OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
72,348
Reaction score
4,479
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Here's a couple of handy graphs which tell the whole story. The first graph is of the oxygen isotope curve which is widely established for the Cenozoic and widely accepted within the scientific community as a proxy for past climates and temperatures. You can get this from any number of sources and it will show the same thing. I got this one from wiki.

The second graph is of the oxygen isotope curve laid side by side opposite of the historic atmospheric CO2 curve. This graph offers a number of interesting observations for those who take the time to examine it. The sources for this graph is listed on the graph but the ultimate source of the CO2 data is Keeling, Law Dome Antarctic ice cores, Vostik ice core, boron 11 isotopes and alkenoid carbon isotopes.

1596579923775.png

1596580403500.png


 
Last edited:

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
4,491
Reaction score
838
Points
140
What I am talking about is our current climate which is that of one of bipolar glaciation. That transition began 3-5 years ago.
So 3-5 years ago, then you leap to charts spanning tens of millions of years.. What a poser!

Gee, I (don't) wonder why you supply no links!

 
Last edited:
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
72,348
Reaction score
4,479
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
72,348
Reaction score
4,479
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
What I am talking about is our current climate which is that of one of bipolar glaciation. That transition began 3-5 years ago.
So 3-5 years ago, then you leap to charts spanning tens of millions of years.. What a poser!

Gee, I (don't) wonder why you supply no links!

Should have read 3-5 million. Like stated in the OP. Thanks for the heads up. :)

See?
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.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
72,348
Reaction score
4,479
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
What I am talking about is our current climate which is that of one of bipolar glaciation. That transition began 3-5 years ago.
So 3-5 years ago, then you leap to charts spanning tens of millions of years.. What a poser!

Gee, I (don't) wonder why you supply no links!

I am more than happy for you to keep doing what you are doing. I'm going to continue sharing, discussing and explaining the data. You can keep doing whatever it is that you are doing.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
66,556
Reaction score
19,184
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
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?




The more CO2 the merrier.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
66,556
Reaction score
19,184
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
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.






Past evidence says you are not just wrong, but epically wrong.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
66,556
Reaction score
19,184
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
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 ...







During the Cambrian the CO2 levels were about 7000 ppm. Life thrived.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
66,556
Reaction score
19,184
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
Here's a couple of handy graphs which tell the whole story. The first graph is of the oxygen isotope curve which is widely established for the Cenozoic and widely accepted within the scientific community as a proxy for past climates and temperatures. You can get this from any number of sources and it will show the same thing. I got this one from wiki.

The second graph is of the oxygen isotope curve laid side by side opposite of the historic atmospheric CO2 curve. This graph offers a number of interesting observations for those who take the time to examine it. The sources for this graph is listed on the graph but the ultimate source of the CO2 data is Keeling, Law Dome Antarctic ice cores, Vostik ice core, boron 11 isotopes and alkenoid carbon isotopes.

View attachment 371216
View attachment 371218

Still not getting your point about 416 ppm.
The world being obviously better off at 300 ppm than 580 ppm
416 - 350 = already 66 over the ppm limit of reason. We're already fucked. 580 is clearly insane, whether we manage to prevent it or not.





Factually untrue. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the greener the planet becomes. ALL life does better with increased CO2
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
72,348
Reaction score
4,479
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Still not getting your point about 416 ppm.
The world being obviously better off at 300 ppm than 580 ppm
416 - 350 = already 66 over the ppm limit of reason. We're already fucked. 580 is clearly insane, whether we manage to prevent it or not.
Why is 580 ppm insane?

You do realize that that is the IPCC's forecast A1, right? Which is based on extrapolating from the current trend of CO2 emissions. Can you tell me why 580 ppm is insane?

1596583018997.png

 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
72,348
Reaction score
4,479
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Still not getting your point about 416 ppm.
The world being obviously better off at 300 ppm than 580 ppm
416 - 350 = already 66 over the ppm limit of reason. We're already fucked. 580 is clearly insane, whether we manage to prevent it or not.
Why is 350 ppm the "limit of reason?"

What's so special about 350 ppm?

Will the ocean - which houses 94% of the CO2 - suddenly stop sequestering CO2 when the temperatures fall? Will the ocean stop releasing CO2 when the temperature rises?

Where did this "limit of reason" come from? How did you arrive at it? Did the same person who sold Jack his magic beans tell you 350 ppm was the "limit of reason?"
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
3,547
Reaction score
1,103
Points
190
Location
State of Jefferson
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.
Greenland ice cores go down 30 million years ... before then, all the ice in winter melted away in summer ... Antarctica was late getting to her polar position, those core only go down 27 million years ...

Ah ... you want to discuss the current glacial/interglacial cycle ... 125,000 year period ... I see a saw-toothed wave, but I've been smoking pot all day ... as far as I know, and again, no one knows why ... if you have some insights, I'd love to hear them ... and if you bring up thermodynamics, please use small words .. [blush] ...

Frankly, I don't see anything in any of the hoop-la about climate change to puts us outside the temperature envelope of this cycle ... everything is well within natural parameters ... the ice core data clearly shows warmer temperatures in previous interglacials ... humaniods survived all those with only fire as technology ... today we have steam engines, so we're better off now ...

Speaking of technology ... how do we separate out these advances, and the benefits thereof, from what trivial benefits a greener Earth would provide? ... very little of the extra food that grows will be because of 580 ppm ...

Humans are quadrupling their populations every 100 years ... what does the Earth look like with 30 billion people? ... would we be better off? ... and with 30 billion people, are we even going to notice a 2ºC temperature increase ...

Just one little virus, and there are no humans in a hundred years ...
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
72,348
Reaction score
4,479
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
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.
Greenland ice cores go down 30 million years ... before then, all the ice in winter melted away in summer ... Antarctica was late getting to her polar position, those core only go down 27 million years ...

Ah ... you want to discuss the current glacial/interglacial cycle ... 125,000 year period ... I see a saw-toothed wave, but I've been smoking pot all day ... as far as I know, and again, no one knows why ... if you have some insights, I'd love to hear them ... and if you bring up thermodynamics, please use small words .. [blush] ...

Frankly, I don't see anything in any of the hoop-la about climate change to puts us outside the temperature envelope of this cycle ... everything is well within natural parameters ... the ice core data clearly shows warmer temperatures in previous interglacials ... humaniods survived all those with only fire as technology ... today we have steam engines, so we're better off now ...

Speaking of technology ... how do we separate out these advances, and the benefits thereof, from what trivial benefits a greener Earth would provide? ... very little of the extra food that grows will be because of 580 ppm ...

Humans are quadrupling their populations every 100 years ... what does the Earth look like with 30 billion people? ... would we be better off? ... and with 30 billion people, are we even going to notice a 2ºC temperature increase ...

Just one little virus, and there are no humans in a hundred years ...
Not really the scope of this thread but feeding the hungry is a problem we could solve by providing more energy to the poor regions of the world not less. As for population, nature has a way of thinning the herd. For all we know covid is it. Same for the climate. I doubt we will see 2C.
 
Last edited:

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
4,491
Reaction score
838
Points
140
Still not getting your point about 416 ppm.
The world being obviously better off at 300 ppm than 580 ppm
416 - 350 = already 66 over the ppm limit of reason. We're already fucked. 580 is clearly insane, whether we manage to prevent it or not.
Why is 350 ppm the "limit of reason?"

What's so special about 350 ppm?

Will the ocean - which houses 94% of the CO2 - suddenly stop sequestering CO2 when the temperatures fall? Will the ocean stop releasing CO2 when the temperature rises?

Where did this "limit of reason" come from? How did you arrive at it? Did the same person who sold Jack his magic beans tell you 350 ppm was the "limit of reason?"
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
72,348
Reaction score
4,479
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Will the ocean - which houses 94% of the CO2 -
Got a citation on the number? ...
It's what I remembered it being the last time I looked it up. It's somewhere in the mid to high 90%'s.

But let me look.


The oceans contain about 50 times more CO 2 than the atmosphere and 19 times more than the land biosphere. CO 2 moves between the atmosphere and the ocean by molecular diffusion when there is a difference between CO 2 gas pressure (pCO 2 ) between the atmosphere and oceans. For example, when the atmospheric pCO 2 is higher than the surface ocean, CO 2 diffuses across the air-sea boundary into the sea water.

Read more: Carbon Dioxide in the Ocean and Atmosphere - sea, depth, oceans, important, system, plants, marine, oxygen, human
Atmosphere: contains at present 750 GtC
deep ocean: contains 39000 GtC

 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top