Your graph clearly shows two things. CO2 has not been at it CURRENT level in more than 400,000 years. And at no time in the last 400,000 years have CO2 levels risen as fast as they have been driven upward by human emissions.
That rate of change is a critical parameter. The geologically slow rate of change seen in Earth's past allowed time for the weathering of carbonate minerals to buffer the ocean's pH. On those few occasions where CO2 changed as rapidly as it is doing now, it resulted in massive marine extinction events.
Again... 400k years ago, we didn't have high-tech instruments in Antarctica measuring precisely how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere every second of every day.
But now we have high tech instruments and advanced techniques we can apply to those cores and have an excellent understanding as to what information we can get from ice cores and what effects, time and diffusion have had. And why would I need measurements every second? We'd be looking for an event that lasted at least 300 years.
We have to rely on ice core samples which give us a general idea of about how much there was at a given point in time and this doesn't account for any extreme spikes that may have occurred. With the advent of modern technology, we can get a much more detailed picture but that doesn't mean the picture didn't have detail before.
If you're going to make the argument that a spike in CO2 or temperature could have happened within the chronological resolution of the ice cores, there are a few points you have to address. The process that reduces resolution in ice cores is diffusion. Many people think of the problem on a digital basis, as if the system takes discrete samples in time that become more widely separated, creating growing gaps in the record. But that is not the case.
The effect of a change in a diffused parameter is simply to reduce its peak magnitude and spread it's span primarily into the past. The deeper and further back we look in a core, the greater the diffusion we see. Yet the spikes we do see in the ice core records are all very close to the same magnitude. That indicates that those events were considerably longer than the record's chronological resolution and that they are accurately displayed.
Another issue is the unrealistic nature of what you are expecting to have taken place. Events have causes and the more dynamic and energetic an event, the more dynamic and energetic must have been the cause (ignoring catalysis and chaos for the moment). We have a completely unnatural cause for the current spike in CO2. Similar spikes in the past (all, as Old Rocks and I both told you, associated with extinction events) had causes: massive vulcanism and major meteorite strikes. If you suspect other such spikes have taken place, you need to find a cause and one that has apparently left no other evidence. NEXT, you need to find an extraordinarily effective CURE. Look at the spikes in your record. Many of them rise rapidly (though none within orders of magnitude of the current situation). But all of them decline s-l-o-w-l-y. Over thousands or tens of thousands of years. To make your spike invisible, it must disappear as rapidly as it appeared. So far, NO ONE has conceived of a process that will do such a thing. If you think you've got one, the world would love to hear about it.
So, when you have a cause for such a spike and have a process by which such a spike could be ended and undone in a geological instant and some corroborating evidence that such an event ever took place (CO2 levels are recorded widely by carbonate fixing organisms) and you can locate a corresponding diffused rise in the ice core record... then perhaps we can suspect that a situation similar to the current situation has taken place in the past.
Unfortunately, that will do you no good. Isotopic analysis clearly shows that virtually every molecule of CO2 in our atmosphere above the Industrial Revolution's 280 ppm originated from the combustion of fossil fuel. The amounts of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution can be directly estimated from records of fuel consumption and they agree as perfectly as they could agree with the isotopic analysis. The CO2 that raised the Earth's atmosphere from 280 ppm CO2 to 400 ppm CO2 is of human origin.
You mention the oceans and it's important to note, the oceans absorb most of the carbon dioxide. It does not result in mass extinction events, it results in mineral development which encourages habitat for marine life.
I strongly suggest you read
Permian–Triassic extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
I also suggest some basic chemistry. The solution of CO2 in the world's oceans INCREASES its aragonite (limestone, CaCO3) solubility. It does NOT encourage "mineral development". You have that precisely wrong. Ask anyone you know who's passed chemistry 101.
You are being propagandized by a multi-decade-long effort on the part of Socialists.
Socialists? Really? You believe there is no evidence or science to support AGW? You believe it is a vast political conspiracy which has suborned virtually every single one of the world's scientists? Do you have any evidence? Any confessions? Any surveillance recordings? Any hard science that shows CO2 does NOT support the greenhouse effect? Any hard science that shows the added CO2 is from some other source?
Man's contribution to CO2 in nature is minimal at best.
42% of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is from humans burning fossil fuels. Fact..
Our planet handles it just like it handles the oil spills and nuclear reactor meltdowns we occasionally have. Those things are bad, don't get me wrong, but they're not going to ever spell doom for our planet or our species.
Our planet handles it? What the **** is that supposed to mean? The Earth continues to spin on its axis and orbit the sun, so everything is okay? Oil spills, reactor meltdowns and global warming hurt people and hurt animals and hurt plants. No one has ever claimed that global warming was a threat to the survival of the human species but if you think that is the minimum level of a threat to which we should respond, then I am very glad you seem to be in charge of nothing.
AND
I just posted a graph that shows us 400k years of CO2 levels rising and falling dramatically in cycles but you're stuck on stupid claiming that humans are causing the increase. The planet also warms and cools in cycles and it has nothing to do with man.
On what do you base that belief? That we couldn't do it because it never happened before? If the logical fallacy of such a position is not obvious to you, I'm not certain I or anyone else can help you.
The present situation is, charlatans see an opportunity to use modern media to spread socialist propaganda to the gullible and further their cockamamie agenda of trying to bilk capitalists with their fairy tale.
AGW is based on science, not on politics. Scientists from all over the world, living under all manner of governments, all agree that the Earth is warming that our activities are the dominant cause. If you have some science that says something else, why don't you bring it forward.
I don't believe we've debated before. Welcome to the forum.
