What the science says

[Crick]

I'm curious how you see CO2 functioning as a reinforcing agent via its radiative forcing but believe it unable to change climate on its own. What prevents it?

And where do you see the UN setting a target of 250 ppm CO2?

 

[ding]

I'm curious how you see CO2 functioning as a reinforcing agent via its radiative forcing but believe it unable to change climate on its own. What prevents it?

And where do you see the UN setting a target of 250 ppm CO2?

Time and the factors which drive climate change, the sun, ocean and water vapor. At one time the UN was advocating a return to pre-industrial levels of CO2.

 

[Crick]

That doesn't even begin to explain your contention. Why do you believe the sun, the ocean and water vapor can initiate a change of the climate but CO2 cannot. You have repeatedly admitted/assumed/accepted that CO2 has a radiative forcing factor. What happens to that forcing factor when it comes on prior to warming by any of these other agents? Why do you believe it will not warm the planet?

 

[ding]

That doesn't even begin to explain your contention. Why do you believe the sun, the ocean and water vapor can initiate a change of the climate but CO2 cannot. You have repeatedly admitted/assumed/accepted that CO2 has a radiative forcing factor. What happens to that forcing factor when it comes on prior to warming by any of these other agents? Why do you believe it will not warm the planet?

Obviously because it hasn't done so.

 

[Crick]

Have you never taken a class in basic logic or did you take one and fail?

 

[ding]

Have you never taken a class in basic logic or did you take one and fail?

Yes, I have. They told me to do the opposite what you do.

 

[Crick]

A number of your statements here strenuously suggest you are exceedingly weak in the topic.

Obviously, prior to the Industrial Revolution, the occurrence of a rise in CO2 such as the present's, not preceded by a temperature increase which could drive it out of solution from the world's oceans, is exceedingly rare, limited to events such as the Deccan Traps eruption and the Chicxulub Impact. On those occasions, conditions led to massive extinction events. The geological record simply does not provide evidence to support the claims you are making and you look more than a little foolish making the attempt. I'd say you were besmirching the name of 'Engineer'.

 

[ding]

A number of your statements here strenuously suggest you are exceedingly weak in the topic.

Obviously, prior to the Industrial Revolution, the occurrence of a rise in CO2 such as the present's, not preceded by a temperature increase which could drive it out of solution from the world's oceans, is exceedingly rare, limited to events such as the Deccan Traps eruption and the Chicxulub Impact. On those occasions, conditions led to massive extinction events. The geological record simply does not provide evidence to support the claims you are making and you look more than a little foolish making the attempt. I'd say you were besmirching the name of 'Engineer'.

I can live with your opinion of me. It's not so bad. I have already provided geologic evidence of past climate changes that where CO2 went up and down and showed that the temperature did not respond as the radiative forcing of CO2 projected. On each occasion you had no valid answer that in of itself did not refute your current position. In fact, the few times you did respond your answer was that there were other variables that influenced the temperature. No shit. That's the point I am making today.

Why did the temperature fall 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing?

How did Antarctic thawing occur while CO2 values dropped at the OI/Mio transition and never fell below levels of the OI?

How did we enter the glacial-interglacial cycles of the past 500,000 years when atmospheric CO2 was greater than 400 ppm?

Why did it take 12 million years for the temperature to fall to the temperature predicted by radiative forcing of CO2?

None of these were driven by cataclysmic events which put other compounds into the atmosphere like the volcanic events you are referencing. All of these events isolate CO2 and show that CO2 did not drive climate change.

 

[ding]

A number of your statements here strenuously suggest you are exceedingly weak in the topic.

Obviously, prior to the Industrial Revolution, the occurrence of a rise in CO2 such as the present's, not preceded by a temperature increase which could drive it out of solution from the world's oceans, is exceedingly rare, limited to events such as the Deccan Traps eruption and the Chicxulub Impact. On those occasions, conditions led to massive extinction events. The geological record simply does not provide evidence to support the claims you are making and you look more than a little foolish making the attempt. I'd say you were besmirching the name of 'Engineer'.

Sounds like really great examples of climate change brought on by cataclysmic volcanic eruptions. I am glad you guys are starting to look at real climate change events. Now can you explain why it took 12 million years for the temperature to reach the temperature predicted from radiative forcing of CO2 when co2 levels fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm?

And while you are at it can you explain how Antarctic thawing occurred while CO2 values dropped at the OI/Mio transition and never fell below levels of the OI?

And lastly, can you explain why the temperature fell 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing and can you explain how we entered the glacial-interglacial cycles with atmospheric CO2 greater than 400 ppm?

 

[Crick]

Jesus, it's LaDexter's twin brother.

 

[ding]

Jesus, it's LaDexter's twin brother.

Why did the temperature fall 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing?

How did Antarctic thawing occur while CO2 values dropped at the OI/Mio transition and never fell below levels of the OI?

How did we enter the glacial-interglacial cycles of the past 500,000 years when atmospheric CO2 was greater than 400 ppm?

Why did it take 12 million years for the temperature to fall to the temperature predicted by radiative forcing of CO2?

None of these were driven by cataclysmic events which put other compounds into the atmosphere like the volcanic events you are referencing. All of these events isolate CO2 and show that CO2 did not drive climate change.

 

[Crick]

If I have two identical planets roughly resembling Earth except one has 200 ppm CO2 and the other has 1,000 ppm CO2. I let them sit for a thousand years. What difference will I find?

 

[ding]

If I have two identical planets roughly resembling Earth except one has 200 ppm CO2 and the other has 1,000 ppm CO2. I let them sit for a thousand years. What difference will I find?

That the one at 200 ppm would be in a glacial cycle and the one at 1000 ppm would be in an interglacial cycle.

 

[SSDD]

Why did the temperature fall 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing?

I don't have much time to converse during this time of the year...I play a lot of parties and such so I spend most of my time practicing new material but I do stop in to look for a few minutes a day...I have to say I enjoy watching you clean cricks clock...but I do have a question for you re: your position on CO2. You state that CO2 doesn't cause climate change....it just reinforces climate change.

I took a minute to look up the word reinforce just to make sure that it meant what I have always thought it meant. sure enough....reinforce - to strengthen; make more forcible or effective.

That being the case with regard to the word reinforce, and you holding the position that CO2 reinforces climate change, I must ask you your own question....why did temperature fall 10 million years ago while CO2 was rising? I can only guess that prior to the falling temperatures, that you would have held that CO2 reinforced the rising temperatures, till it didn't.

I am of the position, and all observations seem to support my position that the only contribution CO2 makes to the temperature of the planet is the small amount of weight it adds to the total mass of the atmosphere and that there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science. There is, I believe, and atmospheric thermal effect that is greater than the claimed greenhouse effect, but it doesn't depend at all on the composition of the atmosphere beyond what the individual components add to the total mass.

So again, if CO2 reinforces climate change, why did temperatures drop 10 million years ago while CO2 was climbing?

 

[SSDD]

If I have two identical planets roughly resembling Earth except one has 200 ppm CO2 and the other has 1,000 ppm CO2. I let them sit for a thousand years. What difference will I find?

One may be very very slightly warmer because its atmosphere would be very slightly more massive due to the additional CO2.

 

[ding]

Why did the temperature fall 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing?

I don't have much time to converse during this time of the year...I play a lot of parties and such so I spend most of my time practicing new material but I do stop in to look for a few minutes a day...I have to say I enjoy watching you clean cricks clock...but I do have a question for you re: your position on CO2. You state that CO2 doesn't cause climate change....it just reinforces climate change.

I took a minute to look up the word reinforce just to make sure that it meant what I have always thought it meant. sure enough....reinforce - to strengthen; make more forcible or effective.

That being the case with regard to the word reinforce, and you holding the position that CO2 reinforces climate change, I must ask you your own question....why did temperature fall 10 million years ago while CO2 was rising? I can only guess that prior to the falling temperatures, that you would have held that CO2 reinforced the rising temperatures, till it didn't.

I am of the position, and all observations seem to support my position that the only contribution CO2 makes to the temperature of the planet is the small amount of weight it adds to the total mass of the atmosphere and that there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science. There is, I believe, and atmospheric thermal effect that is greater than the claimed greenhouse effect, but it doesn't depend at all on the composition of the atmosphere beyond what the individual components add to the total mass.

So again, if CO2 reinforces climate change, why did temperatures drop 10 million years ago while CO2 was climbing?

Let' start with what happened before we entered the glacial-interglacial cycles of the past 500,000 years first because we do have a decent understanding of what caused that. The two conditions which led to that were the two poles becoming isolated from warm marine currents.

Thermal isolation provided the background decreasing atmospheric CO2 set the table and Milankotvich cycles were the trigger.

Climate models predict that extensive continental glaciation at the south pole begins occurs at 750 ppm and extensive northern hemisphere glaciation occurs at 250 ppm. 5 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was at 400 ppm. At this point we had extensive Antarctic glaciation but not extensive norther hemisphere glaciation. Which would have been pretty similar to where we are today.

During this period we see a saw tooth behavior in the oxygen isotope curve which is our proxy for temperature (4 to 6 million years ago on the above figure) while we had a slight decline in CO2 which hovered around 400 ppm. The best explanation I have here is that the ocean currents and the incoming energy of the sun coupled with feedback of the water vapor and the landmass configuration were the dominant factors in driving climate change. In this case a global cooling and that CO2 cyclicity was reinforcing that trend (i.e. as the oceans cooled more CO2 was being absorbed by the oceans).

So if we now look at the data from 6 million to 10 million years ago, we see a slightly inclining atmospheric CO2 which is still hovering around 400 ppm and a declining temperature trend (oxygen isotope curve) which has a less saw tooth behavior than the time period between 4 to 6 million years ago. To me this period is more difficult to explain as I would have thought that the oceans would have been absorbing more CO2 during this cool down. Given that it was slightly increasing, I can only assume that the ocean was absorbing more CO2 but that something was offseting that sink with a source. Probably volcanics. Anyway, the point remains that other factors beside CO2 were more dominant than the GHG effect of CO2 and led to a cooling phase. The exact same thing occurred and is shown in the orbital forcing graphs of the last 500,000 years when CO2 was decreasing with an increasing temperature.

 

[SSDD]

I would argue that the cooling happened without regard to CO2...just as the warming happened without regard to CO2 and that as the earth cooled, the cooler oceans absorbed more CO2 and when the earth began exiting the glacial cycle...again, without regard to CO2, the warming oceans simply began to outgas CO2.... I believe any apparent relationship of CO2 to climate is purely coincidental and results from the simple fact that CO2 follows climate....beyond that, it has no effect on climate whatsoever....and again....observation seems to bear that out. Glaciation happens without regard to the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere, as does warming....interglacials also happen without regard to atmospheric CO2 concentrations....

CO2 has become such a hot topic that everyone seems willing to give it power it does not possess. CO2 affects the climate only in so far as it contributes to the mass of the atmosphere.

 

[ding]

I would argue that the cooling happened without regard to CO2...just as the warming happened without regard to CO2 and that as the earth cooled, the cooler oceans absorbed more CO2 and when the earth began exiting the glacial cycle...again, without regard to CO2, the warming oceans simply began to outgas CO2.... I believe any apparent relationship of CO2 to climate is purely coincidental and results from the simple fact that CO2 follows climate....beyond that, it has no effect on climate whatsoever....and again....observation seems to bear that out. Glaciation happens without regard to the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere, as does warming....interglacials also happen without regard to atmospheric CO2 concentrations....

CO2 has become such a hot topic that everyone seems willing to give it power it does not possess. CO2 affects the climate only in so far as it contributes to the mass of the atmosphere.

I would agree.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I would argue that the cooling happened without regard to CO2...just as the warming happened without regard to CO2 and that as the earth cooled, the cooler oceans absorbed more CO2 and when the earth began exiting the glacial cycle...again, without regard to CO2, the warming oceans simply began to outgas CO2.... I believe any apparent relationship of CO2 to climate is purely coincidental and results from the simple fact that CO2 follows climate....beyond that, it has no effect on climate whatsoever....and again....observation seems to bear that out. Glaciation happens without regard to the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere, as does warming....interglacials also happen without regard to atmospheric CO2 concentrations....

CO2 has become such a hot topic that everyone seems willing to give it power it does not possess. CO2 affects the climate only in so far as it contributes to the mass of the atmosphere.

I would agree.

Don't ask SSDD about his magic photons.

 

[SSDD]

I would argue that the cooling happened without regard to CO2...just as the warming happened without regard to CO2 and that as the earth cooled, the cooler oceans absorbed more CO2 and when the earth began exiting the glacial cycle...again, without regard to CO2, the warming oceans simply began to outgas CO2.... I believe any apparent relationship of CO2 to climate is purely coincidental and results from the simple fact that CO2 follows climate....beyond that, it has no effect on climate whatsoever....and again....observation seems to bear that out. Glaciation happens without regard to the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere, as does warming....interglacials also happen without regard to atmospheric CO2 concentrations....

CO2 has become such a hot topic that everyone seems willing to give it power it does not possess. CO2 affects the climate only in so far as it contributes to the mass of the atmosphere.

I would agree.

Don't ask SSDD about his magic photons.

Some day, if you are very lucky, and apply yourself, you may come to realize that magic is not required to make objects obey the laws of physics.,,,they are laws not because they make anything at all happen...they simply describe things that all of our observations show us...neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool to warm....no law makes that happen...the law is written as reference to remind us that that is simply what happens.....every damned time we make an observation.