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

[ReinyDays]

Would a 1,000 ft thick sheet of ice over all of Canada extending into the Midwest of America be bad?

This would be GOOD ... amazing in fact ... beneficial beyond human imagination ... with the collapse of the laws of thermodynamics, perpetual motion is a reality ... our energy worries are over ...

Ah .. you mean 10,000 feet of ice, like during a glaciation ... and what we expect in the near future ... good or bad, it's going to happen, humans have been through this before with no obvious ill effects ... is "neutral" an answer, because, you know, Canada ... [rolls eyes] ...

Anyway ... what definition of the word "bad" are we using? ... I generally use the Biblical definition which very specifically ties "bad" to human behavior and the eating of forbidden fruit ... wolves commit no sin eating babies ... and by extension, water commits no sin freezing up in sheets across the continents ... neither good nor bad and just vexation of spirit ...

So you go ahead and state the definition we'll be using, and just a link to the math is fine, no sense spamming this poor message board ...

 

[alang1216]

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.

What past evidence?

 

[ding]

Would a 1,000 ft thick sheet of ice over all of Canada extending into the Midwest of America be bad?

This would be GOOD ... amazing in fact ... beneficial beyond human imagination ... with the collapse of the laws of thermodynamics, perpetual motion is a reality ... our energy worries are over ...

Ah .. you mean 10,000 feet of ice, like during a glaciation ... and what we expect in the near future ... good or bad, it's going to happen, humans have been through this before with no obvious ill effects ... is "neutral" an answer, because, you know, Canada ... [rolls eyes] ...

Anyway ... what definition of the word "bad" are we using? ... I generally use the Biblical definition which very specifically ties "bad" to human behavior and the eating of forbidden fruit ... wolves commit no sin eating babies ... and by extension, water commits no sin freezing up in sheets across the continents ... neither good nor bad and just vexation of spirit ...

So you go ahead and state the definition we'll be using, and just a link to the math is fine, no sense spamming this poor message board ...

The definition was stated in the OP in a round about way.

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?

 

[westwall]

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.

What past evidence?

ALL past evidence. The paleoclimate record is pretty well known. Whenever it has been warmer life has thrived.

 

[ding]

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.

What past evidence?

The oxygen isotope curve and CO2 concentrations from Keeling, Law Dome ice cores, Vostik ice cores, boron 11 isotopes and alkenoid carbon isotopes?

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

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...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[alang1216]

ALL past evidence. The paleoclimate record is pretty well known. Whenever it has been warmer life has thrived.

I'm not concerned with humanity going extinct so much as my family going extinct.

 

[ding]

ALL past evidence. The paleoclimate record is pretty well known. Whenever it has been warmer life has thrived.

I'm not concerned with humanity going extinct so much as my family going extinct.

Why would they?

 

[westwall]

ALL past evidence. The paleoclimate record is pretty well known. Whenever it has been warmer life has thrived.

I'm not concerned with humanity going extinct so much as my family going extinct.

Why would they? You can't handle an extra degree? Every day in the desert human beings enjoy temperature swings of up to 100 degrees. A degree isn't anything to freak out about.

 

[ReinyDays]

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?

The answer given was that getting to 580 ppm would be beneficial to humans ... all these renewables we add to the system isn't cutting fossil fuels, we just use more energy ... basic human nature ... so much energy, we can get everyone on the grid ... ending hunger, war, etc etc etc ...

Would "Dawn of a New Golden Age of the Human Condition" count as "better off"? ... I'm just pointing out that this is extremely BAD ... "much worse off" ... for every single other species on Earth ... except for human's domesticates ...

 

[ding]

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?

The answer given was that getting to 580 ppm would be beneficial to humans ... all these renewables we add to the system isn't cutting fossil fuels, we just use more energy ... basic human nature ... so much energy, we can get everyone on the grid ... ending hunger, war, etc etc etc ...

Would "Dawn of a New Golden Age of the Human Condition" count as "better off"? ... I'm just pointing out that this is extremely BAD ... "much worse off" ... for every single other species on Earth ... except for human's domesticates ...

580 ppm isn't going to hurt anything.

Seems to me we should be increasing energy consumption if we want to bring others out of poverty. It is possible to be good stewards.

 

[ReinyDays]

I'm not concerned with humanity going extinct so much as my family going extinct.

This is becoming wide-spread ... in overcrowded conditions, the individuals lose the ability to reproduce ... it's also been demonstrated that this ability is lost forever, even when crowded ends ... a population that suffers crowding never recovers ... this was with rats but same difference ... rats are just a little further evolved is all ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

The percentage of land area in the contiguous United States that experienced maximum temperatures greatly above (red) or below (blue) normal (upper or lower 10th percentile, respectively). Over the last 25 years, an increasingly larger area of the country has experienced warm extremes than cold extremes. Figure adapted from FAQ #19 (figure A5.20) from the Fourth National Climate Assessment, which is based on original data from the National Centers for Environmental Information.

 

[ReinyDays]

580 ppm isn't going to hurt anything.
Seems to me we should be increasing energy consumption if we want to bring others out of poverty. It is possible to be good stewards.

1.6 billion people in the world cook all their meals over an open fire ... they have lots of kids so enough survive to collect firewood from sun-up to sun-down ... or the family goes hungry ... very hateful to condemn these poor folks to such squaller by reducing CO2 emissions ... just hateful ...

So ... the First World Solution is to come in and set up power plants and a grid ... give everyone a hotplate and small refrigerator ... without thinking that the scrap value of all this equipment is ten years worth of wages for the family ... they'll continue to cook with wood and live a life of (comparable) luxury ... at least until the soldiers/church/terrorists/drug lords/neighbors rob them ... I'm guessing it's a skin color thing but what do I know ... I hate all races equally ...

Warmer and wetter conditions should improve the growth of firewood ... so indeed burning tires feeds the multitudes ... it's the compassionate way of life ...

 

[ding]

The percentage of land area in the contiguous United States that experienced maximum temperatures greatly above (red) or below (blue) normal (upper or lower 10th percentile, respectively). Over the last 25 years, an increasingly larger area of the country has experienced warm extremes than cold extremes. Figure adapted from FAQ #19 (figure A5.20) from the Fourth National Climate Assessment, which is based on original data from the National Centers for Environmental Information.

Yep, we're in an interglacial cycle alright and still below the peak temperature of previous interglacial cycles so we are well within the normal range.

But how does this answer the question of what's better, 300 ppm or 580 ppm?

 

[Grumblenuts]

After 50 years of warnings about too much human generated CO2 causing increased GW, perhaps runaway GW,.. now too much is seemingly never enough. Ya know, CO2 doesn't really do shit! OMG, too little CO2 in the atmosphere will soon be causing ice to form at the poles!

 

[ding]

580 ppm isn't going to hurt anything.
Seems to me we should be increasing energy consumption if we want to bring others out of poverty. It is possible to be good stewards.

1.6 billion people in the world cook all their meals over an open fire ... they have lots of kids so enough survive to collect firewood from sun-up to sun-down ... or the family goes hungry ... very hateful to condemn these poor folks to such squaller by reducing CO2 emissions ... just hateful ...

So ... the First World Solution is to come in and set up power plants and a grid ... give everyone a hotplate and small refrigerator ... without thinking that the scrap value of all this equipment is ten years worth of wages for the family ... they'll continue to cook with wood and live a life of (comparable) luxury ... at least until the soldiers/church/terrorists/drug lords/neighbors rob them ... I'm guessing it's a skin color thing but what do I know ... I hate all races equally ...

Warmer and wetter conditions should improve the growth of firewood ... so indeed burning tires feeds the multitudes ... it's the compassionate way of life ...

 

[ding]

After 50 years of warnings about too much human generated CO2 causing increased GW, perhaps runaway GW,.. now too much is seemingly never enough. Ya know, CO2 doesn't really do shit! OMG, too little CO2 in the atmosphere will soon be causing ice to form at the poles!

The more CO2 the better, bro.

C'mon 580 ppm.

 

[ding]

580 ppm isn't going to hurt anything.
Seems to me we should be increasing energy consumption if we want to bring others out of poverty. It is possible to be good stewards.

1.6 billion people in the world cook all their meals over an open fire ... they have lots of kids so enough survive to collect firewood from sun-up to sun-down ... or the family goes hungry ... very hateful to condemn these poor folks to such squaller by reducing CO2 emissions ... just hateful ...

So ... the First World Solution is to come in and set up power plants and a grid ... give everyone a hotplate and small refrigerator ... without thinking that the scrap value of all this equipment is ten years worth of wages for the family ... they'll continue to cook with wood and live a life of (comparable) luxury ... at least until the soldiers/church/terrorists/drug lords/neighbors rob them ... I'm guessing it's a skin color thing but what do I know ... I hate all races equally ...

Warmer and wetter conditions should improve the growth of firewood ... so indeed burning tires feeds the multitudes ... it's the compassionate way of life ...

So 300 ppm or 580ppm?

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[ding]

So 300 ppm or 580 ppm?