CO2 level highest in 23 million years

[Flash]

Current CO2 level is 420 ppm and, just FYI, a graph with time on one axis labeled "before BP" means - officially - "before 1950". Global CO2 in 1950 was about 315 ppm.

There is no proof that CO2 in the levels we are seeing now have been causing any kind of climate change.

We have naturally occurring post glacial global warming but no proof of any significant climate change made by man made activities.

What we do have are environmental wackos bullshit. We have false data, stupid correlations and shit in shit out computer models.

 

[Crick]

We do NOT have "false data". We do NOT have "stupid correlations" and the GCM models have been quite accurate. We have repeatable empirical observations that CO2 absorbs IR energy radiated by the planet that no other gas in the atmosphere absorbs. Greenhouse warming is an established fact. What is lacking is any evidence of any other process that could be causing the observed warming or any reason why CO2 would NOT be absorbing the energy it has been seen to absorb. This points out a serious shortfall in the nation's basic science education.

 

[ding]

We do NOT have "false data". We do NOT have "stupid correlations" and the GCM models have been quite accurate. We have repeatable empirical observations that CO2 absorbs IR energy radiated by the planet that no other gas in the atmosphere absorbs. Greenhouse warming is an established fact. What is lacking is any evidence of any other process that could be causing the observed warming or any reason why CO2 would NOT be absorbing the energy it has been seen to absorb. This points out a serious shortfall in the nation's basic science education.

Actually there is false data. Excluding data because it leads to a different conclusion than the one they want is tantamount to false data.

Here is a summary of some recent findings.

Connolly

Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics

www.raa-journal.org

A diverse expert panel of global scientists finds blaming climate change mostly on greenhouse gas emissions was premature. Their findings contradict the UN IPCC’s conclusion, which the study shows, is grounded in narrow and incomplete data about the Sun’s total solar irradiance.

Most of the energy in the Earth’s atmosphere comes from the Sun. It has long been recognized that changes in the so-called “total solar irradiance” (TSI), i.e., the amount of energy emitted by the Sun, over the last few centuries, could have contributed substantially to recent climate change. However, this new study found that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only considered a small subset of the published TSI datasets when they were assessing the role of the Sun in climate change and that this subset only included “low solar variability” datasets. As a result, the IPCC was premature in ruling out a substantial role for the Sun in recent climate change.

A new scientific review article has just been published on the role of the Sun in climate change over the last 150 years. It finds that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may have been premature in their conclusion that recent climate change is mostly caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. The paper by 23 experts in the fields of solar physics and of climate science from 14 different countries is published in the peer-reviewed journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (RAA). The paper, which is the most comprehensive to date, carries out an analysis of the 16 most prominent published solar output datasets, including those used by the IPCC. The researchers
compared them to 26 different estimates of Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century (sorted into five categories), including the datasets used by the IPCC. They focused on the Northern Hemisphere since the available data for the early 20th century and earlier is much more limited for the Southern Hemisphere, but their results can be generalized for global temperatures.

The study found that scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, in the graphs above, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131/pdf

 

[Likkmee]

I remember ! 23 million years ago I was a flying toad. It was hot as hell because flying beavers cut all the trees down creating the great lakes

 

[CrusaderFrank]

50,000+ people that are not at home in California,. hundreds on the East Coast with uninhabitable homes. But a very stupid reply will do better than nothing, I suppose.

So one version of CO2 causes floods and the other causes forest fires?

You sound like an idiot

 

[westwall]

According to this study, it appears that the present CO2 level is the highest it has been since the Miocene.

Skip Nav Destination
RESEARCH ARTICLE| MAY 29, 2020

A 23 m.y. record of low atmospheric CO2​

Ying Cui;

Brian A. Schubert;

A. Hope Jahren

Geology (2020) 48 (9): 888–892.
A 23 m.y. record of low atmospheric CO2 | Geology | GeoScienceWorld
Article history

• Standard View
• PDF LinkPDF
• Cite
• Share Icon Share
• Tools Icon Tools

Abstract​

Current atmospheric CO2 concentration is known to be higher than it has been during the past ∼800 k.y. of Earth history, based on direct measurement of CO2 within ice cores. A comparison to the more ancient past is complicated by a deficit of CO2 proxies that may be applied across very long spans of geologic time. Here, we present a new CO2 record across the past 23 m.y. of Earth history based on the δ13C value of terrestrial C3 plant remains, using a method applicable to the entire ∼400 m.y. history of C3 photosynthesis on land. Across the past 23 m.y., CO2 likely ranged between ∼230 ppmv and 350 ppmv (68% confidence interval: ∼170–540 ppm). CO2 was found to be highest during the early and middle Miocene and likely below present-day levels during the middle Pliocene (84th percentile: ∼400 ppmv). These data suggest present-day CO2 (412 ppmv) exceeds the highest levels that Earth experienced at least since the Miocene, further highlighting the present-day disruption of long-established CO2 trends within Earth’s atmosphere.

A 23 m.y. record of low atmospheric CO2 | Geology | GeoScienceWorld

pubs.geoscienceworld.org

I see a big problem with their paper. The youngest limestone formation in the world is around 5 million years old.

We are nowhere NEAR the CO2 levels needed to make limestone now.

 

[westwall]

And we are seeing over a million acres of that luxurious plant life glowing at night in California. And dozens more fires in the Western States. Lots of luxurious plant life lying around on the East Coast right now. Wonderful, isn't it.

No, it sucks. I have had to help friends evacuate. But it is forest mismanagement to blame. We here in the smoke KNOW that be true.

You idiots prevent dead fall from being cleared away.

Time for you to be cleared away.

 

[westwall]

.001% of the atmosphere's CO2 comes from man, mother nature produces 99% of the CO2

Actually, mankind produces around 5% of global CO2.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Hey dolt, the same argument applies.

You have made a toddler argument, in essence, that if little Mikey does it, little Suzie can do it to.

That is your argument. Were you sucking on a pacifier when you wrote your argument?

I like pie

 

[rupol2000]

CO2 absorbs IR energy radiated by the planet

on both sides or one? Why shouldn't he absorb IR energy radiated by the space, sun, stars?

 

[skookerasbil]

Lets train wreck this thread in 30 seconds.

1) If the United States disappeared from earth for 100 years, temperatures would remain virtually unchanged.

2) China is building 2-3 coal plants/month and will continue at that pace for 9 more years until 2030.

Hows that for "science" ??!!

Thread is moot

 

[skookerasbil]

What happened to those cool brushfire videos?

C'mon now......we want to see more!

 

[Turtlesoup]

Again...
There's no causal relationship... only a correlation between the two events.

We have higher CO² levels because of higher temps is what the charts show...

So... looking elsewhere for a cause would be a good idea.

I just told you what the CAUSE was.....warmer temperatures melt permafrost and ICE which releases CARBON. The CARBON doesn't cause the warmer climate (it is almost exclusively the sun/earth orbit AND solar output...it is the RESULT of a warmer climate...so ergo...even when the earth hits its highest levels of carbon, it cools back off (if the morons claiming tiny tiny carbon was heating up the earth were correct, the EARTH would never cool down once the carbon was released by melted ice/permafrost, but it does each and every time.)

Carbon is a tiny tiny tiny tiny fucking greenhouse gas. It doesn't have the power to heat up the earth, WATER VAPOR a much bigger GREENHOUSE GAS may---but tiny Carbon doesn't. We know this from the historical data of the ICE CORES. This is why when you have any climatologists or any of the more numberous morons claiming that they are some sort scientist (they are usual some sort of social scientist (you know NOT real science) opens their damn mouths claiming that Carbon is heating the EARTH, I feel confident in calling them liars and morons---because they are either one or the other, or both.

 

[Stryder50]

I just told you what the CAUSE was.....warmer temperatures melt permafrost and ICE which releases CARBON. The CARBON doesn't cause the warmer climate (it is almost exclusively the sun/earth orbit AND solar output...it is the RESULT of a warmer climate...so ergo...even when the earth hits its highest levels of carbon, it cools back off (if the morons claiming tiny tiny carbon was heating up the earth were correct, the EARTH would never cool down once the carbon was released by melted ice/permafrost, but it does each and every time.)

Carbon is a tiny tiny tiny tiny fucking greenhouse gas. It doesn't have the power to heat up the earth, WATER VAPOR a much bigger GREENHOUSE GAS may---but tiny Carbon doesn't. We know this from the historical data of the ICE CORES. This is why when you have any climatologists or any of the more numberous morons claiming that they are some sort scientist (they are usual some sort of social scientist (you know NOT real science) opens their damn mouths claiming that Carbon is heating the EARTH, I feel confident in calling them liars and morons---because they are either one or the other, or both.

Then there's the basic math factor.
400 ppm (part per million) = 400/1,000,000
Reduces to 1/2,500.

No way slight heat(IR) retention of one can cause the other 2,499 to also heat up. We're talking basic physics and chemistry here, not thermo-nuclear energies.

The is either intentional dis-information, or blatant ignorance of both science and math on part of those whom advocate the case for human caused (anthropogenic) climate change/global warming.

 

[JohnDB]

I just told you what the CAUSE was.....warmer temperatures melt permafrost and ICE which releases CARBON. The CARBON doesn't cause the warmer climate (it is almost exclusively the sun/earth orbit AND solar output...it is the RESULT of a warmer climate...so ergo...even when the earth hits its highest levels of carbon, it cools back off (if the morons claiming tiny tiny carbon was heating up the earth were correct, the EARTH would never cool down once the carbon was released by melted ice/permafrost, but it does each and every time.)

Carbon is a tiny tiny tiny tiny fucking greenhouse gas. It doesn't have the power to heat up the earth, WATER VAPOR a much bigger GREENHOUSE GAS may---but tiny Carbon doesn't. We know this from the historical data of the ICE CORES. This is why when you have any climatologists or any of the more numberous morons claiming that they are some sort scientist (they are usual some sort of social scientist (you know NOT real science) opens their damn mouths claiming that Carbon is heating the EARTH, I feel confident in calling them liars and morons---because they are either one or the other, or both.

I understand that this is what you believe that the evidence is pointing to...and you possibly could be correct. It most certainly is a viable explanation.

But I also want definitive proof of what you are saying too.

There are experiments that can be accomplished to prove your theory to be the correct one. And tested against results of other telling experiments to prove it...

And that's what I am saying that has needed to have been done already...but for whatever reason they are choosing to not complete the experiments or even start on them. And that is what needs to be understood to break the stalemate.

 

[ding]

I understand that this is what you believe that the evidence is pointing to...and you possibly could be correct. It most certainly is a viable explanation.

But I also want definitive proof of what you are saying too.

There are experiments that can be accomplished to prove your theory to be the correct one. And tested against results of other telling experiments to prove it...

And that's what I am saying that has needed to have been done already...but for whatever reason they are choosing to not complete the experiments or even start on them. And that is what needs to be understood to break the stalemate.

It's natural forces.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider.

The panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports.

In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

 

[Quasar44]

Muhammed
Yes but too much spike in temperature- will only lead to a more watery world as sea levels rise and land goes away

 

[Quasar44]

The question is what the warming tend will be like in 20 years ????

 

[Quasar44]

JohnDB
Yes but in the past any warning was caused by things like super volcanos etc
To have this rapid of warning is alarming as it’s not caused by the sun or natural disaster

 

[Crick]

I understand that this is what you believe that the evidence is pointing to...and you possibly could be correct. It most certainly is a viable explanation.

But I also want definitive proof of what you are saying too.

There are experiments that can be accomplished to prove your theory to be the correct one. And tested against results of other telling experiments to prove it...

And that's what I am saying that has needed to have been done already...but for whatever reason they are choosing to not complete the experiments or even start on them. And that is what needs to be understood to break the stalemate.

You have one basic and fundamental misunderstanding of natural science. It involves NO PROOFS. Theories are supported by evidence, observations and successful predictions, not proofs.