CO2 has ZERO impact on Climate...
- Thread starter healthmyths
- Start date
daveman
Diamond Member
daveman
Diamond Member
OBVIOUSLY WORLD SOCIALISM IS THE ONLY THING THAT CAN SAVE US
daveman
Diamond Member
If you have to tell everybody your opponent surrendered...he didn't.
Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 71,131
- 18,235
- 2,190
You and your article are both lying about what that study found. I just read it and it came to no such conclusions. Shame shame.Once again... those of you that continue to believe that the BIASED MSM is your source... read the above link.
New Peer Reviewed Study: CO2 has Zero Impact on Climate Change - The HighWire
New study shows CO2 has minimal effect on temperatures, questions climate crisis claims, and warns against hasty energy transitions.thehighwire.com
NEW PEER REVIEWED STUDY: CO2 HAS ZERO IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
A powerful peer-reviewed scientific study delivers substantial evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the atmosphere have zero impact on the Earth’s global temperatures. The study concludes that even though most publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due to an increase in CO2, there is serious doubt that this is, in fact, the case.
Instead, the study authors deduced that their research unequivocally means that the officially presented narrative that human activity is causing a detrimental CO2 increase on Earth’s climate is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated reality.
The study also confirms what climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has stated, which is that the “manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policymakers” regarding climate change is all a ruse to push an agenda that has nothing to do with climate change. She insists that “Earth has survived far bigger insults that what human beings are doing.”
According to Curry, the most significant danger is if “we do really stupid stuff like destroy our energy infrastructure before we have something better to replace it with.” She believes the biggest climate risk right now is a so-called transition risk, the risk of rapidly getting rid of fossil fuels
New Peer Reviewed Study: CO2 has Zero Impact on Climate Change - The HighWire
New study shows CO2 has minimal effect on temperatures, questions climate crisis claims, and warns against hasty energy transitions.thehighwire.com
Now I'm 100% confident that there will be some totally closed mind, supposedly "informed" people will accuse me (Which is stupid because I'm just pointing out their lack of thinking!) as providing "false information". This is similar to when "Nicolaus Copernicus, who first officially put forth the idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun and not vice versa."
The majority of you that believe (NOT THINK) climate change is caused by fossil fuels for example... you are in the "flat earth" crowd!
Kamala Harris has also shown continued support for the country’s energy initiatives as the attorney general and second in command. She has filed lawsuits against fossil fuel companies, advocated for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by oil and gas companies, suggested a ban on fracking in the US and defended cap-and-trade initiatives to control carbon emissions.
Kamala Harris to take a stronger stance against energy industry? - Offshore Technology
Likely to be the official challenger to Trump, we look at the Vice President’s position on the oil and gas production and development.www.offshore-technology.com
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
healthmyths
Platinum Member
- Sep 19, 2011
- 29,976
- 11,432
- 900
- Thread starter
- #129
From the substantiation...
The study, published in Science Direct in March 2024, confirms that the warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is naturally limited, with the limit having been reached decades ago. The study also confirms what climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has stated, which is that the “manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policymakers” regarding climate change is all a ruse to push an agenda that has nothing to do with climate change. She insists that “Earth has survived far bigger insults that what human beings are doing.”
Curry remarked that even when you look more recently at the weather in the United States, for example, it was much worse in the 1930s by any measure than it is now.
So, in the near term, even if the plan is to use all renewable wind and solar energy, we will need large amounts of fossil fuels to get there. “People just repeat these mantras without any thought,” Curry said, adding, “It’s not a good place.”
The study uses a hypothetical concept of a fire inside a greenhouse consistently emitting heat.
The glass walls and ceiling can contain only so much heat before emitting it outside. CO2 in the atmosphere is very similar in that it can act as a “greenhouse” gas, but all the CO2 together can only contain so much heat, much like the hypothetical greenhouse. The CO2 Coalition agrees with this conclusion as well. Thus, amidst all the fearmongering around climate change—and the knowledge that many things, including changes in solar activity heavily influence Earth’s weather—Dr. Curry believes even if the Earth is warming, it is not a dangerous thing, commenting:
“This whole issue of “dangerous” is the weakest part of the whole argument. What is dangerous? Everybody has a different idea of what’s good. The only harm from warming is rising sea levels. And that’s a slow creep unless something catastrophic happens, say, to the West Antarctic ice sheet. And if something catastrophic happens there, that’s as likely to be associated with under-ice volcanoes as it is to be with global warming.”
=========================
So where in all the above is there any LIES??? What lies?
"You and your article are both lying about what that study found. I just read it and it came to no such conclusions. Shame shame."
Now let me ask you... What kind of Earth's climate could sustain 4,000 PPM of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere? Because 500 million years ago when the Earth was average temperature
Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia
Earth's average temperature around 500 million years ago was significantly warmer than today, with estimates suggesting a global mean surface temperature ranging between 24°C (75°F) and sometimes reaching as high as 36°C (97°F),
compared to the current average of around 14°C (57°F).
Earth's Global Temperature Has Changed Drastically in the Last 500 Million Years, Largely Due to Carbon Dioxide Levels
A new study offers the most detailed glimpse yet into how Earth's surface temperature has changed over the past 485 million years.
www.technologynetworks.com
ONE further question for YOU... where did the 4,000 PPM of CO2 come from? Who was burning fossil fuels?
Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 71,131
- 18,235
- 2,190
Click on that little blue link that says study and read the actual thing. Why yall choose to believe what politically driven media sites say about things is beyond meFrom the substantiation...
The study, published in Science Direct in March 2024, confirms that the warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is naturally limited, with the limit having been reached decades ago. The study also confirms what climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has stated, which is that the “manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policymakers” regarding climate change is all a ruse to push an agenda that has nothing to do with climate change. She insists that “Earth has survived far bigger insults that what human beings are doing.”
Curry remarked that even when you look more recently at the weather in the United States, for example, it was much worse in the 1930s by any measure than it is now.
So, in the near term, even if the plan is to use all renewable wind and solar energy, we will need large amounts of fossil fuels to get there. “People just repeat these mantras without any thought,” Curry said, adding, “It’s not a good place.”
The study uses a hypothetical concept of a fire inside a greenhouse consistently emitting heat.
The glass walls and ceiling can contain only so much heat before emitting it outside. CO2 in the atmosphere is very similar in that it can act as a “greenhouse” gas, but all the CO2 together can only contain so much heat, much like the hypothetical greenhouse. The CO2 Coalition agrees with this conclusion as well. Thus, amidst all the fearmongering around climate change—and the knowledge that many things, including changes in solar activity heavily influence Earth’s weather—Dr. Curry believes even if the Earth is warming, it is not a dangerous thing, commenting:
“This whole issue of “dangerous” is the weakest part of the whole argument. What is dangerous? Everybody has a different idea of what’s good. The only harm from warming is rising sea levels. And that’s a slow creep unless something catastrophic happens, say, to the West Antarctic ice sheet. And if something catastrophic happens there, that’s as likely to be associated with under-ice volcanoes as it is to be with global warming.”
=========================
So where in all the above is there any LIES??? What lies?
"You and your article are both lying about what that study found. I just read it and it came to no such conclusions. Shame shame."
Now let me ask you... What kind of Earth's climate could sustain 4,000 PPM of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere? Because 500 million years ago when the Earth was average temperature
Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Earth's average temperature around 500 million years ago was significantly warmer than today, with estimates suggesting a global mean surface temperature ranging between 24°C (75°F) and sometimes reaching as high as 36°C (97°F),
compared to the current average of around 14°C (57°F).
Earth's Global Temperature Has Changed Drastically in the Last 500 Million Years, Largely Due to Carbon Dioxide Levels
A new study offers the most detailed glimpse yet into how Earth's surface temperature has changed over the past 485 million years.
ONE further question for YOU... where did the 4,000 PPM of CO2 come from? Who was burning fossil fuels?
healthmyths
Platinum Member
- Sep 19, 2011
- 29,976
- 11,432
- 900
- Thread starter
- #131
So where do you think all of the following information came from?
From the substantiation...
The study, published in Science Direct in March 2024, confirms that the warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is naturally limited, with the limit having been reached decades ago. The study also confirms what climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has stated, which is that the “manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policymakers” regarding climate change is all a ruse to push an agenda that has nothing to do with climate change. She insists that “Earth has survived far bigger insults that what human beings are doing.”
Curry remarked that even when you look more recently at the weather in the United States, for example, it was much worse in the 1930s by any measure than it is now.
So, in the near term, even if the plan is to use all renewable wind and solar energy, we will need large amounts of fossil fuels to get there. “People just repeat these mantras without any thought,” Curry said, adding, “It’s not a good place.”
The study uses a hypothetical concept of a fire inside a greenhouse consistently emitting heat.
The glass walls and ceiling can contain only so much heat before emitting it outside. CO2 in the atmosphere is very similar in that it can act as a “greenhouse” gas, but all the CO2 together can only contain so much heat, much like the hypothetical greenhouse. The CO2 Coalition agrees with this conclusion as well. Thus, amidst all the fearmongering around climate change—and the knowledge that many things, including changes in solar activity heavily influence Earth’s weather—Dr. Curry believes even if the Earth is warming, it is not a dangerous thing, commenting:
“This whole issue of “dangerous” is the weakest part of the whole argument. What is dangerous? Everybody has a different idea of what’s good. The only harm from warming is rising sea levels. And that’s a slow creep unless something catastrophic happens, say, to the West Antarctic ice sheet. And if something catastrophic happens there, that’s as likely to be associated with under-ice volcanoes as it is to be with global warming.”
=========================
Plus you never did answer my question as to how the Earth continued after sustaining 4,000 PPM CO2 500 million years ago and Earth's average temperature around 500 million years ago was significantly warmer than today, with estimates suggesting a global mean surface temperature ranging between 24°C (75°F) and sometimes reaching as high as 36°C (97°F),
compared to the current average of around 14°C (57°F).
Earth's Global Temperature Has Changed Drastically in the Last 500 Million Years, Largely Due to Carbon Dioxide Levels
A new study offers the most detailed glimpse yet into how Earth's surface temperature has changed over the past 485 million years.
www.technologynetworks.com
PLUS tell me where did 4,000 PPM CO2 come from 500 million years ago and more importantly
where did it go after 500 million years it is now less than 10 times lower! Where did it go?
Last edited:
Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 71,131
- 18,235
- 2,190
The high historical levels of CO₂, such as the 4,000 ppm mentioned, were primarily the result of natural geological and biological processes over millions of years, including volcanic activity, tectonic processes, and variations in the carbon cycle during different geological periods.
Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 71,131
- 18,235
- 2,190
That came from the opinion of person writing the article on your right wing website. Not from the actual study. Read the study, you’ll see how biased the article your quoting is.So where do you think all of the following information came from?
From the substantiation...
The study, published in Science Direct in March 2024, confirms that the warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is naturally limited, with the limit having been reached decades ago. The study also confirms what climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has stated, which is that the “manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policymakers” regarding climate change is all a ruse to push an agenda that has nothing to do with climate change. She insists that “Earth has survived far bigger insults that what human beings are doing.”
Curry remarked that even when you look more recently at the weather in the United States, for example, it was much worse in the 1930s by any measure than it is now.
So, in the near term, even if the plan is to use all renewable wind and solar energy, we will need large amounts of fossil fuels to get there. “People just repeat these mantras without any thought,” Curry said, adding, “It’s not a good place.”
The study uses a hypothetical concept of a fire inside a greenhouse consistently emitting heat.
The glass walls and ceiling can contain only so much heat before emitting it outside. CO2 in the atmosphere is very similar in that it can act as a “greenhouse” gas, but all the CO2 together can only contain so much heat, much like the hypothetical greenhouse. The CO2 Coalition agrees with this conclusion as well. Thus, amidst all the fearmongering around climate change—and the knowledge that many things, including changes in solar activity heavily influence Earth’s weather—Dr. Curry believes even if the Earth is warming, it is not a dangerous thing, commenting:
“This whole issue of “dangerous” is the weakest part of the whole argument. What is dangerous? Everybody has a different idea of what’s good. The only harm from warming is rising sea levels. And that’s a slow creep unless something catastrophic happens, say, to the West Antarctic ice sheet. And if something catastrophic happens there, that’s as likely to be associated with under-ice volcanoes as it is to be with global warming.”
=========================
Plus you never did answer my question as to how the Earth continued after sustaining 4,000 PPM CO2 500 million years ago and Earth's average temperature around 500 million years ago was significantly warmer than today, with estimates suggesting a global mean surface temperature ranging between 24°C (75°F) and sometimes reaching as high as 36°C (97°F),
compared to the current average of around 14°C (57°F).
Earth's Global Temperature Has Changed Drastically in the Last 500 Million Years, Largely Due to Carbon Dioxide Levels
A new study offers the most detailed glimpse yet into how Earth's surface temperature has changed over the past 485 million years.
healthmyths
Platinum Member
- Sep 19, 2011
- 29,976
- 11,432
- 900
- Thread starter
- #134
Interesting that the study's conclusion ----
Loading…
www.sciencedirect.com
5. Conclusions
The presented material shows that despite the fact that the majority of publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due to the anthropogenic increase in CO2 and its impact on Earth's climate,
the shown facts raise serious doubts about this influence.
Explain that "conclusion" as the study you referred to says serious doubts regarding CO2 increases are catastrophic! Do you understand!!!
Plus again... explain how the earth survived an average temperature "a global mean surface temperature ranging between 24°C (75°F) and sometimes reaching as high as 36°C (97°F), compared to the current average of around 14°C (57°F)."
Earth's Global Temperature Has Changed Drastically in the Last 500 Million Years, Largely Due to Carbon Dioxide Levels
A new study offers the most detailed glimpse yet into how Earth's surface temperature has changed over the past 485 million years.
www.technologynetworks.com
The argument of that the greenhouse effect of CO2 has become saturated has been studied and refuted decades ago. Here is a discussion from SkepticalScience.com
Is the CO2 effect saturated?
Link to this page
Climate Myth...CO2 effect is saturated
"Each unit of CO2 you put into the atmosphere has less and less of a warming impact. Once the atmosphere reaches a saturation point, additional input of CO2 will not really have any major impact. It's like putting insulation in your attic. They give a recommended amount and after that you can stack the insulation up to the roof and it's going to have no impact." (Marc Morano, as quoted by Steve Eliot)
After the famous Arrhenius paper in 1896, where he did the first calculations of the CO2 greenhouse effect, his theory was dismissed by Angstrom with a simple experiment. He let an infrared beam pass through a tube filled with CO2 and measured the emerging light intensity. Upon reducing CO2 concentration in the tube, only a tiny difference could be found and he concluded that very few CO2 molecules are enough to completely absorb the IR beam. The conclusion was that a CO2 increase could not matter. This was the birth of the first skeptic of the then called "CO2 theory" and of the more recent "CO2 effect is saturated" skeptic argument.
Thirty years later, E. O. Hulburt (Phys. Rev. 38, 1876–1890 (1931)) added convection to the purely radiative equilibrium assumed by Arrhenius. He found that convective equilibrium holds in the lower part of the troposphere up to about 10 Km, while radiative holds equilibrium above. The important consequence is that the details of the absorption in the lower troposphere do not matter since heat "is spread around and transferred upward by convection". In other words, what govern the energy balance of the earth is the radiative balance in the upper troposphere and CO2 concentration there does matter.
Hulburt was very prudent in his conclusions:
Nevertheless, his work is definitely a milestone in the understanding of our atmosphere.
Hulburt's work should have put the controversy on the CO2 theory to an end, since "objections which have been raised against it by some physicists are not valid". Unfortunately, this paper passed almost unnoticed, I guess because meteorologists and geologists do not read Physical Review so often.
At the time of Hulburt the CO2 absorption coefficient was not known very accurately and even less its line shape, forcing Huburt to use a "box-like" shape. We may now build a simple model with a more realistic line shape and show that we get an increased absorption with increasing CO2 concentration anyways.
Consider the CO2 absorption band around 15 μm (about 650 cm-1), it is strong enough to not let any light go through after a few tens of meters at surface temperature and pressure. Did this energy disappear forever? Surely not, radiatively or convectively this energy "is spread around and transferred upward". But on the way up this light will find a decreasing pressure, i.e. less CO2 molecules. There will be a point where the light can escape to the outer space. The intensity of the emerging light will be appropriate for the temperature of this "last" layer layer.
We can crudely model this behavior using the Plank law and a gaussian-shaped absorption coefficient. We consider just two layers, the surface and the "last" layer, and the emissivity of this outer layer is modulated between 0 and 1 according to the absorption coefficient α. The result is shown in the figure below.
In the calculations I used an absorption wavenumber of 650 cm-1 and tuned the optical depth to reach saturation. The two dashed lines correspond to the Plank law for T=300 K and T=220 K. The red curve is the calculated emission; it follows the 300 K curve but deviates from it near the absorption band. This dip represents the energy prevented to reach the outer space, i.e. the greenhouse effect.
This graph can be qualitatively compared with real measurements to be sure we're not too far off.
We can now look at what happens when we increase α. Following Angstrom (and many others in his times) the energy absorbed should not change. On the contrary, if we recall that the absorption coefficient is gaussian we would expect an increase in the energy retained by our layer along the wings. The effect is shown in the figure below.
We can see that although the absorption dip cannot fall below the 220 K curve, it becomes wider and the absorbed energy increases accordingly. This is as far as we can get with this simple model. Needless to say that there's much more than what can be done with the very crude model presented here. We know, for example, that the line shape of the absorption coefficient changes with both pressure and temperature due to what are called pressure and Doppler broadening. In the upper layers of the atmosphere the band initially gets narrower and then splits into several narrow bands (the roto-vibrational spectrum) leaving more room for the increase in CO2 concentration being more effective. We also know that there are weaker absorption peaks other than the stronger one quoted above which are not saturated.
Gilbert Plass in 1956 used these words:
There's one more subtle effect related to increased absorption. Upon increasing CO2 concentration, the layer at which the absorption coefficient at each wavelength is low enough to let the IR light escape will be found higher in the atmosphere. The emitting layer will then have a lower temperature, at least until the tropopause is reached, and hence a lower emitting power.
Clearly there's a world behind the absorption of IR light by CO2 in the atmosphere which I omitted. The physics behind it is now solid thanks to the decades of work of many different scientists, and despite the first highly respected skeptic ever who put the CO2 theory on hold for half a century. But you know, this is how science works.
Note: I cannot conclude without acknowledging the fundamental role of Spencer Weart "The Discovery of Global Warming" from which I borrowed (and learned) a lot. His book and the supporting website are a treasure cove for anyone interested in how our current knowledge has been built step by step over time.
Curry presents ZERO evidence to support her charge that the consensus is manufactured at the request of policymakers. The consensus has been studied and measured by a wide range of polls, surveys and reviews of the literature conducted by a wide range of individuals and institutions. Curry's charge fails
The obvious flaw here is that she IS looking only at the United States. The continental US makes up less than TWO PERCENT of the Earth's surface. It should surprise no one that its climate history or the climate history of any similar area on the planet should deviate from the planetary history. The continental US does not contain massive oceans, continent-spanning deserts, polar ice caps or a dozen other features that affect the PLANET'S climate.
The more renewable power systems put in place, the less combustion of fossil fuels will be required.
I find NO such discussion in the study.
Big fucking whoop.
She rejects the claim that it is warming but says it wouldn't matter if it were? If that doesn't shout "LIAR" to you, then you missed the process of learning.
Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 71,131
- 18,235
- 2,190
Thank you finally an actual quote!!!!Interesting that the study's conclusion ----
It doesn't support your observation that the article is biased!Loading…
www.sciencedirect.com
5. Conclusions
The presented material shows that despite the fact that the majority of publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due to the anthropogenic increase in CO2 and its impact on Earth's climate,
the shown facts raise serious doubts about this influence.
Explain that "conclusion" as the study you referred to says serious doubts regarding CO2 increases are catastrophic! Do you understand!!!
Plus again... explain how the earth survived an average temperature "a global mean surface temperature ranging between 24°C (75°F) and sometimes reaching as high as 36°C (97°F), compared to the current average of around 14°C (57°F)."
Earth's Global Temperature Has Changed Drastically in the Last 500 Million Years, Largely Due to Carbon Dioxide Levels
A new study offers the most detailed glimpse yet into how Earth's surface temperature has changed over the past 485 million years.
Look at the title of your OP:
CO2 has ZERO impact on Climate
Thats a definitive statementLook at the language of the article you used as reference:
NEW PEER REVIEWED STUDY: CO2 HAS ZERO IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Another definitive statementNow lets look at the actual conclusion of the study:
5. Conclusions
The presented material shows that despite the fact that the majority of publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due to the anthropogenic increase in CO2 and its impact on Earth's climate, the shown facts raise serious doubts about this influence. Without delving into the accuracy of the utilized models, we should closely examine the possibilities of gathering reliable input data for these models. These data are directly related to the distribution of temperature on Earth's surface and in the atmosphere, the distribution of water vaporconcentration in the atmosphere, the distribution of wind speed and direction, and the distribution of aerosols and particles in the atmosphere (clouds, aerosols above fluctuating oceans). It is obvious that simultaneous measurements of these variables across the entire globe are not feasible, and averaging them in situations where strong nonlinear dependencies exist can lead to significant errors. Moreover, the atmosphere exhibits high dynamics, which further complicates such measurements. Therefore, it is not surprising that the results in various significant works such as Schildknecht (2020) and Harde (2013), differ greatly from those presented by the IPCC, which is widely regarded as the sole reliable authority. This unequivocally suggests that the officially presented impact of anthropogenic CO2increase on Earth's climate is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated fact. Resolving these dilemmas requires further experimental work to verify the results of theoretical studies at every possible stage. To answer the question of whether the additionally emitted CO2 in the atmosphere is indeed a greenhouse gas, it would be necessary, among other things, to conduct additional research for a radiation source with a temperature similar to Earth's surface temperature and measure the absorption of thermal radiation in a mixture of CO2 and air at different temperatures and pressures, as is the case in Earth's atmosphere at various altitudes. It would also be beneficial to conduct field studies using an appropriate balloon, as suggested in (Kubicki et al., 2020b). By measuring the absorption of Earth's thermal radiation in atmospheric CO2 under atmospheric pressure in a cuvette placed in the basket of a balloon in the upper layers of the troposphere, we could obtain results that would decisively settle many controversial issues. For example, if it turned out, just like in the case of thermal radiation from the Moon, that there is no noticeable absorption of Earth's thermal radiation in CO2, it would mean that the spectrum of radiation emitted into space, as presented in the illustrative Fig. 1, exhibits a "funnel" created as a result of absorption in gases and water vapor in the atmosphere. It should be noted that CO2 absorption lines at different altitudes are narrower than CO2 absorption lines under atmospheric pressure, and thus, it could be authoritatively stated that we are dealing with atmospheric saturation, and the additional CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, regardless of its altitude, will not be a greenhouse gas.-----
The study is certainly not saying anything definitive. It is suggesting that currently projections are merely hypothesis' that use methods that the authors question. The conclusion is that more study and testing is needed. You are presenting it like the study proved that CO2 has not warming effect... That is utterly false. It is not what the study concludes. You are a dishonest person
healthmyths
Platinum Member
- Sep 19, 2011
- 29,976
- 11,432
- 900
- Thread starter
- #137
So explain to me how come with the global temperature 500 million years being nearly 170% ( 97° F) higher and CO2 PPM of 4,000 ,how did the earth survive till today with the concern by the "climate change" (note it use to be "global warming!) of earth's calamity due to a temperature increasing 1.5 ° C and CO2 PPM of 421?
Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 71,131
- 18,235
- 2,190
Earth had a completely different climate 500 million years ago.
Earth survived periods of high CO₂ and high temperatures 500 million years ago, but the conditions were very different, and life was adapted to those extreme environments. Most life back then was marine organisms and the land environment was swampy. There were no polar ice caps so life was adapted to warmer temps and high rates of CO2. The Earth and its climate system evolved over millions of years, while ecosystems gradually adjusted.
Today’s climate change is happening on a much faster timescale, primarily due to human activities, leaving little time for ecosystems, species, and human infrastructure to adapt.
While the Earth itself will "survive," the concern is about the impact on modern human civilization, which is finely tuned to a much more stable climate. Rapid warming of just 1.5°C to 2°C is expected to bring significant challenges to food production, sea levels, and global weather patterns—potentially leading to widespread disruption.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
But it's not.
"...the Eemian was punctuated by many short-lived cold events, as shown by variations in electrical conductivity (a proxy for windblown dust, with more dust indicating colder, more arid conditions) and stable oxygen isotopes (a proxy for air temperature) of the ice were used by these workers infer the climatic conditions during the Eemian. The cold events seemed to last a few thousand years, and the magnitude of cooling was similar to the difference between glacial and interglacial conditions; a very dramatic contrast in climate. Furthermore, the shifts between these warm and cold periods seemed to be extremely rapid, possibly occurring over a few decades or less...."
Sudden climate changes in the recent geological record
And then there were the D-O events of the last glacial period which also had 5C swings over several decades.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Dems bring out heavy hitters....failure K. Harris to deliver speech
- Started by struth
- Replies: 6
-
Zone1 Well this gal certainly has a pair of big brass ones- Started by JGalt
- Replies: 5
-
Zone1 the 100-kilometer from above view of the world wars in 2025.- Started by peacefan
- Replies: 0
-
Measles now up to 900 cases in 10 states. Why hasnt trump stopped it ?- Started by Tommy Tainant
- Replies: 22
