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

[ReinyDays]

Actually I know quite a bit on the subject. The future will be worse but here is the situation today:

In the United States, coastal erosion is responsible for roughly $500 million per year in coastal property loss, including damage to structures and loss of land. To mitigate coastal erosion, the federal government spends an average of $150 million every year on beach nourishment and other shoreline erosion control measures.1 In addition to beach erosion, more than 80,000 acres of coastal wetlands are lost annually—the equivalent of seven football fields disappearing every hour of every day.2 The aggregate result is that the United States lost an area of wetlands larger than the state of Rhode Island between 1998 and 2009.3​

Apparently you don't know that 75% of the coast line from New York to Key West is urbanized ... this money is spent on protecting residential neighborhoods, not just any residential neighborhoods, but affluent neighborhoods ... they pump their water up from the ground and these neighborhoods are sinking into the voids left behind ... not sea level rise, it's land subsidence, unrelated to warming ...

$500 million per year in coastal property loss

500 million dollar homes lost per year ... that's nothing ... the Feds are spending this money, that's $450 million in graft ... we lose wetlands the size of Rhode Island (say half the size of an average county in The West) because of development ... homes ... businesses ... roads ... military bases ... eco-terrorists are fighting tooth and nail to preserve wetlands, and they're losing ... not because of warming, because of human greed ...

That $150 million per year on beach nourishment is strictly for the tourism trade ...

We have the opposite problem here in Oregon ... our beaches are supposed to be eroding and they're not ... screwing up the environment really bad ... the saw-grass is stabilizing the dunes and they've stopped moving and they should be moving ... very little of our coast line is urbanized though ... folks aren't stupid enough to build deathtraps ...

However, you have fully admitted that there are major problems along the coast today, without warming ... yes, there will be major problems in the future, with warming ... see that ... the warming isn't the problem, it's unrestricted development that's the problem ... too many people ... asphalt and concrete to the water's edge ... today's reality ... with four times the people there in 100 years, there will be four times the human misery ... with or without warming ...

I will admit that curtailing carbon pollution will kill of enough people to ease these problems ... if too many people are the problem, the solution is killing them off ... "nice work, Fitz, nice work indeed" ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Because northern hemisphere glaciation occurs at 280 ppm. Here's the research paper that says so.

Only it doesn't say so. You're not quoting them saying what you're saying. You're just desperate.

 

[abu afak]

The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist
By Andrew Freedman - May 3rd, 2013

The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn't Exist | Climate Central

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is approaching a record high for all of human history.

www.climatecentral.org

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. ​

Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, ​

the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, ​

and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now..​

​

According to data gathered at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the 400 ppm mark may briefly be exceeded this month, when CO2 typically hits a seasonal peak in the Northern Hemisphere, although it is more likely to take a couple more years until it stays above that threshold, according to Ralph Keeling, a researcher at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. ​

​

......​

Lemme see.
With sea levels 100 feet higher
The world loses most of it's major cities and probably 60% of it's population displaced.



`

 

[Grumblenuts]

Sorry, messed this all up. This is westwall:

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

Mammals have thrived? Fish, reptiles, birds? Or did you mean just bugs?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Life has adapted to the current climate. ANY change will mean winners and losers. I'm pretty sure the losers will outweigh the winners.

Yep, lots of human losers already, but why worry about them
Five inches of rain today.. What costly AGW effects?

Did you know too little atmospheric CO2 is what causes our ice ages? Ding "explains"!
Yeah, it can average two hundred degrees worldwide, no problem!
But don't you dare let them pesky ppms drop too low at the poles or.. look out!..
Game over, man! Game over!

Nobody knows what causes the ice ages. What we DO know is man adds slightly less than 5% to the global CO2 budget.

We also know that water vapor is THE dominant GHG in our atmosphere. We also know that water vapor affects the same radiative spectrum as CO2 so the net result is CO2 is such a tiny tiny percentage of the atmosphere that whatever effect it might have is crushed by the water vapor effect.

We also know that 99% of all climatology studies are pure computer derived fiction that have zero relationship to reality.

So nobody knows what causes water to freeze, we do know that humans can't do it, we also know clouds get in the way, we also know that humans can't do it, we also know that those who study the climate for a living are nuts. "We" clearly being you and other climate science deniers. Okay, thanks for that as usual.. I guess

Translation~ I will just hump

 

[ding]

Because northern hemisphere glaciation occurs at 280 ppm. Here's the research paper that says so.

Only it doesn't say so. You're not quoting them saying what you're saying. You're just desperate.

The paper absolutely does say so. You're a real douche to lie like that.

 

[ding]

The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist
By Andrew Freedman - May 3rd, 2013

The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn't Exist | Climate Central

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is approaching a record high for all of human history.

www.climatecentral.org

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. ​

Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, ​

the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, ​

and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now..​

​

According to data gathered at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the 400 ppm mark may briefly be exceeded this month, when CO2 typically hits a seasonal peak in the Northern Hemisphere, although it is more likely to take a couple more years until it stays above that threshold, according to Ralph Keeling, a researcher at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. ​

​

......​

Lemme see.
With sea levels 100 feet higher
The world loses most of it's major cities and probably 60% of it's population displaced.



`

Gee, when will sea levels rise 100 ft?

 

[westwall]

Sorry, messed this all up. This is westwall:

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

Mammals have thrived? Fish, reptiles, birds? Or did you mean just bugs?

Yes, during the PETM which was at least 7 degrees warmer than the present day, pretty much all of the mammals that we live with today evolved.

 

[ding]

The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist
By Andrew Freedman - May 3rd, 2013

The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn't Exist | Climate Central

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is approaching a record high for all of human history.

www.climatecentral.org

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. ​

Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, ​

the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, ​

and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now..​

​

According to data gathered at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the 400 ppm mark may briefly be exceeded this month, when CO2 typically hits a seasonal peak in the Northern Hemisphere, although it is more likely to take a couple more years until it stays above that threshold, according to Ralph Keeling, a researcher at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. ​

​

......​

Lemme see.
With sea levels 100 feet higher
The world loses most of it's major cities and probably 60% of it's population displaced.



`

I just want to make sure I understand this claim, you are claiming the last time CO2 was this high, the sea levels were 100 ft higher than they are today? Is that correct?

So why aren't they 100 ft higher now, Mr. Mensa?

 

[westwall]

Actually I know quite a bit on the subject. The future will be worse but here is the situation today:

In the United States, coastal erosion is responsible for roughly $500 million per year in coastal property loss, including damage to structures and loss of land. To mitigate coastal erosion, the federal government spends an average of $150 million every year on beach nourishment and other shoreline erosion control measures.1 In addition to beach erosion, more than 80,000 acres of coastal wetlands are lost annually—the equivalent of seven football fields disappearing every hour of every day.2 The aggregate result is that the United States lost an area of wetlands larger than the state of Rhode Island between 1998 and 2009.3​

Apparently you don't know that 75% of the coast line from New York to Key West is urbanized ... this money is spent on protecting residential neighborhoods, not just any residential neighborhoods, but affluent neighborhoods ... they pump their water up from the ground and these neighborhoods are sinking into the voids left behind ... not sea level rise, it's land subsidence, unrelated to warming ...

$500 million per year in coastal property loss

500 million dollar homes lost per year ... that's nothing ... the Feds are spending this money, that's $450 million in graft ... we lose wetlands the size of Rhode Island (say half the size of an average county in The West) because of development ... homes ... businesses ... roads ... military bases ... eco-terrorists are fighting tooth and nail to preserve wetlands, and they're losing ... not because of warming, because of human greed ...

That $150 million per year on beach nourishment is strictly for the tourism trade ...

We have the opposite problem here in Oregon ... our beaches are supposed to be eroding and they're not ... screwing up the environment really bad ... the saw-grass is stabilizing the dunes and they've stopped moving and they should be moving ... very little of our coast line is urbanized though ... folks aren't stupid enough to build deathtraps ...

However, you have fully admitted that there are major problems along the coast today, without warming ... yes, there will be major problems in the future, with warming ... see that ... the warming isn't the problem, it's unrestricted development that's the problem ... too many people ... asphalt and concrete to the water's edge ... today's reality ... with four times the people there in 100 years, there will be four times the human misery ... with or without warming ...

I will admit that curtailing carbon pollution will kill of enough people to ease these problems ... if too many people are the problem, the solution is killing them off ... "nice work, Fitz, nice work indeed" ...

This is absolutely correct. Add to that the widespread damming of rivers which interrupts the sediment that would normally replenish the beaches, a problem known about for at least 60 years now, and the rising oceans are suddenly unfounded.

Subsidence and the termination of natural beach replenishment are the actual causes of those issues. But no climatologists will ever admit the truth.

 

[ding]

Because northern hemisphere glaciation occurs at 280 ppm. Here's the research paper that says so.

Only it doesn't say so. You're not quoting them saying what you're saying. You're just desperate.

So are you going to own up to your lie?

 

[ReinyDays]

So let's just presume for a moment that you weren't really interested in killing off all of humanity. Say you have kids, perhaps even grandkids. Maybe you even love them and not just because of all the time, money, and effort you've invested into raising them..

That's a little presumptuous of you ... as a "proof-of-concept", let's kill off all the 59-year-old white men ... scum of the Earth ... then have Greta glare at 58- and 60-year old white men ... see if that makes a difference ...

Question:

We also know that 99% of all climatology studies are pure computer derived fiction that have zero relationship to reality.

Is that your opinion as well? If so, please define "We" for both of you.. and do supply anything reputably authoritative for backup. In other words, anything worth anyone's precious time,.. meaning other than from like minded posers and kooks or well documented and paid deniers.. And thanks!

No, I do not agree with Westwall in many many aspects ... but he rarely violates the laws of thermodynamics, so he does rate quite high in my esteem ...

So, er, right ... "pure computer derived fiction" actually comes from the field of computation fluid dynamics, and he's being generous ... if one in ten thousand runs come out clean, then we're still getting good results every few days ... the main problem is that to get a proper forecast two weeks out requires months if not years on a computer ... call it a thousand years to get the climate state in 50 years ... so what's the point? ... Moore's Law is still in effect so things are getting better ...

It's statistics ... these computers can only output what they're programmed to ... echo "We're all gonna die"; ... and the ones NOAA has written are available to download, run them yourself and see what results you get ... I'd stack a few thousand MiniMacs or you'll be waiting a while for your results ... set the parameters to cubic millimeters and Planck's time ... well, you get the idea ... I think we use 7.5ºx7.5ºx820 mb for a unit volume and I don't know how they're clocked ...

My only authority in these matters is I took a class in meteorology ... [shrugs shoulders] ... apparently that's more than anyone else ... so not an expert, and climatology does divert some for what we would consider the basics of the science ... but I do know the math has to be right, it's a "hard" science and if your math fails, you fail ... Einstein had his Wasserman, Faraday had his Maxwell ... we have Stefen-Boltzmann ... just the way things are ...

 

[ding]

Lemme see.
With sea levels 100 feet higher
The world loses most of it's major cities and probably 60% of it's population displaced.

It's stupid shit like this that has people questioning the beliefs of you idiots.

You are obviously divorced from reality and have absolutely zero understanding of anything you think you believe when you post such bizarre bullshit like this. Even the IPCC doesn't say stupid shit like this and they say stupid shit.

 

[ReinyDays]

Mammals have thrived? Fish, reptiles, birds? Or did you mean just bugs?

Starting 2.2 billion years ago .. it would be cyanobacteria ... go look around the neighborhood for some mud puddles ... see ... cyanobacteria is still thriving ...

 

[westwall]

So let's just presume for a moment that you weren't really interested in killing off all of humanity. Say you have kids, perhaps even grandkids. Maybe you even love them and not just because of all the time, money, and effort you've invested into raising them..

That's a little presumptuous of you ... as a "proof-of-concept", let's kill off all the 59-year-old white men ... scum of the Earth ... then have Greta glare at 58- and 60-year old white men ... see if that makes a difference ...

Question:

We also know that 99% of all climatology studies are pure computer derived fiction that have zero relationship to reality.

Is that your opinion as well? If so, please define "We" for both of you.. and do supply anything reputably authoritative for backup. In other words, anything worth anyone's precious time,.. meaning other than from like minded posers and kooks or well documented and paid deniers.. And thanks!

No, I do not agree with Westwall in many many aspects ... but he rarely violates the laws of thermodynamics, so he does rate quite high in my esteem ...

So, er, right ... "pure computer derived fiction" actually comes from the field of computation fluid dynamics, and he's being generous ... if one in ten thousand runs come out clean, then we're still getting good results every few days ... the main problem is that to get a proper forecast two weeks out requires months if not years on a computer ... call it a thousand years to get the climate state in 50 years ... so what's the point? ... Moore's Law is still in effect so things are getting better ...

It's statistics ... these computers can only output what they're programmed to ... echo "We're all gonna die"; ... and the ones NOAA has written are available to download, run them yourself and see what results you get ... I'd stack a few thousand MiniMacs or you'll be waiting a while for your results ... set the parameters to cubic millimeters and Planck's time ... well, you get the idea ... I think we use 7.5ºx7.5ºx820 mb for a unit volume and I don't know how they're clocked ...

My only authority in these matters is I took a class in meteorology ... [shrugs shoulders] ... apparently that's more than anyone else ... so not an expert, and climatology does divert some for what we would consider the basics of the science ... but I do know the math has to be right, it's a "hard" science and if your math fails, you fail ... Einstein had his Wasserman, Faraday had his Maxwell ... we have Stefen-Boltzmann ... just the way things are ...

Climatologists don't use CFD models though. They use simple models that are so poorly constructed that no matter what numbers you plug in the result is always warming.

 

[ReinyDays]

Lemme see.
With sea levels 100 feet higher
The world loses most of it's major cities and probably 60% of it's population displaced.

It's stupid shit like this that has people questioning the beliefs of you idiots.

You are obviously divorced from reality and have absolutely zero understanding of anything you think you believe when you post such bizarre bullshit like this. Even the IPCC doesn't say stupid shit like this and they say stupid shit.

He's only violating two of the laws of thermodynamics ... maybe a little credit where credit's due? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Climatologists don't use CFD models though. They use simple models that are so poorly constructed that no matter what numbers you plug in the result is always warming.

Enlighten me ... what's simpler than the CFD models? ... SB is T^4 = oF where T = temperature, o= Stefen-Boltzmann constant and F = Input irradiation (or flux if you prefer) ... can't get much simpler than that ...

These computer models output a distribution curve ... mass media latches onto the extreme values (0.01% change of occurring) and screams their click-bait headlines ... that's mass media, not climatologists ... I listen to the tofu-pukers on NPR and the climatologists they interview always say "it's too soon to tell" ... you know, sciency-like ...

I know exactly what you're talking about ... but I don't find this in the scientific literature ... paying someone $10,000 to read a script on FoxNews is one thing ... staking their reputation in Nature Magazine is quite another ... I've looked through Hansen's textbook on climatology, quite different than what he said on the Tonight Show ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Mammals have thrived? Fish, reptiles, birds? Or did you mean just bugs?

Starting 2.2 billion years ago .. it would be cyanobacteria ... go look around the neighborhood for some mud puddles ... see ... cyanobacteria is still thriving ...

And only starting 0.5 million years ago? Fish. 0.3 million? Reptiles. Yeah, bugs it is. Thanks.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Sorry, messed this all up. This is westwall:

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

Mammals have thrived? Fish, reptiles, birds? Or did you mean just bugs?

Yes, during the PETM which was at least 7 degrees warmer than the present day, pretty much all of the mammals that we live with today evolved.

So "Whenever it has been warmer" is now just "during the PETM"?

 

[ding]

Sorry, messed this all up. This is westwall:

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

Mammals have thrived? Fish, reptiles, birds? Or did you mean just bugs?

Yes, during the PETM which was at least 7 degrees warmer than the present day, pretty much all of the mammals that we live with today evolved.

So "Whenever it has been warmer" is now just "during the PETM"?

So, you just gonna act like nothing happened?