Scientist discovers errors in global warming model

[jc456]

The earth was getting more stable???

Please explain that one to us (I have to hear this one)

Up and down and up and down, you see the massive changes in the Silurian ages, between the Carboniferous and Permian ages? Then the Tertiary period the temperatures began to drop to the modern age where ups and downs have been relatively smaller and quite consistent. Even before the Tertiary age things were getting more stable, the Cretaceous era seemed to be a little stable, then temperatures rose and then dropped down further.

CO2 levels have been dropping for quite a long time, until human advancement too. CO2 levels have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years, after this slow and steady drop.

No doubt a lot of this is a decrease in the number of volcanoes, perhaps plate tectonics slowing down or being so extreme. The Earth is possibly entering a far more stable era. Unless humans change it all, of course.

CO2 levels dropped largely because the Ice Ages bound up all the Natural carbon exchange between ocean, land and atmosphere. And nothing much was LIVING during that period. CO2 is largely an indicator of LIFE on the planet. Since it's part of the combustion system of every living thing..

CO2 levels dropped because the oceans were significantly colder, and cold water absorbs more CO2 than warm water. The changes in the Milankovic Cycles started warming the southern ocean, which emitted CO2, which increased the warming. Also much carbon was buried on land by the continental glaciers.

Glacial-interglacial atmospheric CO2 change —The glacial burial hypothesis - Springer

Abstract
Organic carbon buried under the great ice sheets of the Northern Hemisphere is suggested to be the missing link in the atmospheric CO2 change over the glacial-interglacial cycles. At glaciation, the advancement of continental ice sheets buries vegetation and soil carbon accumulated during warmer periods. At deglaciation, this burial carbon is released back into the atmosphere. In a simulation over two glacial-interglacial cycles using a synchronously coupled atmosphere-land-ocean carbon model forced by reconstructed climate change, it is found that there is a 547-Gt terrestrial carbon release from glacial maximum to interglacial, resulting in a 60-Gt (about 30-ppmv) increase in the atmospheric CO2, with the remainder absorbed by the ocean in a scenario in which ocean acts as a passive buffer. This is in contrast to previous estimates of a land uptake at deglaciation. This carbon source originates from glacial burial, continental shelf, and other land areas in response to changes in ice cover, sea level, and climate. The input of light isotope enriched terrestrial carbon causes atmospheric δ13C to drop by about 0.3‰ at deglaciation, followed by a rapid rise towards a high interglacial value in response to oceanic warming and regrowth on land. Together with other ocean based mechanisms such as change in ocean temperature, the glacial burial hypothesis may offer a full explanation of the observed 80–100-ppmv atmospheric CO2 change.

There was plenty of life south of the ice line. Expecially in North America. Huge lakes in Oregon, California, and Nevada. Actually more differant species then than live here today. Quite a lot went extinct during the Younger Dryas.

i just have to laugh at this old sock update on glacial-interglacial cycles. Exactly why is there more CO2 in the atmosphere today, ice melted. Not humans existed. holy crap batman, I don't understand idiot. I just don't.

Quite obviously, you, as an idiot, do not understand basics.

During the last glacial, there were a lot of humans alive. In fact, this is our second interglacial, as Homo Sap has been around for at least 160,000 years.

In the ice, there'd be CO2 frozen in it. Ice coring verifies that. so again, when the ice melts, all that CO2 goes into the atmosphere. I would expect a spike or an increase in atmospheric levels when that occurred, not the presence of human life.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Up and down and up and down, you see the massive changes in the Silurian ages, between the Carboniferous and Permian ages? Then the Tertiary period the temperatures began to drop to the modern age where ups and downs have been relatively smaller and quite consistent. Even before the Tertiary age things were getting more stable, the Cretaceous era seemed to be a little stable, then temperatures rose and then dropped down further.

CO2 levels have been dropping for quite a long time, until human advancement too. CO2 levels have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years, after this slow and steady drop.

No doubt a lot of this is a decrease in the number of volcanoes, perhaps plate tectonics slowing down or being so extreme. The Earth is possibly entering a far more stable era. Unless humans change it all, of course.

CO2 levels dropped largely because the Ice Ages bound up all the Natural carbon exchange between ocean, land and atmosphere. And nothing much was LIVING during that period. CO2 is largely an indicator of LIFE on the planet. Since it's part of the combustion system of every living thing..

CO2 levels dropped because the oceans were significantly colder, and cold water absorbs more CO2 than warm water. The changes in the Milankovic Cycles started warming the southern ocean, which emitted CO2, which increased the warming. Also much carbon was buried on land by the continental glaciers.

Glacial-interglacial atmospheric CO2 change —The glacial burial hypothesis - Springer

Abstract
Organic carbon buried under the great ice sheets of the Northern Hemisphere is suggested to be the missing link in the atmospheric CO2 change over the glacial-interglacial cycles. At glaciation, the advancement of continental ice sheets buries vegetation and soil carbon accumulated during warmer periods. At deglaciation, this burial carbon is released back into the atmosphere. In a simulation over two glacial-interglacial cycles using a synchronously coupled atmosphere-land-ocean carbon model forced by reconstructed climate change, it is found that there is a 547-Gt terrestrial carbon release from glacial maximum to interglacial, resulting in a 60-Gt (about 30-ppmv) increase in the atmospheric CO2, with the remainder absorbed by the ocean in a scenario in which ocean acts as a passive buffer. This is in contrast to previous estimates of a land uptake at deglaciation. This carbon source originates from glacial burial, continental shelf, and other land areas in response to changes in ice cover, sea level, and climate. The input of light isotope enriched terrestrial carbon causes atmospheric δ13C to drop by about 0.3‰ at deglaciation, followed by a rapid rise towards a high interglacial value in response to oceanic warming and regrowth on land. Together with other ocean based mechanisms such as change in ocean temperature, the glacial burial hypothesis may offer a full explanation of the observed 80–100-ppmv atmospheric CO2 change.

There was plenty of life south of the ice line. Expecially in North America. Huge lakes in Oregon, California, and Nevada. Actually more differant species then than live here today. Quite a lot went extinct during the Younger Dryas.

i just have to laugh at this old sock update on glacial-interglacial cycles. Exactly why is there more CO2 in the atmosphere today, ice melted. Not humans existed. holy crap batman, I don't understand idiot. I just don't.

Quite obviously, you, as an idiot, do not understand basics.

During the last glacial, there were a lot of humans alive. In fact, this is our second interglacial, as Homo Sap has been around for at least 160,000 years.

In the ice, there'd be CO2 frozen in it. Ice coring verifies that. so again, when the ice melts, all that CO2 goes into the atmosphere. I would expect a spike or an increase in atmospheric levels when that occurred, not the presence of human life.

Now you've gone and done it... I can see the permafrost rant coming.. (dont tell him that its just a few meter's thick and that the amount of gas trapped in it is just 15% of original estimates..)

 

[mamooth]

You two realize that made no sense, right? The amount of CO2 locked in bubbles in ice cores is completely insignificant when compared to the CO2 in the atmosphere. That CO2 is also accompanied by all the other gases of the atmosphere, so releasing it won't change ratios at all. If there was any effect, it would be to decrease CO2 levels, since those trapped bubbles have lower CO2 levels.

That's the problem with most deniers. They have no idea of the scale of physical phenomena, no common sense in thinking about the physical world. They go entirely by their feelings, which are always wrong.

 

[jc456]

You two realize that made no sense, right? The amount of CO2 locked in bubbles in ice cores is completely insignificant when compared to the CO2 in the atmosphere. That CO2 is also accompanied by all the other gases of the atmosphere, so releasing it won't change ratios at all. If there was any effect, it would be to decrease CO2 levels, since those trapped bubbles have lower CO2 levels.

That's the problem with most deniers. They have no idea of the scale of physical phenomena, no common sense in thinking about the physical world. They go entirely by their feelings, which are always wrong.

funny, you have a hemisphere full of ice with trapped gas and when the ice melts, it has but one place to go, up. Hell 20 PPM of CO2 has magical powers according to you all and can make category 5 hurricanes, droughts and floods. 20 PPM.

 

[flacaltenn]

You two realize that made no sense, right? The amount of CO2 locked in bubbles in ice cores is completely insignificant when compared to the CO2 in the atmosphere. That CO2 is also accompanied by all the other gases of the atmosphere, so releasing it won't change ratios at all. If there was any effect, it would be to decrease CO2 levels, since those trapped bubbles have lower CO2 levels.

That's the problem with most deniers. They have no idea of the scale of physical phenomena, no common sense in thinking about the physical world. They go entirely by their feelings, which are always wrong.

It's not the amount of CO2 trapped in the ice that sequesters the Carbon during a glacial.. It's the fact that the ice PREVENTS the normal sinking and sourcing of CO2/methane underneath it -- for that period. Not a "normal" condition for the planet as we know it..

 

[Old Rocks]

Well you must be one of the few people who think that CO2 isn't pollution. It is, by the way, you're just deluding yourself.

A plastic bag in a supermarket isn't pollution. But in the pacific ocean it is.

CO2 is in the air, in it's normal amounts it isn't pollution. When there's too much of it, it is pollution. It's a simple concept, one that high school kids are often able to pick up and understand. Maybe once you've graduated from high school you'll understand. Maybe.

ok going with that, what is too much? Do you have any knowledge on how much is too much? Seems like you're off course captain. You should first learn how much is too much if you wish to make that claim. BTW, CO2 is not a pollutant. We exhale it. comprehende?

Too much is more than there should be. Too much is when the climate starts to change because we've put more up there. Too much is when we're having an impact when we shouldn't be.

Listen, if you're going to keep going with this silly "we exhale CO2 therefore it's not a pollutant" then we're not going to be able to talk. You have to understand what stuff is to be able to talk about a complex issue, instead of either A) just taking the piss and B) being extremely ignorant.

Some things are fact.

Let's try some basic English

pollution: definition of pollution in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects:"

More CO2 into the atmosphere is harmful because it increases the greenhouse effect.

Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Something basic for you

"Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas. Burning of carbon-based fuels since the industrial revolution has rapidly increased its concentration in the atmosphere, leading to global warming. It is also a major cause of ocean acidification since it dissolves in water to form carbonic acid.[7]"

"Carbon dioxide dissolves in the ocean to form carbonic acid (H2CO3), bicarbonate (HCO3−) and carbonate (CO32−). There is about fifty times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans as exists in the atmosphere. The oceans act as an enormous carbon sink, and have taken up about a third of CO2 emitted by human activity.[52]"

"As the concentration of carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, the increased uptake of carbon dioxide into the oceans is causing a measurable decrease in the pH of the oceans, which is referred to as ocean acidification. "

"This reduction in pH affects biological systems in the oceans, primarily oceanic calcifying organisms. These effects span thefood chain from autotrophs to heterotrophs and include organisms such as coccolithophores, corals, foraminifera, echinoderms, crustaceans and mollusks. Under normal conditions, calcium carbonate is stable in surface waters since the carbonate ion is at supersaturating concentrations. However, as ocean pH falls, so does the concentration of this ion, and when carbonate becomes undersaturated, structures made of calcium carbonate are vulnerable to dissolution.[53] Corals,[54][55][56] coccolithophore algae,[57][58][59][60]coralline algae,[61] foraminifera,[62]shellfish[63] and pteropods[64] experience reduced calcification or enhanced dissolution when exposed to elevated CO2"

So, the biggest impact so far is in the oceans. We're basically polluting so much that the oceans are experiencing ocean acidification, which is destroying ocean eco systems, destroying food chains, and basically having an extremely negative effect on what is there.

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Current rates of ocean acidification have been compared with the greenhouse event at the Paleocene–Eocene boundary (about 55 million years ago) when surface ocean temperatures rose by 5–6 degrees Celsius. No catastrophe was seen in surface ecosystems, yet bottom-dwelling organisms in the deep ocean experienced a major extinction. "

"The current acidification is on a path to reach levels higher than any seen in the last 65 million years,[39] and the rate of increase is about ten times the rate that preceded the Paleocene–Eocene mass extinction. "

The Earth has become more stable recently. This has allowed the development of human beings. Before the Earth would be trying to regulate itself and would go up and down and cause mass extinctions and temperature fluctuations which would take leading creatures and kill them off to be replaced by other creatures.
Humanity has increased because of this stability. We're changing this stability. We're destroying it. What do you think will happen to the leading creatures?

Lie after lie after lie...

You think you would get tired of the bull shit lies.. The earth has been stable for some 450 million years. Your narrow determination that our time on earth is the most ideal and is the way it should be is totally ludicrous. Your ego is so grand that you think you can command the earths systems.

There are two circles. The first is the natural one. The other is one we're creating and we can't control.

As I said, the planet is getting more stable. We're making it unstable.

Man hasn't stabilized the Earth, the Earth has done it itself. Should we be changing this?

The earth was getting more stable???

Please explain that one to us (I have to hear this one)

Up and down and up and down, you see the massive changes in the Silurian ages, between the Carboniferous and Permian ages? Then the Tertiary period the temperatures began to drop to the modern age where ups and downs have been relatively smaller and quite consistent. Even before the Tertiary age things were getting more stable, the Cretaceous era seemed to be a little stable, then temperatures rose and then dropped down further.

CO2 levels have been dropping for quite a long time, until human advancement too. CO2 levels have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years, after this slow and steady drop.

No doubt a lot of this is a decrease in the number of volcanoes, perhaps plate tectonics slowing down or being so extreme. The Earth is possibly entering a far more stable era. Unless humans change it all, of course.

You really are clueless..

Your own graph disproves your claims and your AGW hyperbole. The earth has remained stable, within its known temperature range of +/- 6 deg C for over 450 billion years. That's right the range is 12 deg C. And you morons are worried about 0.67 deg C change in 150 years.

Secondly the amount of CO2 has ranged from around 7,900ppm to near zero. Plant life ceases to operate when CO2 levels reach around 250ppm. The average CO2 level for the earth is around 1795ppm. At those rates of CO2 in our atmosphere the planets temperature has NEVER GONE OUT OF CONTROL because CO2 has little to no effect due to WATER VAPOR which acts as a negative forcing.

I gave you empirical evidence which support this and you ignored it. Funny how you alarmists ignore FACTS which show your religion fantasy.

Silly Billy, that is about the funniest post I have read in a while. Plant life cannot operate at 250 ppm? At the coldest points of the glacials, the CO2 level was 180 ppm. And there were mammoths and mastodons. So what the hell were they eating if not plants? They were plant eaters, after all.

The earth has remained stable for over 450 million years? There were five great extinctions during this period. And many smaller ones.

Billy Bob, you are the most brain dead poster on this board.

You really are totally ignorant of basic chemistry and the requirements of the atmosphere for photosynthesis to take place.

Tell me moron, what happens to the chemical exchange in plants when CO2 drops below 280ppm.

Edit:
Because you are clueless;

The plants ability to reproduce slows or stops. No new flowers, no pollination, the plants ability to use water and nutrients from the soil decreases. This means plant species die, food becomes harder to grow and PEOPLE DIE!

What a dumb ass you are, Silly Billy. The normal high for the interglacials has been 280 ppm to 300 ppm. The normal low, from 180 ppm to 200 ppm.

Vostok Ice Core record of variations in air temperature (relative to the current average temperature of �55.5°C at Vostok) and CO2concentrations from gas bubbles in the ice. (Data from Petit et al., 1999.)

Again, in all the low points of the ice ages, there were very large plant eating animals that survived just fine. Therefore, there had to be an abundance of plants.

Billy, pulling nonsense like that out of your ass is why you are even more of a laughing stock than Frankie. And that is a hard score to beat.

 

[flacaltenn]

ok going with that, what is too much? Do you have any knowledge on how much is too much? Seems like you're off course captain. You should first learn how much is too much if you wish to make that claim. BTW, CO2 is not a pollutant. We exhale it. comprehende?

Too much is more than there should be. Too much is when the climate starts to change because we've put more up there. Too much is when we're having an impact when we shouldn't be.

Listen, if you're going to keep going with this silly "we exhale CO2 therefore it's not a pollutant" then we're not going to be able to talk. You have to understand what stuff is to be able to talk about a complex issue, instead of either A) just taking the piss and B) being extremely ignorant.

Some things are fact.

Let's try some basic English

pollution: definition of pollution in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects:"

More CO2 into the atmosphere is harmful because it increases the greenhouse effect.

Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Something basic for you

"Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas. Burning of carbon-based fuels since the industrial revolution has rapidly increased its concentration in the atmosphere, leading to global warming. It is also a major cause of ocean acidification since it dissolves in water to form carbonic acid.[7]"

"Carbon dioxide dissolves in the ocean to form carbonic acid (H2CO3), bicarbonate (HCO3−) and carbonate (CO32−). There is about fifty times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans as exists in the atmosphere. The oceans act as an enormous carbon sink, and have taken up about a third of CO2 emitted by human activity.[52]"

"As the concentration of carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, the increased uptake of carbon dioxide into the oceans is causing a measurable decrease in the pH of the oceans, which is referred to as ocean acidification. "

"This reduction in pH affects biological systems in the oceans, primarily oceanic calcifying organisms. These effects span thefood chain from autotrophs to heterotrophs and include organisms such as coccolithophores, corals, foraminifera, echinoderms, crustaceans and mollusks. Under normal conditions, calcium carbonate is stable in surface waters since the carbonate ion is at supersaturating concentrations. However, as ocean pH falls, so does the concentration of this ion, and when carbonate becomes undersaturated, structures made of calcium carbonate are vulnerable to dissolution.[53] Corals,[54][55][56] coccolithophore algae,[57][58][59][60]coralline algae,[61] foraminifera,[62]shellfish[63] and pteropods[64] experience reduced calcification or enhanced dissolution when exposed to elevated CO2"

So, the biggest impact so far is in the oceans. We're basically polluting so much that the oceans are experiencing ocean acidification, which is destroying ocean eco systems, destroying food chains, and basically having an extremely negative effect on what is there.

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Current rates of ocean acidification have been compared with the greenhouse event at the Paleocene–Eocene boundary (about 55 million years ago) when surface ocean temperatures rose by 5–6 degrees Celsius. No catastrophe was seen in surface ecosystems, yet bottom-dwelling organisms in the deep ocean experienced a major extinction. "

"The current acidification is on a path to reach levels higher than any seen in the last 65 million years,[39] and the rate of increase is about ten times the rate that preceded the Paleocene–Eocene mass extinction. "

The Earth has become more stable recently. This has allowed the development of human beings. Before the Earth would be trying to regulate itself and would go up and down and cause mass extinctions and temperature fluctuations which would take leading creatures and kill them off to be replaced by other creatures.
Humanity has increased because of this stability. We're changing this stability. We're destroying it. What do you think will happen to the leading creatures?

Lie after lie after lie...

You think you would get tired of the bull shit lies.. The earth has been stable for some 450 million years. Your narrow determination that our time on earth is the most ideal and is the way it should be is totally ludicrous. Your ego is so grand that you think you can command the earths systems.

The earth was getting more stable???

Please explain that one to us (I have to hear this one)

Up and down and up and down, you see the massive changes in the Silurian ages, between the Carboniferous and Permian ages? Then the Tertiary period the temperatures began to drop to the modern age where ups and downs have been relatively smaller and quite consistent. Even before the Tertiary age things were getting more stable, the Cretaceous era seemed to be a little stable, then temperatures rose and then dropped down further.

CO2 levels have been dropping for quite a long time, until human advancement too. CO2 levels have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years, after this slow and steady drop.

No doubt a lot of this is a decrease in the number of volcanoes, perhaps plate tectonics slowing down or being so extreme. The Earth is possibly entering a far more stable era. Unless humans change it all, of course.

You really are clueless..

Your own graph disproves your claims and your AGW hyperbole. The earth has remained stable, within its known temperature range of +/- 6 deg C for over 450 billion years. That's right the range is 12 deg C. And you morons are worried about 0.67 deg C change in 150 years.

Secondly the amount of CO2 has ranged from around 7,900ppm to near zero. Plant life ceases to operate when CO2 levels reach around 250ppm. The average CO2 level for the earth is around 1795ppm. At those rates of CO2 in our atmosphere the planets temperature has NEVER GONE OUT OF CONTROL because CO2 has little to no effect due to WATER VAPOR which acts as a negative forcing.

I gave you empirical evidence which support this and you ignored it. Funny how you alarmists ignore FACTS which show your religion fantasy.

Silly Billy, that is about the funniest post I have read in a while. Plant life cannot operate at 250 ppm? At the coldest points of the glacials, the CO2 level was 180 ppm. And there were mammoths and mastodons. So what the hell were they eating if not plants? They were plant eaters, after all.

The earth has remained stable for over 450 million years? There were five great extinctions during this period. And many smaller ones.

Billy Bob, you are the most brain dead poster on this board.

You really are totally ignorant of basic chemistry and the requirements of the atmosphere for photosynthesis to take place.

Tell me moron, what happens to the chemical exchange in plants when CO2 drops below 280ppm.

Edit:
Because you are clueless;

The plants ability to reproduce slows or stops. No new flowers, no pollination, the plants ability to use water and nutrients from the soil decreases. This means plant species die, food becomes harder to grow and PEOPLE DIE!

What a dumb ass you are, Silly Billy. The normal high for the interglacials has been 280 ppm to 300 ppm. The normal low, from 180 ppm to 200 ppm.

Vostok Ice Core record of variations in air temperature (relative to the current average temperature of �55.5°C at Vostok) and CO2concentrations from gas bubbles in the ice. (Data from Petit et al., 1999.)

Again, in all the low points of the ice ages, there were very large plant eating animals that survived just fine. Therefore, there had to be an abundance of plants.

Billy, pulling nonsense like that out of your ass is why you are even more of a laughing stock than Frankie. And that is a hard score to beat.

Those are low resolution findings. Incapable of actually measuring accurate peaks and valleys. There are plenty of shorter more highly resolved studies showing MASSIVE swings in CO2 highs and low during the last Ice cycle. And I've POSTED a couple of those before. You need to remember the limitations of the data sets you are citings whenever you attempt to make sweeping statements of what is known..

 

[Billy_Bob]

ok going with that, what is too much? Do you have any knowledge on how much is too much? Seems like you're off course captain. You should first learn how much is too much if you wish to make that claim. BTW, CO2 is not a pollutant. We exhale it. comprehende?

Too much is more than there should be. Too much is when the climate starts to change because we've put more up there. Too much is when we're having an impact when we shouldn't be.

Listen, if you're going to keep going with this silly "we exhale CO2 therefore it's not a pollutant" then we're not going to be able to talk. You have to understand what stuff is to be able to talk about a complex issue, instead of either A) just taking the piss and B) being extremely ignorant.

Some things are fact.

Let's try some basic English

pollution: definition of pollution in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects:"

More CO2 into the atmosphere is harmful because it increases the greenhouse effect.

Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Something basic for you

"Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas. Burning of carbon-based fuels since the industrial revolution has rapidly increased its concentration in the atmosphere, leading to global warming. It is also a major cause of ocean acidification since it dissolves in water to form carbonic acid.[7]"

"Carbon dioxide dissolves in the ocean to form carbonic acid (H2CO3), bicarbonate (HCO3−) and carbonate (CO32−). There is about fifty times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans as exists in the atmosphere. The oceans act as an enormous carbon sink, and have taken up about a third of CO2 emitted by human activity.[52]"

"As the concentration of carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, the increased uptake of carbon dioxide into the oceans is causing a measurable decrease in the pH of the oceans, which is referred to as ocean acidification. "

"This reduction in pH affects biological systems in the oceans, primarily oceanic calcifying organisms. These effects span thefood chain from autotrophs to heterotrophs and include organisms such as coccolithophores, corals, foraminifera, echinoderms, crustaceans and mollusks. Under normal conditions, calcium carbonate is stable in surface waters since the carbonate ion is at supersaturating concentrations. However, as ocean pH falls, so does the concentration of this ion, and when carbonate becomes undersaturated, structures made of calcium carbonate are vulnerable to dissolution.[53] Corals,[54][55][56] coccolithophore algae,[57][58][59][60]coralline algae,[61] foraminifera,[62]shellfish[63] and pteropods[64] experience reduced calcification or enhanced dissolution when exposed to elevated CO2"

So, the biggest impact so far is in the oceans. We're basically polluting so much that the oceans are experiencing ocean acidification, which is destroying ocean eco systems, destroying food chains, and basically having an extremely negative effect on what is there.

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Current rates of ocean acidification have been compared with the greenhouse event at the Paleocene–Eocene boundary (about 55 million years ago) when surface ocean temperatures rose by 5–6 degrees Celsius. No catastrophe was seen in surface ecosystems, yet bottom-dwelling organisms in the deep ocean experienced a major extinction. "

"The current acidification is on a path to reach levels higher than any seen in the last 65 million years,[39] and the rate of increase is about ten times the rate that preceded the Paleocene–Eocene mass extinction. "

The Earth has become more stable recently. This has allowed the development of human beings. Before the Earth would be trying to regulate itself and would go up and down and cause mass extinctions and temperature fluctuations which would take leading creatures and kill them off to be replaced by other creatures.
Humanity has increased because of this stability. We're changing this stability. We're destroying it. What do you think will happen to the leading creatures?

Lie after lie after lie...

You think you would get tired of the bull shit lies.. The earth has been stable for some 450 million years. Your narrow determination that our time on earth is the most ideal and is the way it should be is totally ludicrous. Your ego is so grand that you think you can command the earths systems.

The earth was getting more stable???

Please explain that one to us (I have to hear this one)

Up and down and up and down, you see the massive changes in the Silurian ages, between the Carboniferous and Permian ages? Then the Tertiary period the temperatures began to drop to the modern age where ups and downs have been relatively smaller and quite consistent. Even before the Tertiary age things were getting more stable, the Cretaceous era seemed to be a little stable, then temperatures rose and then dropped down further.

CO2 levels have been dropping for quite a long time, until human advancement too. CO2 levels have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years, after this slow and steady drop.

No doubt a lot of this is a decrease in the number of volcanoes, perhaps plate tectonics slowing down or being so extreme. The Earth is possibly entering a far more stable era. Unless humans change it all, of course.

You really are clueless..

Your own graph disproves your claims and your AGW hyperbole. The earth has remained stable, within its known temperature range of +/- 6 deg C for over 450 billion years. That's right the range is 12 deg C. And you morons are worried about 0.67 deg C change in 150 years.

Secondly the amount of CO2 has ranged from around 7,900ppm to near zero. Plant life ceases to operate when CO2 levels reach around 250ppm. The average CO2 level for the earth is around 1795ppm. At those rates of CO2 in our atmosphere the planets temperature has NEVER GONE OUT OF CONTROL because CO2 has little to no effect due to WATER VAPOR which acts as a negative forcing.

I gave you empirical evidence which support this and you ignored it. Funny how you alarmists ignore FACTS which show your religion fantasy.

Silly Billy, that is about the funniest post I have read in a while. Plant life cannot operate at 250 ppm? At the coldest points of the glacials, the CO2 level was 180 ppm. And there were mammoths and mastodons. So what the hell were they eating if not plants? They were plant eaters, after all.

The earth has remained stable for over 450 million years? There were five great extinctions during this period. And many smaller ones.

Billy Bob, you are the most brain dead poster on this board.

You really are totally ignorant of basic chemistry and the requirements of the atmosphere for photosynthesis to take place.

Tell me moron, what happens to the chemical exchange in plants when CO2 drops below 280ppm.

Edit:
Because you are clueless;

The plants ability to reproduce slows or stops. No new flowers, no pollination, the plants ability to use water and nutrients from the soil decreases. This means plant species die, food becomes harder to grow and PEOPLE DIE!

What a dumb ass you are, Silly Billy. The normal high for the interglacials has been 280 ppm to 300 ppm. The normal low, from 180 ppm to 200 ppm.

Vostok Ice Core record of variations in air temperature (relative to the current average temperature of �55.5°C at Vostok) and CO2concentrations from gas bubbles in the ice. (Data from Petit et al., 1999.)

Again, in all the low points of the ice ages, there were very large plant eating animals that survived just fine. Therefore, there had to be an abundance of plants.

Billy, pulling nonsense like that out of your ass is why you are even more of a laughing stock than Frankie. And that is a hard score to beat.

Your having a hard time understanding Spatial Resolution aren't ya..

Sucks to be you! Calling names and then being shown that your a fool who doesn't know squat.. Tell me moron, your graph has a SR of 500 years, Is it capable of showing the wider swings we have seen the last 100 years?