Historically, no Antarctic ice shelf when CO2 is above 400 ppm

[Crick]

not at all, you're just lying.

No, but you are really, really stupid.

 

[Crick]

C02 follows temperature. Temperature doesn't cause changes in C02. For 4 billion years C02 hasn't been tracking temperature.

I hope you eventually notice that while your first two sentences contradict each other your third is simply incorrect. Most of the historical record shows CO2 lagging behind temperature. This is due to the inverse relationship between CO2's solubility and temperature. Unlike the sugar in our tea, gases dissolve more readily in colder liquids. When the world heats up, some of the CO2 in the world's oceans comes out of solution and enters the atmosphere. When temperatures get colder, more CO2 goes into solution. This is true of all gases, not just CO2.
Now then, a completely separate process takes place with CO2 in our atmosphere. As I hope we all know by now, CO2 absorbs infrared (IR) energy in a few bands that other gases (predominantly water vapor) do not. The CO2 will reradiate this energy in the same frequency bands. The land and water surface of the ocean, warmed by visible light, reradiate that energy in the IR bands. In a world with no greenhouse gases (GHGs), that radiation would shoot immediately out to space and be gone. On our world, GHGs absorb that energy within a few meters of the surface and then reradiate it to be absorbed by another GHG molecule, the surface or, eventually, escaping to space. The far more convoluted route produced by the presence of GHGs gives enormously more opportunity for the energy of the IR to be either reabsorbed by the surface or conducted to non-GHG components of the atmosphere. It acts like a blanket, slowing radiative emissions and warming the planet. In this process, CO2 changes come first followed by temperature changes afterward. Close studies of the Holocene by Jeremy Shakun have shown the existence of multiple periods in Earth's history where warming from increased CO2 took place in response to large volcanic release events and found that CO2 has even risen in a secondary response to Milankovitch cycle orbital forcing. That is, a change in our orbital radius leads to going into or out of an ice age. That changes the ocean's gas solubility and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere changes. That altered level then changes the strength of the greenhouse effect in excess of the Milankovitch changes.
So, the historical record actually shows that CO2 both lags and leads temperature changes, though lagging predominates.

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I hope you eventually noticed that your first two sentences contradict each other. Your third sentence is also incorrect. Most of the historical record shows CO2 lagging behind temperature. This is due to the inverse relationship between CO2's solubility and temperature. Unlike the sugar in our tea, gases dissolve more readily in colder liquids. When the world heats up, some of the CO2 in the world's oceans comes out of solution and enters the atmosphere. When temperatures get colder, more CO2 goes into solution. This is true of all gases, not just CO2.
Now then, a completely separate process takes place with CO2 in our atmosphere. As I hope we all know by now, CO2 absorbs infrared (IR) energy in a few bands that other gases (predominantly water vapor) do not. The CO2 will reradiate this energy in the same frequency bands. The land and water surface of the ocean, warmed by visible light, reradiate that energy in the IR bands. In a world with no greenhouse gases (GHGs), that radiation would shoot immediately out to space and be gone. On our world, GHGs absorb that energy within a few meters of the surface and then reradiate it to be absorbed by another GHG molecule, the surface or, eventually, escaping to space. The far more convoluted route produced by the presence of GHGs gives enormously more opportunity for the energy of the IR to be either reabsorbed by the surface or conducted to non-GHG components of the atmosphere. It acts like a blanket, slowing radiative emissions and warming the planet. In this process, CO2 changes come first followed by temperature changes afterward. Close studies of the Holocene by Jeremy Shakun have shown the existence of multiple periods in Earth's history where warming from increased CO2 took place in response to large volcanic release events and found that CO2 has even risen in a secondary response to Milankovitch cycle orbital forcing. That is, a change in our orbital radius leads to going into or out of an ice age. That changes the ocean's gas solubility and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere changes. That altered level then changes the strength of the greenhouse effect in excess of the Milankovitch changes.
So, the historical record actually shows that CO2 both lags and leads temperature changes, though lagging predominates.

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

So the Vostok ice cores show CO2 lagging temperaure by 1000 years, because CO2 drove the temperatures?

 

[Crick]

Feel free to STOP replying to my posts ... I really don't want to hear your stupidity ... filthy filthy liar ...

I hope you'll eventually become aware that your reactions here are... excessive.

 

[ding]

So the Vostok ice cores show CO2 lagging temperaure by 1000 years, because CO2 drove the temperatures?

Ask him what mechanism made CO2 increase or decrease before the industrial revolution.

 

[Crick]

Ask him what mechanism made CO2 increase or decrease before the industrial revolution.

Temperature changes from orbital forcing and volcanism

 

[ding]

Temperature changes from orbital forcing and volcanism

That's hilarious. Show me that correlation. Here's the temperature record.

 

[ding]

Temperature changes from orbital forcing and volcanism

Let me see if I got this straight. You believe that orbital forcing and volcanism affected CO2 and CO2 drove the temperature?

Or are you saying that orbital forcing drove temperatures which in turn drove CO2 due to solubility of CO2 in water versus temperature?

Or are you saying that volcanism drove CO2 which drove temperatures?

Which lie do you want to stick with? Because I'm then going to destroy that lie.

 

[ding]

Temperature changes from orbital forcing and volcanism

So Temperature changes from orbital forcing and volcanism is responsible for the planet cooling for 50 million years? Not the usual suspects of albedo, solar radiation, evaporation cooling, cloud formation and precipitation?

Can you walk me through that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ask him what mechanism made CO2 increase or decrease before the industrial revolution.

Modern, American CO2 is different - it just is!

Chinese CO2 is on a per capita basis so it's not tipping over Guam

Science!

 

[Crick]

Let me see if I got this straight. You believe that orbital forcing and volcanism affected CO2 and CO2 drove the temperature?

Or are you saying that orbital forcing drove temperatures which in turn drove CO2 due to solubility of CO2 in water versus temperature?

Or are you saying that volcanism drove CO2 which drove temperatures?

Which lie do you want to stick with? Because I'm then going to destroy that lie.

Orbital forcing increased temperatures which increased atmospheric CO2 via ocean solubility.
Volcanoes release CO2 directly.

 

[ding]

Orbital forcing increased temperatures which increased atmospheric CO2 via ocean solubility.

Ergo temperature leads CO2 which is what I have been saying all along.

 

[ding]

Volcanoes release CO2 directly.

Can you show me which eruptions did that? Because it seems silly to believe that has driven the climate for the past 50 million years. It seems much more likely that temperature drove CO2.

 

[Crick]

Can you show me which eruptions did that? Because it seems silly to believe that has driven the climate for the past 50 million years. It seems much more likely that temperature drove CO2.

I offered both as causes. Try to keep in mind that the world is more complicated than we'd all like.

 

[ding]

I offered both as causes. Try to keep in mind that the world is more complicated than we'd all like.

Walk me through the oxygen isotope curve showing where volcanism affected that curve. Because your other cause proves CO2 is a function of temperature; not that temperature is a function of CO2.

 

[Crick]

Walk me through the oxygen isotope curve showing where volcanism affected that curve. Because your other cause proves CO2 is a function of temperature; not that temperature is a function of CO2.

Volcanoes release CO2. See: https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/volcanoes-can-affect-climate
CO2 is affected by temperature. I have said so on dozens of occasions.
The irrefutable evidence that CO2 affects temperature is in its absorption spectrum, the observation of IR backscatter (of that spectrum) to the surface and the inverse proportionality of the rate of LWIR escaping to space vs GHG levels in the atmosphere.

The one point that most clearly demonstrates your science shortcomings is your rejection of the greenhouse effect. Doing so is intellectually equivalent to being a flat-earther.

 

[ding]

Volcanoes release CO2. See: https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/volcanoes-can-affect-climate
CO2 is affected by temperature. I have said so on dozens of occasions.
The irrefutable evidence that CO2 affects temperature is in its absorption spectrum, the observation of IR backscatter (of that spectrum) to the surface and the inverse proportionality of the rate of LWIR escaping to space vs GHG levels in the atmosphere.

The one point that most clearly demonstrates your science shortcomings is your rejection of the greenhouse effect. Doing so is intellectually equivalent to being a flat-earther.

I understand volcanoes emit CO2... among other gases. What I don't understand is why you would even mention volcanoes in a discussion on what drove CO2 responses throughout the geologic record. Their contributions were minuscule compared to temperature. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was driven by temperature. End of story.

You irrefutable evidence can't explain why the planet is 2C colder with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than the previous interglacial period. So, no, it's not irrefutable. The previous interglacial period refutes it.

 

[Crick]

I understand volcanoes emit CO2... among other gases. What I don't understand is why you would even mention volcanoes in a discussion on what drove CO2 responses throughout the geologic record. Their contributions were minuscule compared to temperature. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was driven by temperature. End of story.

Look up the Deccan Traps

You irrefutable evidence can't explain why the planet is 2C colder with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than the previous interglacial period. So, no, it's not irrefutable. The previous interglacial period refutes it.

It doesn't have to because I have NEVER claimed that CO2 was the only factor affecting the Earth's temperature. You're too stupid to abandon your failed argument.

 

[ding]

Look up the Deccan Traps

It doesn't have to because I have NEVER claimed that CO2 was the only factor affecting the Earth's temperature. You're too stupid to abandon your failed argument.

Look up D-O events.

Again with the dunning effect. Bravo.

 

[Crick]

Ask him what mechanism made CO2 increase or decrease before the industrial revolution.

Allow me to point out that THIS is your original question which I answered with "orbital forcing and volcanism"; not what controlled temperature.