ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
72,458
Reaction score
4,510
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
If we define "better off" as being more favorable for the benefit of human life, does science tell us that that the world is better off with 580 ppm of CO2 in the atmospheric or 300 ppm?

Most people believe the world we live in is normal but for most of the past 55 million years the world has been a greenhouse world. It's only been in the last 400,000 years or so that world has been an icehouse world. An icehouse world is characterized as having a high thermal gradient from the equator to the poles and has bipolar glaciation.

The transition from the greenhouse world to the icehouse world occurred somewhere between 3 to 5 million years ago. The conditions which led to the transition were isolated polar regions from the warm marine currents of the ocean and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm. About 400,000 years ago the earth began experiencing a series of glacial-interglacial cycles which were caused in part due to these background conditions but were triggered by orbital cycles.

Current climate models predict extensive glaciation occurs at the south pole when atmospheric CO2 concentrations are at ~600 ppm and occurs at the north pole when atmospheric CO2 concentrations are at ~250 ppm.

When the industrial revolution began atmospheric CO2 concentrations were ~300 ppm or only ~50 ppm above the threshold of extensive glaciation of the north pole. Today atmospheric CO2 is ~400 ppm or about the same level as when the first glacial cycle was triggered.

So the question is... based upon the available science at our disposal, is the world better off at 300 ppm or 580 ppm?
 
Last edited:

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,288
Reaction score
1,237
Points
245
Location
Virginia
If we define "better off" as being more favorable for the benefit of human life, does science tell us that that the world is better off with 580 ppm of CO2 in the atmospheric or 300 ppm?

Most people believe the world we live in is normal but for most of the past 55 million years the world has been a greenhouse world. It's only been in the last 400,000 years or so that world has been an icehouse world. An icehouse world is characterized as having a high thermal gradient from the equator to the poles and has bipolar glaciation.

The transition from the greenhouse world to the icehouse world occurred somewhere between 3 to 5 million years ago. The conditions which led to the transition were isolated polar regions from the warm marine currents of the ocean and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm. About 400,000 years ago the earth began experiencing a series of glacial-interglacial cycles which were caused in part due to these background conditions but were triggered by orbital cycles.

Current climate models predict extensive glaciation occurs at the south pole when atmospheric CO2 concentrations are ~600 ppm and occurs at the north pole when at ~250 ppm. Today atmospheric CO2 is ~400 ppm or about the same level as when the first glacial cycle was triggered.

When the industrial revolution began atmospheric CO2 concentrations were ~300 ppm or only ~50 ppm above the threshold of extensive glaciation of the north pole.

So the question is... based upon the available science at our disposal, is the world better off at 300 ppm or 580 ppm?
Life has adapted to the current climate. ANY change will mean winners and losers. I'm pretty sure the losers will outweigh the winners.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
72,458
Reaction score
4,510
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
If we define "better off" as being more favorable for the benefit of human life, does science tell us that that the world is better off with 580 ppm of CO2 in the atmospheric or 300 ppm?

Most people believe the world we live in is normal but for most of the past 55 million years the world has been a greenhouse world. It's only been in the last 400,000 years or so that world has been an icehouse world. An icehouse world is characterized as having a high thermal gradient from the equator to the poles and has bipolar glaciation.

The transition from the greenhouse world to the icehouse world occurred somewhere between 3 to 5 million years ago. The conditions which led to the transition were isolated polar regions from the warm marine currents of the ocean and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm. About 400,000 years ago the earth began experiencing a series of glacial-interglacial cycles which were caused in part due to these background conditions but were triggered by orbital cycles.

Current climate models predict extensive glaciation occurs at the south pole when atmospheric CO2 concentrations are ~600 ppm and occurs at the north pole when at ~250 ppm. Today atmospheric CO2 is ~400 ppm or about the same level as when the first glacial cycle was triggered.

When the industrial revolution began atmospheric CO2 concentrations were ~300 ppm or only ~50 ppm above the threshold of extensive glaciation of the north pole.

So the question is... based upon the available science at our disposal, is the world better off at 300 ppm or 580 ppm?
Life has adapted to the current climate. ANY change will mean winners and losers. I'm pretty sure the losers will outweigh the winners.
So 250 ppm is ok with you?
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,288
Reaction score
1,237
Points
245
Location
Virginia
If we define "better off" as being more favorable for the benefit of human life, does science tell us that that the world is better off with 580 ppm of CO2 in the atmospheric or 300 ppm?

Most people believe the world we live in is normal but for most of the past 55 million years the world has been a greenhouse world. It's only been in the last 400,000 years or so that world has been an icehouse world. An icehouse world is characterized as having a high thermal gradient from the equator to the poles and has bipolar glaciation.

The transition from the greenhouse world to the icehouse world occurred somewhere between 3 to 5 million years ago. The conditions which led to the transition were isolated polar regions from the warm marine currents of the ocean and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm. About 400,000 years ago the earth began experiencing a series of glacial-interglacial cycles which were caused in part due to these background conditions but were triggered by orbital cycles.

Current climate models predict extensive glaciation occurs at the south pole when atmospheric CO2 concentrations are ~600 ppm and occurs at the north pole when at ~250 ppm. Today atmospheric CO2 is ~400 ppm or about the same level as when the first glacial cycle was triggered.

When the industrial revolution began atmospheric CO2 concentrations were ~300 ppm or only ~50 ppm above the threshold of extensive glaciation of the north pole.

So the question is... based upon the available science at our disposal, is the world better off at 300 ppm or 580 ppm?
Life has adapted to the current climate. ANY change will mean winners and losers. I'm pretty sure the losers will outweigh the winners.
So 250 ppm is ok with you?
I think I was clear.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
4,517
Reaction score
851
Points
140
You're shallow.

416.39
parts per million (ppm)
Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii (NOAA)
Preliminary data released July 6, 2020
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
72,458
Reaction score
4,510
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
If we define "better off" as being more favorable for the benefit of human life, does science tell us that that the world is better off with 580 ppm of CO2 in the atmospheric or 300 ppm?

Most people believe the world we live in is normal but for most of the past 55 million years the world has been a greenhouse world. It's only been in the last 400,000 years or so that world has been an icehouse world. An icehouse world is characterized as having a high thermal gradient from the equator to the poles and has bipolar glaciation.

The transition from the greenhouse world to the icehouse world occurred somewhere between 3 to 5 million years ago. The conditions which led to the transition were isolated polar regions from the warm marine currents of the ocean and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm. About 400,000 years ago the earth began experiencing a series of glacial-interglacial cycles which were caused in part due to these background conditions but were triggered by orbital cycles.

Current climate models predict extensive glaciation occurs at the south pole when atmospheric CO2 concentrations are ~600 ppm and occurs at the north pole when at ~250 ppm. Today atmospheric CO2 is ~400 ppm or about the same level as when the first glacial cycle was triggered.

When the industrial revolution began atmospheric CO2 concentrations were ~300 ppm or only ~50 ppm above the threshold of extensive glaciation of the north pole.

So the question is... based upon the available science at our disposal, is the world better off at 300 ppm or 580 ppm?
Life has adapted to the current climate. ANY change will mean winners and losers. I'm pretty sure the losers will outweigh the winners.
So 250 ppm is ok with you?
I think I was clear.
And totally side stepping the question.

Not to mention being wrong because according to you the losers will always outweigh the winners under any change at all. That just isn't the case. There are ranges where impacts are insignificant.

It has never looked like this __________________________________________________________
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
3,547
Reaction score
1,103
Points
190
Location
State of Jefferson
Science can't answer this question ... how do we bring the atmosphere up to 580 ppm CO2 so we can observe what happens? ...

Your data is seriously flawed as well ... the current Ice Age began 30 million years ago ... we don't know why, not even a clue ... go back a billion years and the equatorial oceans were solid ice ... again, no one knows why ...

The truly baffling part is why liquid water existed on Earth's surface 4.5 billion years ago ... that's totally nuts ... the young Sun only produced 70% of the energy is does today ... temperatures should have been -100 to -50ºC ...

I think the best answer is that in order to get to 580 ppm, we'll have to electrify the entire world ... such that everybody has a refrigerator and stove ... starvation is only a memory ... wars would be ended ... hatred and envy lost to history ... a New Golden Age of the Human Condition ...

Burn tires, it helps ...
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
72,458
Reaction score
4,510
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Science can't answer this question ... how do we bring the atmosphere up to 580 ppm CO2 so we can observe what happens? ...

Your data is seriously flawed as well ... the current Ice Age began 30 million years ago ... we don't know why, not even a clue ... go back a billion years and the equatorial oceans were solid ice ... again, no one knows why ...

The truly baffling part is why liquid water existed on Earth's surface 4.5 billion years ago ... that's totally nuts ... the young Sun only produced 70% of the energy is does today ... temperatures should have been -100 to -50ºC ...

I think the best answer is that in order to get to 580 ppm, we'll have to electrify the entire world ... such that everybody has a refrigerator and stove ... starvation is only a memory ... wars would be ended ... hatred and envy lost to history ... a New Golden Age of the Human Condition ...

Burn tires, it helps ...
I'm not sure where you are getting your data from but it is seriously incorrect.

We will most likely be at 580 ppm by the end of this century so getting there shouldn't be a problem. We don't need to change a thing.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
3,547
Reaction score
1,103
Points
190
Location
State of Jefferson
I'm not sure where you are getting your data from but it is seriously incorrect.

"The Late Cenozoic Ice Age, or Antarctic Glaciation began 33.9 million years ago at the Eocene-Oligocene Boundary and is ongoing."

Learn what "Ice Age" means before you say I'm wrong ...

We will most likely be at 580 ppm by the end of this century so getting there shouldn't be a problem. We don't need to change a thing.
If you're already convinced of your answer ... why did you ask it here? ...
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
72,458
Reaction score
4,510
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
I'm not sure where you are getting your data from but it is seriously incorrect.

"The Late Cenozoic Ice Age, or Antarctic Glaciation began 33.9 million years ago at the Eocene-Oligocene Boundary and is ongoing."

Learn what "Ice Age" means before you say I'm wrong ...

We will most likely be at 580 ppm by the end of this century so getting there shouldn't be a problem. We don't need to change a thing.
If you're already convinced of your answer ... why did you ask it here? ...
Then maybe you should show where I used ice age in the OP, right?
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
3,547
Reaction score
1,103
Points
190
Location
State of Jefferson
Then maybe you should show where I used ice age in the OP, right?
Wrong ... that's your affair, not mine ... you're wrong, just admit it and we can move on ... or, is there anything to move onto? ...

You have your answer ... science cannot tell us ... science doesn't even define "better off" ... try the philosophy forum if you want philosophical answers ...
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,288
Reaction score
1,237
Points
245
Location
Virginia
If we define "better off" as being more favorable for the benefit of human life, does science tell us that that the world is better off with 580 ppm of CO2 in the atmospheric or 300 ppm?

Most people believe the world we live in is normal but for most of the past 55 million years the world has been a greenhouse world. It's only been in the last 400,000 years or so that world has been an icehouse world. An icehouse world is characterized as having a high thermal gradient from the equator to the poles and has bipolar glaciation.

The transition from the greenhouse world to the icehouse world occurred somewhere between 3 to 5 million years ago. The conditions which led to the transition were isolated polar regions from the warm marine currents of the ocean and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm. About 400,000 years ago the earth began experiencing a series of glacial-interglacial cycles which were caused in part due to these background conditions but were triggered by orbital cycles.

Current climate models predict extensive glaciation occurs at the south pole when atmospheric CO2 concentrations are ~600 ppm and occurs at the north pole when at ~250 ppm. Today atmospheric CO2 is ~400 ppm or about the same level as when the first glacial cycle was triggered.

When the industrial revolution began atmospheric CO2 concentrations were ~300 ppm or only ~50 ppm above the threshold of extensive glaciation of the north pole.

So the question is... based upon the available science at our disposal, is the world better off at 300 ppm or 580 ppm?
Life has adapted to the current climate. ANY change will mean winners and losers. I'm pretty sure the losers will outweigh the winners.
So 250 ppm is ok with you?
I think I was clear.
And totally side stepping the question.

Not to mention being wrong because according to you the losers will always outweigh the winners under any change at all. That just isn't the case. There are ranges where impacts are insignificant.

It has never looked like this __________________________________________________________
I'm not going to give a number. Historically change was slow and, though painful, life was usually able to adapt. Rapid change, such as our changing the CO2 in a few generations, probably means adaption will be more difficult and extinctions more common.
Whatever change we've seen has required adaptation.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
3,547
Reaction score
1,103
Points
190
Location
State of Jefferson
I'm not going to give a number. Historically change was slow and, though painful, life was usually able to adapt. Rapid change, such as our changing the CO2 in a few generations, probably means adaption will be more difficult and extinctions more common.
Whatever change we've seen has required adaptation.
Certainly this is true for the more specialized species ... rapid change would be deadly, extinctions would abound ... not so much for the more adaptive species ... dandelions have a world-wide distribution (except Antarctica), rapid change is normal for them ... and where specialized dies off, the adaptive will move in; ecological niches don't stay empty long ...

I believe humans are the only mega-fauna adaptive enough to have permanent settlements on Antarctic ... we'll be fine ... couple of degrees warming is nothing to us ...
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,288
Reaction score
1,237
Points
245
Location
Virginia
I'm not going to give a number. Historically change was slow and, though painful, life was usually able to adapt. Rapid change, such as our changing the CO2 in a few generations, probably means adaption will be more difficult and extinctions more common.
Whatever change we've seen has required adaptation.
Certainly this is true for the more specialized species ... rapid change would be deadly, extinctions would abound ... not so much for the more adaptive species ... dandelions have a world-wide distribution (except Antarctica), rapid change is normal for them ... and where specialized dies off, the adaptive will move in; ecological niches don't stay empty long ...

I believe humans are the only mega-fauna adaptive enough to have permanent settlements on Antarctic ... we'll be fine ... couple of degrees warming is nothing to us ...
We won't be fine if we're all alone.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
72,458
Reaction score
4,510
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
72,458
Reaction score
4,510
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Then maybe you should show where I used ice age in the OP, right?
Wrong ... that's your affair, not mine ... you're wrong, just admit it and we can move on ... or, is there anything to move onto? ...

You have your answer ... science cannot tell us ... science doesn't even define "better off" ... try the philosophy forum if you want philosophical answers ...
What I am talking about is our current climate which is that of one of bipolar glaciation. That transition began 3-5 million years ago. That is the climate we are in today. It's much colder than the climate from 30 million years ago.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top