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

[ReinyDays]

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

I missed something ... fish have been around closer to 500 million years ... and yes, warmer temperatures are good for fish in general ... it's a chemistry thing ...
What's your point here ... "life" includes single cell organisms ... 2.2 billion years in our current lineage ...

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

Yes, before then we had these things called "dinosaurs" that ate everything bigger than a mouse ... mammalian radiation had to wait until the dinosaurs evolved into birds ... and then the insects to arrive and eat bird eggs ... simple ... this is all before the ice started accumulating into the fridged planet we now see ... spewing the filth we call humanity ...

Yes, I'm enjoying this opportunity to insult everybody all at once ... something of a hobby of mine ... it's a skill set important in the construction trades ... humans are "better off" dead ... ha ha ha .. get it ... now go burn a tire ...

 

[ReinyDays]

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?


View attachment 371715

"using an isotope tracer-capable version of the same GCM used in our prior ..."

Prior what? ... God, you have me on pins and needles here ... what's the punchline ??? ... would it kill you to post page 653? ...

I may have a list of questions later this evening for you ... but let me read this page 653 and perhaps I can scratch 100 or so off the list ... and remember: "Purple Trainwreck" ... thanx in advance ...

 

[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?


View attachment 371715

"using an isotope tracer-capable version of the same GCM used in our prior ..."

Prior what? ... God, you have me on pins and needles here ... what's the punchline ??? ... would it kill you to post page 653? ...

I may have a list of questions later this evening for you ... but let me read this page 653 and perhaps I can scratch 100 or so off the list ... and remember: "Purple Trainwreck" ... thanx in advance ...

(PDF) Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation

PDF | The long-standing view of Earth's Cenozoic glacial history calls for the first continental-scale glaciation of Antarctica in the earliest... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

You will have to click on the blue button that says "download full-text pdf" to end your suspense.

 

[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.

So are you going to own up to your lie?

And I note westwall currently agrees with your assertion. Lol.
Here's that text (simply copied and pasted) and more to provide helpful context:

We show that the C[O.sub.2] threshold below which glaciation occurs in the Northern Hemisphere (~280p.p.m.v.) is much lower than that for Antarctica (~750 p.p.m.v.). Therefore, the growth of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere immediately following Antarctic glaciation would have required rapid C02 drawdown within the Oi-1 timeframe, to levels lower than those estimated by geochemical proxies (10,11) and carbon-cycle models (13, 14). Instead of bipolar glaciation, we find that Oi-1 is best explained by Antarctic glaciation alone, combined with deep-sea cooling of up to 4 [degrees]C and Antarctic ice that is less isotopically depleted (-30 to -35 [per thousand]) than previously suggested (15, 16). Proxy C[O.sub.2] estimates remain above our model's northern-hemispheric glaciation threshold of ~280 p.p.m.v. until ~25 Myr ago, but have been near or below that level ever since (10,11). This implies that episodic northern-hemispheric ice sheets have been possible some 20 million years earlier than currently assumed (although still much later than Oi-1) and could explain some of the variability in Miocene sea-level records (17,18).

From the title and intro, the overall context appears mainly concerned with evaluating the veracity of their model given the plethora of variables they've thrown into the mix.

Now notice:

• Report says: "the C[O.sub.2] threshold below which glaciation occurs"
• Report says: "ice sheets have been possible some 20 million years earlier than currently assumed"

We can see the variations, but we don't know why they exist ... why do you think we can control something if we don't know what we're controlling ...

Research continues ...

Because northern hemisphere glaciation occurs at 280 ppm.

Now what is your claim again, ding? We know what we're controlling because northern hemisphere glaciation occurs at 280 ppm? Brrrt!, sorry, times up and.. you're still clearly an idiot. Be sure to read the red, bold, underlined bits again carefully before quietly exiting. Thanks.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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

I missed something ... fish have been around closer to 500 million years ... and yes, warmer temperatures are good for fish in general ... it's a chemistry thing ...
What's your point here ... "life" includes single cell organisms ... 2.2 billion years in our current lineage ...

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

Yes, before then we had these things called "dinosaurs" that ate everything bigger than a mouse ... mammalian radiation had to wait until the dinosaurs evolved into birds ... and then the insects to arrive and eat bird eggs ... simple ... this is all before the ice started accumulating into the fridged planet we now see ... spewing the filth we call humanity ...

Yes, I'm enjoying this opportunity to insult everybody all at once ... something of a hobby of mine ... it's a skill set important in the construction trades ... humans are "better off" dead ... ha ha ha .. get it ... now go burn a tire ...

Yeah, wrong point and what's a few zeroes between friends? Lol

 

[Grumblenuts]

Reiny, while we clearly disagree on some things, I find you to be refreshing. A truly critical thinker with a healthy sense of humor. All too rare these days. Thanks for joining in the fray.

 

[ReinyDays]

Ya gotta laugh ... all of life is fun ... I have nieces who beat me up ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

"The long-standing view of Earth's Cenozoic glacial history calls for" yada, yada, "reflecting a combination of terrestrial ice growth and deep-sea cooling. The apparent" blah, blah, "argued to reflect the growth of more ice than can be accommodated on Antarctica;" yada, yada, "raises the possibility that Oi-1 represents a precursory bipolar glaciation. Here we test this hypothesis using an isotopecapable global climate/ice-sheet model"

See, testing a hypothesis about "the possibility that" something "represents a precursory bipolar glaciation" by using one particular "model." This paper claims absolutely nothing about glaciers forming due to some level of CO2. They were guessing, based upon the ice core data and presumably one of their trusty models, that a reliable threshold (or limit) would be indicated, but really found nothing. So they will keep working on it... end of story.

 

[ReinyDays]

"The long-standing view of Earth's Cenozoic glacial history calls for" yada, yada, "reflecting a combination of terrestrial ice growth and deep-sea cooling. The apparent" blah, blah, "argued to reflect the growth of more ice than can be accommodated on Antarctica;" yada, yada, "raises the possibility that Oi-1 represents a precursory bipolar glaciation. Here we test this hypothesis using an isotopecapable global climate/ice-sheet model"

See, testing a hypothesis about "the possibility that" something "represents a precursory bipolar glaciation" by using one particular "model." This paper claims absolutely nothing about glaciers forming due to some level of CO2. They were guessing, based upon the ice core data and presumably one of their trusty models, that a reliable threshold (or limit) would be indicated, but really found nothing. So they will keep working on it... end of story.

It's not a paper ... it's a letter ... they're only addressing other folk running similar models ... sharing information while preparing formal papers for publishing ... I don't know off hand Nature's policies on these types of correspondence ... but this would never pass full peer review, it's just a snippet of some research going on someplace ... "details at 11" as it were ...

What else would you do with a computer that sized? ... I'd try to figure out how to get Americium to fission ... make some wildlife preserves ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

What else would you do with a computer that sized? ... I'd try to figure out how to get Americium to fission ... make some wildlife preserves ...

I'd probably sell it for scrap. The gold contacts alone would probably pay for a nice, new gaming PC, lol. Nah, I'd let them keep doing what they do. Probably good jobs with decent benefits. More power to 'em.

 

[westwall]

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 ...

That's not a CFD (or shall I say, a competent one) model. CFD models are used in F1 racing and aviation to calculate aerodynamic forces that affect performance. They cost, on average, 45 million dollars, and are run 24/7 during the year to develop parts.

And, they have a success rate less than .1% in that part development endeavor.

 

[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.

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

No, but we have a very good paleoclimate record for the PETM. You know, you are real good at making childish comments, how about you grow up and talk like an adult and actually discuss the science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

We're at 420ppm and the scientific consensus is that all life on Earth will end in 10 year as the Earth will be completely uninhabited with surface temperatures exceeding those on Venus

 

[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?

And I note westwall currently agrees with your assertion. Lol.
Here's that text (simply copied and pasted) and more to provide helpful context:

We show that the C[O.sub.2] threshold below which glaciation occurs in the Northern Hemisphere (~280p.p.m.v.) is much lower than that for Antarctica (~750 p.p.m.v.). Therefore, the growth of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere immediately following Antarctic glaciation would have required rapid C02 drawdown within the Oi-1 timeframe, to levels lower than those estimated by geochemical proxies (10,11) and carbon-cycle models (13, 14). Instead of bipolar glaciation, we find that Oi-1 is best explained by Antarctic glaciation alone, combined with deep-sea cooling of up to 4 [degrees]C and Antarctic ice that is less isotopically depleted (-30 to -35 [per thousand]) than previously suggested (15, 16). Proxy C[O.sub.2] estimates remain above our model's northern-hemispheric glaciation threshold of ~280 p.p.m.v. until ~25 Myr ago, but have been near or below that level ever since (10,11). This implies that episodic northern-hemispheric ice sheets have been possible some 20 million years earlier than currently assumed (although still much later than Oi-1) and could explain some of the variability in Miocene sea-level records (17,18).

From the title and intro, the overall context appears mainly concerned with evaluating the veracity of their model given the plethora of variables they've thrown into the mix.

Now notice:

• Report says: "the C[O.sub.2] threshold below which glaciation occurs"
• Report says: "ice sheets have been possible some 20 million years earlier than currently assumed"

We can see the variations, but we don't know why they exist ... why do you think we can control something if we don't know what we're controlling ...

Research continues ...

Because northern hemisphere glaciation occurs at 280 ppm.

Now what is your claim again, ding? We know what we're controlling because northern hemisphere glaciation occurs at 280 ppm? Brrrt!, sorry, times up and.. you're still clearly an idiot. Be sure to read the red, bold, underlined bits again carefully before quietly exiting. Thanks.

The was the worst apology in the history of the world.

 

[ding]

"The long-standing view of Earth's Cenozoic glacial history calls for" yada, yada, "reflecting a combination of terrestrial ice growth and deep-sea cooling. The apparent" blah, blah, "argued to reflect the growth of more ice than can be accommodated on Antarctica;" yada, yada, "raises the possibility that Oi-1 represents a precursory bipolar glaciation. Here we test this hypothesis using an isotopecapable global climate/ice-sheet model"

See, testing a hypothesis about "the possibility that" something "represents a precursory bipolar glaciation" by using one particular "model." This paper claims absolutely nothing about glaciers forming due to some level of CO2. They were guessing, based upon the ice core data and presumably one of their trusty models, that a reliable threshold (or limit) would be indicated, but really found nothing. So they will keep working on it... end of story.

It's not a paper ... it's a letter ... they're only addressing other folk running similar models ... sharing information while preparing formal papers for publishing ... I don't know off hand Nature's policies on these types of correspondence ... but this would never pass full peer review, it's just a snippet of some research going on someplace ... "details at 11" as it were ...

What else would you do with a computer that sized? ... I'd try to figure out how to get Americium to fission ... make some wildlife preserves ...

Holy shit.

 

[ding]

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

I missed something ... fish have been around closer to 500 million years ... and yes, warmer temperatures are good for fish in general ... it's a chemistry thing ...
What's your point here ... "life" includes single cell organisms ... 2.2 billion years in our current lineage ...

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

Yes, before then we had these things called "dinosaurs" that ate everything bigger than a mouse ... mammalian radiation had to wait until the dinosaurs evolved into birds ... and then the insects to arrive and eat bird eggs ... simple ... this is all before the ice started accumulating into the fridged planet we now see ... spewing the filth we call humanity ...

Yes, I'm enjoying this opportunity to insult everybody all at once ... something of a hobby of mine ... it's a skill set important in the construction trades ... humans are "better off" dead ... ha ha ha .. get it ... now go burn a tire ...

Yeah, wrong point and what's a few zeroes between friends? Lol

"The long-standing view of Earth's Cenozoic glacial history calls for" yada, yada, "reflecting a combination of terrestrial ice growth and deep-sea cooling. The apparent" blah, blah, "argued to reflect the growth of more ice than can be accommodated on Antarctica;" yada, yada, "raises the possibility that Oi-1 represents a precursory bipolar glaciation. Here we test this hypothesis using an isotopecapable global climate/ice-sheet model"

See, testing a hypothesis about "the possibility that" something "represents a precursory bipolar glaciation" by using one particular "model." This paper claims absolutely nothing about glaciers forming due to some level of CO2. They were guessing, based upon the ice core data and presumably one of their trusty models, that a reliable threshold (or limit) would be indicated, but really found nothing. So they will keep working on it... end of story.

You are truly an idiot when it comes to science.

https://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/onset.html

 

[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"?

No, but we have a very good paleoclimate record for the PETM. You know, you are real good at making childish comments, how about you grow up and talk like an adult and actually discuss the science.

Because he can’t discuss the science. That’s why. He’s a wannabe. A poser. A pretender. A fake.

 

[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"?

No, but we have a very good paleoclimate record for the PETM. You know, you are real good at making childish comments, how about you grow up and talk like an adult and actually discuss the science.

He said, after a one line response to a perfectly reasonable question. Fine admission, btw. Thanks for that. Yes, the temperature being much higher for that relatively short period clearly spurred a lot of growth (while melting the polar ice). Sorry, simply creating more (quantity) of "life" has never been the "adult" issue. The quality of human life, our survival as a species, has obviously been the focus. That of our supportive flora and fauna of secondary concern at best. Reiny would seemingly prefer the reverse, which is fine, but she'd have nothing to complain about if things were actually her way.

 

[Grumblenuts]

One entire response:

The was the worst apology in the history of the world.

Next one:

Holy shit.

Next:

You are truly an idiot when it comes to science.

https://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/onset.html

Next:

Because he can’t discuss the science. That’s why. He’s a wannabe. A poser. A pretender. A fake.

You know, you are real good at making childish comments, how about you grow up and talk like an adult

 

[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.

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

No, but we have a very good paleoclimate record for the PETM. You know, you are real good at making childish comments, how about you grow up and talk like an adult and actually discuss the science.

He said, after a one line response to a perfectly reasonable question. Fine admission, btw. Thanks for that. Yes, the temperature being much higher for that relatively short period clearly spurred a lot of growth (while melting the polar ice). Sorry, simply creating more (quantity) of "life" has never been the "adult" issue. The quality of human life, our survival as a species, has obviously been the focus. That of our supportive flora and fauna of secondary concern at best. Reiny would seemingly prefer the reverse, which is fine, but she'd have nothing to complain about if things were actually her way.

Relatively short period? The MWP lasted hundreds of years. Longer than this country has been around by an order of magnitude.

I guess you don't understand how life actually works. When life is abundant that means the conditions for life are abundant. When the conditions for life are abundant, that means the QUALITY of life is good.

Do you not understand that simple fact?