Co2 levels we're heading for our millions of years non-seen

[ScienceRocks]

http://www.geo.cornell.edu/eas/energy/_Media/ice_core_co2.png

For most of the past 800,000 years the co2 within our atmosphere was 180-280ppm. Only one period around 315,000 years ago did we make it to 300ppm.

It has been 3 MILLION years since we had a year with 400ppm.

Ice-Free Arctic in Pliocene, Last Time CO2 Levels above 400 PPM: Scientific American

The last time we were over 550 ppm that we will likely see by 2100...Around 10-15 million years ago.

 

[Abraham3]

Matthew, get over it. It's NATURAL. These spikes have happened hundreds of times. They're just so quick they don't show in that crappy data. Besides, all the world's scientists have been ordered to lie to us by the Illuminati rulers of the Masons. We'll be fine. Our crops will go wild and will consume all the excess CO2. It will get sequestered in our corn and soybeans and cattle feed then we will re-sequester it in our septic tanks and leech fields and municipal water treatment plants where it will be trapped for billions of years. You just wait. We'll be so embarrassed that we ever made such a stink about this.

;-(

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"they still believe in the hockey stick! Man, if I could sell this shit, I'd be rich...oh wait"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

http://www.geo.cornell.edu/eas/energy/_Media/ice_core_co2.png

For most of the past 800,000 years the co2 within our atmosphere was 180-280ppm. Only one period around 315,000 years ago did we make it to 300ppm.

It has been 3 MILLION years since we had a year with 400ppm.

Ice-Free Arctic in Pliocene, Last Time CO2 Levels above 400 PPM: Scientific American

The last time we were over 550 ppm that we will likely see by 2100...Around 10-15 million years ago.

^ CO2 Lags Temperature variations

 

[Abraham3]

You've always got your memes, don't you.

First, lagging and leading have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Second, at no time since the KT Boundary Event, did an independent source of CO2 equivalent to contemporary, human GHG emissions exist. So the point that temperature can raise CO2 has no direct relevance to today's issue. Over the last 150 years, CO2 has most definitely LED temperature.

Third, Jeremy Shakun's work of the early Holocene has clearly shown that in every historical case in which rising temperatures pulled up CO2 levels, Greenhouse warming from that CO2 eventually took over as the dominant forcing factor. That is, even where temperature initially led, CO2 took it over.

 

[flacaltenn]

1 what was the climate like throughout all those graph years?

2 what do you suppose all those cyclical occurrences are on those charts?

3 what happens to CO2 levels when half of the world is frozen over and lots of land and sea is covered in ice or glacial ice a mile or so deep?

4 is this really all NEWS to anybody?

 

[mamooth]

Make your own point, instead of asking us to do it.

Our point is "CO2 has to lag temp" is an idiot fallacy, given that the present is not required to behave like the past when conditions are different.

 

[Politico]

C02. It's happens.

 

[Abraham3]

I'll take you up on that.

1 what was the climate like throughout all those graph years?

2 what do you suppose all those cyclical occurrences are on those charts?

3 what happens to CO2 levels when half of the world is frozen over and lots of land and sea is covered in ice or glacial ice a mile or so deep?

4 is this really all NEWS to anybody?

1) Warmer when CO2 was higher. Cooler when it was lower. Did you expect us to say something different? CO2 raises temperatures. Increased temperatures raises CO2.

2) Orbital cycles. What's your point? Do you believe the last 150 years warming is due to an orbital cycle?

3) It virtually ceases to be biologically transpired or sequestered. It's solubility in water and ice goes up with decreasing temperatures, though the exchange rates with ice make that one almost trivial. No significant process of which I'm aware would be adding it to the atmosphere.

4) To all the people who've been claiming this is just another "natural cycle", yes.

Now, your turn. What point do you wish to make concerning the unprecedented level of CO2 in our contemporary atmosphere?

 

[Moonglow]

Does this mean that it will be okay for the dinosaurs to come back?

 

[Abraham3]

No.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'll take you up on that.

1 what was the climate like throughout all those graph years?

2 what do you suppose all those cyclical occurrences are on those charts?

3 what happens to CO2 levels when half of the world is frozen over and lots of land and sea is covered in ice or glacial ice a mile or so deep?

4 is this really all NEWS to anybody?

1) Warmer when CO2 was higher. Cooler when it was lower. Did you expect us to say something different? CO2 raises temperatures. Increased temperatures raises CO2.

2) Orbital cycles. What's your point? Do you believe the last 150 years warming is due to an orbital cycle?

3) It virtually ceases to be biologically transpired or sequestered. It's solubility in water and ice goes up with decreasing temperatures, though the exchange rates with ice make that one almost trivial. No significant process of which I'm aware would be adding it to the atmosphere.

4) To all the people who've been claiming this is just another "natural cycle", yes.

Now, your turn. What point do you wish to make concerning the unprecedented level of CO2 in our contemporary atmosphere?

No. I wnat to stay on topic. And that would be to observe it makes no sense to compare our current climate to what happened with CO2 during a series of repeating ice ages.. Thus the OP is bunk. Mammy the cat pussied out. Which was the smarter move. Because one can tell that you cant even explain this period of climate history to YOURSELF -- never mind explain it to others.. Especially when you insinuate that these WERE NOT natural cycles...

 

[flacaltenn]

So how much of a CO2 doubling do you see between glacial min and max temps do you see in those charts? From physics ----- what percentage of the temperature change could even be attributed to Co2 ALONE ---- If it was driving those cycles ---- which it wasnt.. Wasnt EVEN a doubling there --- was there?

 

[Abraham3]

I'll take you up on that.

1 what was the climate like throughout all those graph years?

2 what do you suppose all those cyclical occurrences are on those charts?

3 what happens to CO2 levels when half of the world is frozen over and lots of land and sea is covered in ice or glacial ice a mile or so deep?

4 is this really all NEWS to anybody?

1) Warmer when CO2 was higher. Cooler when it was lower. Did you expect us to say something different? CO2 raises temperatures. Increased temperatures raises CO2.

2) Orbital cycles. What's your point? Do you believe the last 150 years warming is due to an orbital cycle?

3) It virtually ceases to be biologically transpired or sequestered. It's solubility in water and ice goes up with decreasing temperatures, though the exchange rates with ice make that one almost trivial. No significant process of which I'm aware would be adding it to the atmosphere.

4) To all the people who've been claiming this is just another "natural cycle", yes.

Now, your turn. What point do you wish to make concerning the unprecedented level of CO2 in our contemporary atmosphere?

No. I wnat to stay on topic. And that would be to observe it makes no sense to compare our current climate to what happened with CO2 during a series of repeating ice ages.. Thus the OP is bunk. Mammy the cat pussied out. Which was the smarter move. Because one can tell that you cant even explain this period of climate history to YOURSELF -- never mind explain it to others.. Especially when you insinuate that these WERE NOT natural cycles...

No, you want to stay on topic. The topic is "Co2 levels we're heading for our millions of years non-seen". Making a point "concerning the unprecedented level of CO2 in our contemporary atmosphere" WOULD have been staying on topic.

The statement of the OP is undeniably true. And given deniers' penchant for trying to suggest that this has all happened before and that what we're experiencing is only "natural", it is most assuredly not bunk to point out that CO2 hasn't attained current levels in millions of years.

I made no attempt to explain ANY period of climate history. I did reiterate what Shakun found when he studied the early Holocene. If you have some disagreement with Shakun or with my explanation of his results, let's see some details.

And I did not insinuate that those were unnatural cycles. I implied that anyone suggesting current CO2 levels are a result of any natural cycle needs their head examined. Versteht?

 

[Abraham3]

So how much of a CO2 doubling do you see between glacial min and max temps do you see in those charts? From physics ----- what percentage of the temperature change could even be attributed to Co2 ALONE ---- If it was driving those cycles ---- which it wasnt.. Wasnt EVEN a doubling there --- was there?

"Wasn't EVEN a doubling there" ? ? ? Bit of a red herring, isn't it. It hasn't yet doubled since the beginning of the Industrial Era in this, the biggest rise in millions of years.

 

[Kosh]

And as always the real science tells that that CO2 does NOT drive climate, never has.

 

[Abraham3]

You've repeated that line a half dozen times, yet despite repeated calls for it, you have yet to present one single SHRED of evidence to support your contention.

Care to start or do you plan to continue looking this foolish?

 

[Kosh]

You've repeated that line a half dozen times, yet despite repeated calls for it, you have yet to present one single SHRED of evidence to support your contention.

Care to start or do you plan to continue looking this foolish?

Actually I have with Ice core samples and other science things that obviously you despise due to your AGW cult.

I have asked the AGW cultists to provide datasets with source code to prove their assertion that CO2 does drive climate and yet not one of you has provided any.

The burden of proof is on you to prove your religion.

Show proof via datasets and source code that CO2 drives climate.

I am sure with all these AGW "science" papers there is at least one that contains the necessary information I ask for. Until you do this is nothing more than propaganda based on a religion that is not anywhere close to science.

I suspect I will see a lot of AGW propaganda vs any real science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Best just to regard ol' Kosh in the same manner as Frankie Boy. Just idiot background noise, nonsense, signifying nothing.

 

[Abraham3]

You've repeated that line a half dozen times, yet despite repeated calls for it, you have yet to present one single SHRED of evidence to support your contention.

Care to start or do you plan to continue looking this foolish?

Actually I have with Ice core samples and other science things that obviously you despise due to your AGW cult.

I have asked the AGW cultists to provide datasets with source code to prove their assertion that CO2 does drive climate and yet not one of you has provided any.

The burden of proof is on you to prove your religion.

Show proof via datasets and source code that CO2 drives climate.

I am sure with all these AGW "science" papers there is at least one that contains the necessary information I ask for. Until you do this is nothing more than propaganda based on a religion that is not anywhere close to science.

I suspect I will see a lot of AGW propaganda vs any real science.

God are you stupid.

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change