut cases are actually promoting DEFORESTATION by demanding that humans stop helping plants out, by generating CO2.

No. The "cycle" of co2 is A PART OF the cycle of life. More CO2 = more life. LESS CO2 = LESS LIFE. Saying more life is bad is ridiculous. We are not over populated that's just another myth.

 

[orogenicman]

n argument used against the warming effect of carbon dioxide is that millions of years ago,CO2 levels were higher during periods where large glaciers formed over the Earth's poles. This argument fails to take into account that solar output was also lower during these periods. The combined effect of sun and CO2 show good correlation with climate (Royer 2006). The one period that until recently puzzled paleoclimatologists was the late Ordovician, around 444 million years ago. At this time, CO2 levels were very high, around 5600 parts per million (in contrast, current CO2 levels are 389 parts per million). However,glaciers were so far-reaching during the late Ordovician, it coincided with one of the largest marine mass extinction events in Earth history. How did glaciation occur with such highCO2 levels? Recent data has revealed CO2 levels at the time of the late Ordovician ice agewere not that high after all.

Past studies on the Ordovician period calculated CO2 levels at 10 million year intervals. The problem with such coarse data sampling is the Ordovician ice age lasted only half a million years. To fill in the gaps, a 2009 study examined strontium isotopes in the sediment record (Young 2009). Strontium is produced by rock weathering, the process that removes CO2from the air. Consequently, the ratio of strontium isotopes can be used to determine how quickly rock weathering removed CO2 from the atmosphere in the past. Using strontium levels, Young determined that during the late Ordovician, rock weathering was at high levels while volcanic activity, which adds CO2 to the atmosphere, dropped. This led to CO2 levels falling below 3000 parts per million which was low enough to initiate glaciation - the growing of ice sheets.

Last week, another study headed by Seth Young further examined this period by extracting sediment cores from Estonia and Anticosti Island, Canada (Young 2010). The cores were used to construct a sequence of carbon-13 levels from rocks formed during the Ordovician. This was used as a proxy for atmospheric CO2 levels, at a much higher resolution than previous data. What they found was consistent with the strontium results in Young 2009 -CO2 levels dropped at the same time that sea surface temperatures dropped and ice sheets expanded. As the ice sheets grew to cover the continent, rock weathering decreased. This led to an increase in atmospheric CO2 which caused global warming and a retreat of the glaciers.

Thus arguments that Ordovician glaciation disproves the warming effect of CO2 are groundless. On the contrary, the CO2 record over the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.

CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician

And yet the temperatures DROPPED and we glaciated.. proving the paper is baseless and wrong... Your own post disproves the meme..

I might also add to Crick's post that there is also considerable evidence at the Ordovician-Silurian boundary of the presence of iridium, as seen in boundary deposits in Scotland and elsewhere, indicating the possibility of an impact, which would have pumped a considerable amount of SO2 aerosols into the atmosphere, further cooling the climate.

OK, Brownie, so you know a bit of grade school level biology. That's nice.

In the meantime, what we are discussing is atmospheric physics. Without the GHGs in the atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. With too high a load of GHGs in the atmosphere, the climate becomes inhospitable to life. Like Venus. In the the zone where life can exist, from very cold to very hot, is quite a large variety of climates. However, there is a real caveat concerning rapidly increasing or decreasing the GHG levels. In geological history, whenever we see a rapid change in the GHG levels, we see periods of extinctions. And we are already in the midst of the sixth great extinction period, from our actions in usurping habitat that other animals have to have to survive. Add a rapid warmup to that, and that speeds up the rate of extinction. Which, in a world of at present, 7 billion+ humans, may lead to a rapid reduction of that number.

You are conflating cause and effect and we are not living on Venus. Life on Earth has evolved to produce and consume a large range of ppm of CO2. Your concern is that humans are not unlike a large asteroid or comet impact on the Earth's atmosphere. In the case of deforestation, killing off entire species of whales and such, you are not far off. However, when you start talking about the minor effect that humans have on ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere, from my view, you have gone off the deep end. We are going to warm up... and the primary driver is the mere fact that the ice age is ending, which is a solar / planetary event / cycle, get used to it.

Minor effect? We have nearly doubled the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere. That is NOT a minor effect.

 

[RKMBrown]

n argument used against the warming effect of carbon dioxide is that millions of years ago,CO2 levels were higher during periods where large glaciers formed over the Earth's poles. This argument fails to take into account that solar output was also lower during these periods. The combined effect of sun and CO2 show good correlation with climate (Royer 2006). The one period that until recently puzzled paleoclimatologists was the late Ordovician, around 444 million years ago. At this time, CO2 levels were very high, around 5600 parts per million (in contrast, current CO2 levels are 389 parts per million). However,glaciers were so far-reaching during the late Ordovician, it coincided with one of the largest marine mass extinction events in Earth history. How did glaciation occur with such highCO2 levels? Recent data has revealed CO2 levels at the time of the late Ordovician ice agewere not that high after all.

Past studies on the Ordovician period calculated CO2 levels at 10 million year intervals. The problem with such coarse data sampling is the Ordovician ice age lasted only half a million years. To fill in the gaps, a 2009 study examined strontium isotopes in the sediment record (Young 2009). Strontium is produced by rock weathering, the process that removes CO2from the air. Consequently, the ratio of strontium isotopes can be used to determine how quickly rock weathering removed CO2 from the atmosphere in the past. Using strontium levels, Young determined that during the late Ordovician, rock weathering was at high levels while volcanic activity, which adds CO2 to the atmosphere, dropped. This led to CO2 levels falling below 3000 parts per million which was low enough to initiate glaciation - the growing of ice sheets.

Last week, another study headed by Seth Young further examined this period by extracting sediment cores from Estonia and Anticosti Island, Canada (Young 2010). The cores were used to construct a sequence of carbon-13 levels from rocks formed during the Ordovician. This was used as a proxy for atmospheric CO2 levels, at a much higher resolution than previous data. What they found was consistent with the strontium results in Young 2009 -CO2 levels dropped at the same time that sea surface temperatures dropped and ice sheets expanded. As the ice sheets grew to cover the continent, rock weathering decreased. This led to an increase in atmospheric CO2 which caused global warming and a retreat of the glaciers.

Thus arguments that Ordovician glaciation disproves the warming effect of CO2 are groundless. On the contrary, the CO2 record over the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.

CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician

And yet the temperatures DROPPED and we glaciated.. proving the paper is baseless and wrong... Your own post disproves the meme..

I might also add to Crick's post that there is also considerable evidence at the Ordovician-Silurian boundary of the presence of iridium, as seen in boundary deposits in Scotland and elsewhere, indicating the possibility of an impact, which would have pumped a considerable amount of SO2 aerosols into the atmosphere, further cooling the climate.

OK, Brownie, so you know a bit of grade school level biology. That's nice.

In the meantime, what we are discussing is atmospheric physics. Without the GHGs in the atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. With too high a load of GHGs in the atmosphere, the climate becomes inhospitable to life. Like Venus. In the the zone where life can exist, from very cold to very hot, is quite a large variety of climates. However, there is a real caveat concerning rapidly increasing or decreasing the GHG levels. In geological history, whenever we see a rapid change in the GHG levels, we see periods of extinctions. And we are already in the midst of the sixth great extinction period, from our actions in usurping habitat that other animals have to have to survive. Add a rapid warmup to that, and that speeds up the rate of extinction. Which, in a world of at present, 7 billion+ humans, may lead to a rapid reduction of that number.

You are conflating cause and effect and we are not living on Venus. Life on Earth has evolved to produce and consume a large range of ppm of CO2. Your concern is that humans are not unlike a large asteroid or comet impact on the Earth's atmosphere. In the case of deforestation, killing off entire species of whales and such, you are not far off. However, when you start talking about the minor effect that humans have on ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere, from my view, you have gone off the deep end. We are going to warm up... and the primary driver is the mere fact that the ice age is ending, which is a solar / planetary event / cycle, get used to it.

Minor effect? We have nearly doubled the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere. That is NOT a minor effect.

Correct, it is not an effect at all.

 

[mamooth]

No one, AND I REPEAT, no one ever said DEFORESTATION IS GOOD. Yet the global warming nut cases are actually promoting DEFORESTATION by demanding that humans stop helping plants out, by generating CO2.

And out in the real world, a place you ought to visit occasionally, CO2 doesn't help forests grow. It helps vines grow, which choke and kill the forests. It doesn't help crops grow. It helps the weeds grow, which choke the crops. More CO2 = LESS LIFE.

I could post the studies. I've done so before. I don't know why I bother, since deniers always refuse to acknowledge the data. It's why they're called deniers.

No. The "cycle" of co2 is A PART OF the cycle of life. More CO2 = more life. LESS CO2 = LESS LIFE. Saying more life is bad is ridiculous. We are not over populated that's just another myth.

Your rainbows-and-unicorns fantasy world has no bearing on how the real world works. "CO2 = More life!" is sadly ignorant, and only the most brainwashed cultists would claim something so crazy.

 

[haissem123]

Scientists confirm amassing CO2 heats Earth s surface Science News

(site has cut n paste disabled so to paraphrase)

Scientists witness direct correlation between CO2 emissions and how much solar radiation (heat to you) strikes the Earth.

yeah it's getting hotter, but what about all the poison in the gases being released? it's the elephant in the lungs nobody cares about. dah..

 

[Asclepias]

OK, Brownie, so you know a bit of grade school level biology. That's nice.

In the meantime, what we are discussing is atmospheric physics. Without the GHGs in the atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. With too high a load of GHGs in the atmosphere, the climate becomes inhospitable to life. Like Venus. In the the zone where life can exist, from very cold to very hot, is quite a large variety of climates. However, there is a real caveat concerning rapidly increasing or decreasing the GHG levels. In geological history, whenever we see a rapid change in the GHG levels, we see periods of extinctions. And we are already in the midst of the sixth great extinction period, from our actions in usurping habitat that other animals have to have to survive. Add a rapid warmup to that, and that speeds up the rate of extinction. Which, in a world of at present, 7 billion+ humans, may lead to a rapid reduction of that number.

You are conflating cause and effect and we are not living on Venus. Life on Earth has evolved to produce and consume a large range of ppm of CO2. Your concern is that humans are not unlike a large asteroid or comet impact on the Earth's atmosphere. In the case of deforestation, killing off entire species of whales and such, you are not far off. However, when you start talking about the minor effect that humans have on ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere, from my view, you have gone off the deep end. We are going to warm up... and the primary driver is the mere fact that the ice age is ending, which is a solar / planetary event / cycle, get used to it.

I guess you are forgetting that deforestation is also a man made contribution to the ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere? Not only are we adding CO2 we are taking away the variable that reduces the ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere.

Cause and effect are different issues. Deforestation: bad. CO2: good. One way to do deforestation, is to freeze the plants out , reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and route water away from the plants.. Don't you think it even remotely odd that some scientists are claiming that CO2 is bad when CO2 is one of the main components of what plants need? They might as well be saying man made water is causing global warming.

This whole global warming crusade is ludicrous.

Your post doesnt make sense. If there are less plants to deal with more CO2, how is that a good thing? CO2 doest produce plants. It just helps the plants that are there as long as water is available. If there is more CO2 existing than O what do you think about our prospects for breathing look like? The cycle of CO2 vs O is out of whack. Humans have done this on both sides of the equation by adding CO2 to the atmosphere and removing the variable that reduces CO2

No one, AND I REPEAT, no one ever said DEFORESTATION IS GOOD. Yet the global warming nut cases are actually promoting DEFORESTATION by demanding that humans stop helping plants out, by generating CO2.

No. The "cycle" of co2 is A PART OF the cycle of life. More CO2 = more life. LESS CO2 = LESS LIFE. Saying more life is bad is ridiculous. We are not over populated that's just another myth.

How is preventing more CO2 promoting deforestation? Again you are not making sense and I know you are smarter than that. We can only prevent the CO2 we cause. There is enough CO2 in the air to support plants worldwide as indicated before we started dumping more CO2 in the air and clearing forests.

 

[RKMBrown]

No one, AND I REPEAT, no one ever said DEFORESTATION IS GOOD. Yet the global warming nut cases are actually promoting DEFORESTATION by demanding that humans stop helping plants out, by generating CO2.

And out in the real world, a place you ought to visit occasionally, CO2 doesn't help forests grow. It helps vines grow, which choke and kill the forests. It doesn't help crops grow. It helps the weeds grow, which choke the crops. More CO2 = LESS LIFE.

I could post the studies. I've done so before. I don't know why I bother, since deniers always refuse to acknowledge the data. It's why they're called deniers.

No. The "cycle" of co2 is A PART OF the cycle of life. More CO2 = more life. LESS CO2 = LESS LIFE. Saying more life is bad is ridiculous. We are not over populated that's just another myth.

Your rainbows-and-unicorns fantasy world has no bearing on how the real world works. "CO2 = More life!" is sadly ignorant, and only the most brainwashed cultists would claim something so crazy.

ROFL