Co2 levels and temperature

[Captain Caveman]

During the age of the dinosaurs, co2 was some 5 times greater than today, and temperature some 4 to 5 degrees Celsius higher too. So why the struggle and panic today?

So some scientists claim, "It's the rate of increase". Instead of taking a million years to get to dinosaur level, why can't we do it in 500,000 years?

 

[Muhammed]

During the age of the dinosaurs, co2 was some 5 times greater than today, and temperature some 4 to 5 degrees Celsius higher too. So why the struggle and panic today?

So some scientists claim, "It's the rate of increase". Instead of taking a million years to get to dinosaur level, why can't we do it in 500,000 years?

Al Gore's stupid claim that carbon dioxide levels are analogous to the control knob on the Earth's thermostat is simply a lie.

Anyone with a triple digit IQ knows that.

Only low IQ stupid fucks believe Al Gore's stupid bullshit.

 

[abu afak]

During the age of the dinosaurs, co2 was some 5 times greater than today, and temperature some 4 to 5 degrees Celsius higher too. So why the struggle and panic today?

So some scientists claim, "It's the rate of increase". Instead of taking a million years to get to dinosaur level, why can't we do it in 500,000 years?

And No Ice poles/Ice.
Which means sea level would be 240 feet higher if that was the Temp now.
Means NYC, DC, San Fran, London, Florida and most of the East/Gulf Coasts, Shanghai, Beijing, Rio, etc, would all be under water YOU FIKKKING IDIOT.
Whole coasts and much inland would be gone.
Half The planet would be uprooted and little place to go... or farm.
`

`

 

[Muhammed]

And No Ice poles/Ice.
Which means sea level would be 240 feet higher if that was the Temp now.
Means NYC, DC, San Fran, London, Florida and most of the East/Gulf Coasts, Shanghai, Beijing, Rio, etc, would all be under water YOU FIKKKING IDIOT.
Whole coasts and much inland would be gone.
Half The planet would be uprooted and little place to go... or farm.
`

View attachment 855284


`

You're talking about weirdo science fiction crap, not reality.

There is a difference between science and science fiction.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Changes in temperature precede changes in CO2 by about 500 years. If anything, temperature is a control knob for CO2. One of the reasons for this is that as oceans warm they release CO2 and when they cool they absorb CO2.

 

[Crick]

Changes in temperature precede changes in CO2 by about 500 years. If anything, temperature is a control knob for CO2. One of the reasons for this is that as oceans warm they release CO2 and when they cool they absorb CO2.

CO2 both lags and leads temperature changes. The solubility of gases, including CO2, is inversely dependent on temperature. So when temperatures go up, CO2 comes out of solution from the world's oceans. And, as we know, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect and warms the planet. This is involved in the Earth's glacial and ice age cycles. Milankovitch mechanics cause a small amount of heating or cooling which is then reinforced by CO2 going in to or coming out of solution. See Jeremy Shakun's study on Holocene temperatures where he studied that effect specifically.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

The solubility of gases, including CO2, is inversely dependent on temperature. So when temperatures go up, CO2 comes out of solution from the world's oceans.

Glad that you admit that I'm right.

 

[Crick]

Glad that you admit that I'm right.

Here is the Shakun paper I mentioned

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/climate/files/shakunetal2012.pdf

"The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age."

 

[abu afak]

Changes in temperature precede changes in CO2 by about 500 years. If anything, temperature is a control knob for CO2. One of the reasons for this is that as oceans warm they release CO2 and when they cool they absorb CO2.

Increased Solar forcing from the earth's tilt, etc, has almost always lead.
That has been the case but it does not preclude GHGs doing it.
They have traditionally not only lagged, but exacerbated warming.

One of the reasons Scientists know that this IS the case is they have directly measured the solar heating/radiation-in the earth is receiving...
and that energy has NOT Changed.
What has changed is radiation back out into space is being Blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs. (CO2, CH4, Water vapor, etc).
The GHG Blanket thickens every year, especially in the last 50.

I've only been through this for 10 years and 100 posters.
(many of whom Now know the truth but post their MAGAt politics anyway)
Welcome rookie.
`

 

[ding]

The generally accepted relationship of radiative forcing of CO2 and atmospheric temperature - otherwise known as the associated temperature of CO2 - is that every time the atmospheric concentration of CO2 doubles, the temperature will increase by 1C.

So if we use 300 ppm as the starting concentration of the pre-industrial revolution, then the atmospheric temperature should be 1C warmer at 600 ppm. Which is about where the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is projected to be at the end of the 21st century or the year 2100 at the current rate of CO2 emission which is increasing at the rate of 1 billion tons of CO2 per year.

Therefore estimates of a 5C increase in atmospheric temperature by the year 2100 are greatly exaggerated and not supported by the generally accepted relationship of radiative forcing of CO2 and temperature.

 

[Crick]

The generally accepted relationship of radiative forcing of CO2 and atmospheric temperature - otherwise known as the associated temperature of CO2 - is that every time the atmospheric concentration of CO2 doubles, the temperature will increase by 1C.

So if we use 300 ppm as the starting concentration of the pre-industrial revolution, then the atmospheric temperature should be 1C warmer at 600 ppm. Which is about where the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is projected to be at the end of the 21st century or the year 2100 at the current rate of CO2 emission which is increasing at the rate of 1 billion tons of CO2 per year.

Therefore estimates of a 5C increase in atmospheric temperature by the year 2100 are greatly exaggerated and not supported by the generally accepted relationship of radiative forcing of CO2 and temperature.

You are wrong to ignore positive feedback mechanisms and you know it. ECS is ~3C. Pre-industrial CO2 was 280 ppm. In 2022, humans released 36.8 billion tons of CO2 and, as you noted is increasing by an additional 1 billions tons per year per year. 5C warming by 2100 appears only in the worst of the worst case scenarios. It is not "an exaggeration".


You [deniers] so grossly oversimplify the information provided by the IPCC that it almost sickens me. Pearls before swine.



Explanation of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), Transient Climate Response (TCR) and Transient Climate Response to CO2 Emissions (TCRE)
ECS measures the long-term global mean warming in response to doubling CO2 concentrations from pre-industrial levels, while TCR also takes into account the inertia of the climate system and is an indicator for the near- and medium-term warming. TCRE is similar to TCR, but asks the question of what is the implied warming in response to cumulative CO2 emissions (rather than CO2 concentration changes). The higher the ECS, TCR or TCRE, the lower are the GHG emissions that are consistent with the PA’s long-term temperature goals.

 

[ding]

You are wrong to ignore positive feedback mechanisms and you know it. ECS is ~3C. Pre-industrial CO2 was 280 ppm. In 2022, humans released 36.8 billion tons of CO2 and, as you noted is increasing by an additional 1 billions tons per year per year. 5C warming by 2100 appears only in the worst of the worst case scenarios. It is not "an exaggeration".


You [deniers] so grossly oversimplify the information provided by the IPCC that it almost sickens me. Pearls before swine.



Explanation of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), Transient Climate Response (TCR) and Transient Climate Response to CO2 Emissions (TCRE)
ECS measures the long-term global mean warming in response to doubling CO2 concentrations from pre-industrial levels, while TCR also takes into account the inertia of the climate system and is an indicator for the near- and medium-term warming. TCRE is similar to TCR, but asks the question of what is the implied warming in response to cumulative CO2 emissions (rather than CO2 concentration changes). The higher the ECS, TCR or TCRE, the lower are the GHG emissions that are consistent with the PA’s long-term temperature goals.

View attachment 855529

View attachment 855531

View attachment 855532


View attachment 855533

The doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 300 ppm to 600 ppm will produce 1C of atmospheric warming. This is not a controversial statement. That's the science.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Increased Solar forcing from the earth's tilt, etc, has almost always lead.
That has been the case but it does not preclude GHGs doing it.
They have traditionally not only lagged, but exacerbated warming.

One of the reasons Scientists know that this IS the case is they have directly measured the solar heating/radiation-in the earth is receiving...
and that energy has NOT Changed.
What has changed is radiation back out into space is being Blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs. (CO2, CH4, Water vapor, etc).
The GHG Blanket thickens every year, especially in the last 50.

I've only been through this for 10 years and 100 posters.
(many of whom Now know the truth but post their MAGAt politics anyway)
Welcome rookie.
`

I was debating the topic back when you were still sucking on your mama's tits.

 

[Crick]

I was debating the topic back when you were still sucking on your mama's tits.

And what sort of things were you saying?

 

[abu afak]

I was debating the topic back when you were still sucking on your mama's tits.

Then how come you can't rebut me but just try and pull rank?
And Even that attempt has failed.
I have posted since app Y2K on this and other subjects. A member of this board since 2006.
Show us your stuff! Mine is on the last dozen pages of this Section - esp OPs - on virtually every pillar issue. Have at it!

I also have debated it on some High IQ boards, but the debate is pretty much over on those.
`

 

[ReinyDays]

The doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 300 ppm to 600 ppm will produce 1C of atmospheric warming. This is not a controversial statement. That's the science.

You're using math ... liberals don't like that ...

 

[ding]

You're using math ... liberals don't like that ...

But it's simple math.

 

[Crick]

You're using math ... liberals don't like that ...

If doubling CO2 produces 1C of warming, how did the 50% increase since 1850 cause 1.2 C of warming without even reaching equilibrium? Making unevidenced claims that includes numbers is not "using math".

 

[ReinyDays]

If doubling CO2 produces 1C of warming, how did the 50% increase since 1850 cause 1.2 C of warming without even reaching equilibrium? Making unevidenced claims that includes numbers is not "using math".

NOAA is reporting 0.8ºC over the 20th Century average as of 2022 ... it helps if you can read ...stupid lying bloodhole ... go get pregnant, that's all you're good for ...

But I'll bite ... what is the equilibrium temperature for 425 ppm carbon dioxide? ... and show your math ...

 

[Moonglow]

During the age of the dinosaurs, co2 was some 5 times greater than today, and temperature some 4 to 5 degrees Celsius higher too. So why the struggle and panic today?

So some scientists claim, "It's the rate of increase". Instead of taking a million years to get to dinosaur level, why can't we do it in 500,000 years?

You are not a cold-blooded creature.