Is the world "better off" at 580 ppm or 300 ppm of CO2?

[ding]

First of all the phrase artificial isn't correct. Just strike that word because all it shows is your bias. If you want to take care of this world for future generations, 580 ppm is preferable to 300 ppm.

I don't agree with your assessment that we shouldn't use coal or oil. The whole point of this thread is that 580 ppm is superior to 300 ppm. We will get off of coal and oil in due time. When it's right to do so.

Why do you think 580 ppm is superior than 300 ppm? ... you've not really clarified the cause-and-effect of any benefit ... and show your math please ...

I believe I did explain it... more than once. But since you asked sort of nicely...

The conditions which led to the glacial and interglacial cycles of the past 400,000 years and the transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world ~3-5 million years ago, still exist today. Namely, polar regions being isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 of ~400 ppm. Given these background conditions and a triggering event whether it be gulf stream switch off or milankovitch orbital cycles or both affects temperatures (‘insolation’) at 65deg N which is a critical location for triggering Northern Hemisphere glaciation. Extensive glaciation can begin at the south pole at ~750ppm but at the north pole the threshold is 280 ppm. The reason for the difference is because the south pole has a continent parked on it whereas the north pole has an ocean parked over it. So it is much easier for glaciation to occur on the south pole than the north pole.

So at 580 ppm we remove one of the key requirements for glaciation to be triggered at the north pole.

The following link is a pretty good read and mentions most of the things I have discussed.

Quaternary glaciation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

Showing my work...

 

[ding]

Showing my work....

 

[ding]

Showing my work...

The oxygen isotope curve is well established for the Cenozoic and is widely accepted as a proxy for temperature. We can see that 3 to 5 million years ago the earth began its transition from a greenhouse climate to an icehouse climate. Note the atmospheric CO2 level at which this transition began to occur. 400 ppm.

 

[ding]

Any questions?

 

[zaangalewa]

These stupid Moon Bats that think the climate is going to change because of the CO2 put out by humans don't know any more about Climate Science than they do Economics,History, Ethics, Biology or the Constitution. ...

... The transition from the greenhouse world to the icehouse world occurred somewhere between 3 to 5 million years ago. ...

So human beings were able to evolve.

And temperature did not follow.

View attachment 378549

See?

No.

CO2 reinforces climate change. It does not drive it. That's why CO2 lags temperature by ~800 years. And also why temperature - even though you won't admit it - has not followed CO2.

Okay: Very short: Industrial production caused and causes an artificial increase of greenhouse gases. The result is global warming. The problem has a long term characteristics. The people today have to take care for a world of their descendants, which they never will see on their own. But why not to plant trees now, so the next generations will be able to harvest this trees? In case of the global warming the situation is clear: We should use energy efficiently - we should not use oil and coal any longer for the production of energy. Instead of this it is better to use more intelligent methods and a sustainable production and management of energy.

So what is the real problem? We have just simple to react on reality.

First of all the phrase artificial isn't correct.

Use "man made" instead of this word, then it's perhaps more clear.

Just strike that word because all it shows is your bias. If you want to take care of this world for future generations, 580 ppm is preferable to 300 ppm.

Since human being are existing 200-250 ppm CO2 were normal. 300 is too high. 580 ppm out of experience.

I don't agree

Whether you aggree or not means nothing in context of natural science.

with your assessment that we shouldn't use coal or oil.

We blow too fast much to much CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

The whole point of this thread is that 580 ppm is superior to 300 ppm. We will get off of coal and oil in due time. When it's right to do so.

In don't know from which planet your are. But this here is planet Earth.

 

[ding]

These stupid Moon Bats that think the climate is going to change because of the CO2 put out by humans don't know any more about Climate Science than they do Economics,History, Ethics, Biology or the Constitution. ...

... The transition from the greenhouse world to the icehouse world occurred somewhere between 3 to 5 million years ago. ...

So human beings were able to evolve.

And temperature did not follow.

View attachment 378549

See?

No.

CO2 reinforces climate change. It does not drive it. That's why CO2 lags temperature by ~800 years. And also why temperature - even though you won't admit it - has not followed CO2.

Okay: Very short: Industrial production caused and causes an artificial increase of greenhouse gases. The result is global warming. The problem has a long term characteristics. The people today have to take care for a world of their descendants, which they never will see on their own. But why not to plant trees now, so the next generations will be able to harvest this trees? In case of the global warming the situation is clear: We should use energy efficiently - we should not use oil and coal any longer for the production of energy. Instead of this it is better to use more intelligent methods and a sustainable production and management of energy.

So what is the real problem? We have just simple to react on reality.

First of all the phrase artificial isn't correct.

Use "man made" instead of this word, then it's perhaps more clear.

Just strike that word because all it shows is your bias. If you want to take care of this world for future generations, 580 ppm is preferable to 300 ppm.

Since human being are existing 200-250 ppm CO2 were normal. 300 is too high. 580 ppm out of experience.

I don't agree [/Quotze]

Whether you agree with anyt5hiogn whatb I say or not is not any criterion for truth.

with your assessment that we shouldn't use coal or oil.

We blow troo fast much to mauch CO2 into the atmosphere.

The whole point of this thread is that 580 ppm is superior to 300 ppm. We will get off of coal and oil in due time. When it's right to do so.

In don't know from which planet your are. But this here is planet Earth.

200 ppm is a raging glacial cycle with a 3000m thick sheet of ice over a good portion of North America.

This seems like an emotional subject for you. You are just so certain that CO2 is bad that you have suspended all reason and logic.

 

[ding]

Since human being are existing 200-250 ppm CO2 were normal. 300 is too high. 580 ppm out of experience.

Please study this chart to see your error.

You might want to read up on this as well.

Quaternary glaciation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[zaangalewa]

These stupid Moon Bats that think the climate is going to change because of the CO2 put out by humans don't know any more about Climate Science than they do Economics,History, Ethics, Biology or the Constitution. ...

... The transition from the greenhouse world to the icehouse world occurred somewhere between 3 to 5 million years ago. ...

So human beings were able to evolve.

And temperature did not follow.

View attachment 378549

See?

No.

CO2 reinforces climate change. It does not drive it. That's why CO2 lags temperature by ~800 years. And also why temperature - even though you won't admit it - has not followed CO2.

Okay: Very short: Industrial production caused and causes an artificial increase of greenhouse gases. The result is global warming. The problem has a long term characteristics. The people today have to take care for a world of their descendants, which they never will see on their own. But why not to plant trees now, so the next generations will be able to harvest this trees? In case of the global warming the situation is clear: We should use energy efficiently - we should not use oil and coal any longer for the production of energy. Instead of this it is better to use more intelligent methods and a sustainable production and management of energy.

So what is the real problem? We have just simple to react on reality.

First of all the phrase artificial isn't correct.

Use "man made" instead of this word, then it's perhaps more clear.

Just strike that word because all it shows is your bias. If you want to take care of this world for future generations, 580 ppm is preferable to 300 ppm.

Since human being are existing 200-250 ppm CO2 were normal. 300 is too high. 580 ppm out of experience.

I don't agree

?

with your assessment that we shouldn't use coal or oil.

We blow troo fast much to much CO2 into the atmosphere.

The whole point of this thread is that 580 ppm is superior to 300 ppm. We will get off of coal and oil in due time. When it's right to do so.

In don't know from which planet your are. But this here is planet Earth.[/Quote]

200 ppm is a raging glacial cycle with a 3000m thick sheet of ice over a good portion of North America.

I do not understand why someone es using for an axis parallel values. CO2 and thickness of ice is on what reason the same in a 1:1 relation?

This seems like an emotional subject for you. You are just so certain that CO2 is bad that you have suspended all reason and logic.

?

 

[zaangalewa]

Since human being are existing 200-250 ppm CO2 were normal. 300 is too high. 580 ppm out of experience.

Please study this chart to see your error.

View attachment 378753

You might want to read up on this as well.

Quaternary glaciation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also in this chart it were always less than 300 ppm - except the man made explosions during the last 100 years.

 

[ding]

Since human being are existing 200-250 ppm CO2 were normal. 300 is too high. 580 ppm out of experience.

Please study this chart to see your error.

View attachment 378753

You might want to read up on this as well.

Quaternary glaciation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also in this chart it were always less than 300 ppm - except the man made explosions during the last 100 years.

So you want atmospheric CO2 to be 20 ppm above the concentration where northern hemisphere glaciation begins?

 

[ReinyDays]

Any questions?

You've only shown a bunch of statistical data ... I was asking for the math ... which equation do we plug in 300 ppm and 580 ppm where it clearly shows 580 ppm is "superior" to 300 ppm ...

All that above certainly shows that 280 ppm is "superior" to 180 ppm ... I understand bad things happen at 180 ppm ... but what bad things were happening at 300 ppm that will go away at 580 ppm? ... other than putting New Orleans out of her misery ... "Marco Laura" ... I hope folks are running away today ... tomorrow will be too late ...

I'm asking the same questions as I do the Alarmist community ... honestly, it looks like you're making the exact same mistakes ... just because I can't prove 580 ppm is bad doesn't mean it's good ... just like not proving 580 ppm is good doesn't make it bad ... these are philosophical questions that science cannot answer ...

Spare me the statistics, I already know you're reducing your sample pool to drive up probabilities ... basic human nature ...

 

[ding]

Any questions?

You've only shown a bunch of statistical data ... I was asking for the math ... which equation do we plug in 300 ppm and 580 ppm where it clearly shows 580 ppm is "superior" to 300 ppm ...

All that above certainly shows that 280 ppm is "superior" to 180 ppm ... I understand bad things happen at 180 ppm ... but what bad things were happening at 300 ppm that will go away at 580 ppm? ... other than putting New Orleans out of her misery ... "Marco Laura" ... I hope folks are running away today ... tomorrow will be too late ...

I'm asking the same questions as I do the Alarmist community ... honestly, it looks like you're making the exact same mistakes ... just because I can't prove 580 ppm is bad doesn't mean it's good ... just like not proving 580 ppm is good doesn't make it bad ... these are philosophical questions that science cannot answer ...

Spare me the statistics, I already know you're reducing your sample pool to drive up probabilities ... basic human nature ...

3000 m of ice over all of Canada, parts of the US and Europe is not enough?

 

[ding]

 

[ding]

basic human nature ...

Speaking of basic human nature...

For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there are universal standards which exist independent of man how come we all don't follow the same standard? The reason is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to dumb asses thinking 300 ppm is a good idea.

 

[ding]

You've only shown a bunch of statistical data ...

Did you mean to misspell historical?

 

[ding]

Spare me the statistics historical scientific data.

Ok, boomer

 

[ReinyDays]

3000 m of ice over all of Canada, parts of the US and Europe is not enough?

Not at 300 ppm ... that's been demonstrated ...

Did you mean to misspell historical?

Spelting is overratted ...

Ok, boomer

You remind me of my grandniece ... you seem just as slap happy ...

 

[ding]

3000 m of ice over all of Canada, parts of the US and Europe is not enough?

Not at 300 ppm ... that's been demonstrated ...

Did you mean to misspell historical?

Spelting is overratted ...

Ok, boomer

You remind me of my grandniece ... you seem just as slap happy ...

It's been demonstrated that the transition to the icehouse world and the start of the glacial cycles began at 400 ppm. AND it has been demonstrated that the transition to the icehouse world and the start of the glacial cycles did not happen when atmospheric CO2 was at 580 ppm. Bam.

 

[ding]

You remind me of my grandniece ... you seem just as slap happy ...

It has been scientifically shown that happiness leads to success, slap or otherwise.