The Pliocene: The Last Time Earth had >400 ppm of Atmospheric CO2

[ding]

• 34 million years ago
  CO2 levels had dropped enough that the Antarctic ice sheet began to develop. T
  
  Google AI

That's a false narrative. It will be written correctly after the theory of AGW fails. It's not possible for that to be correct with CO2 lagging temperature. In fact, for this reason alone the theory of AGW is disproven.

 

[ding]

Temperature and CO2 both rose. What's wrong with you?

No, CO2 lagged temperature by 800 to 1000 years due to the lag time of the ocean cooling. It takes time to cool the ocean and it takes time for the ocean to absorb CO2.

You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The ocean temperature MUST cool BEFORE absorbing CO2. That's how solubility works. And that's what the data shows.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Really?
Yes, everything was also fine PRE-HUMAN HEAVY COVERAGE OF THE PLANET/COASTS.
But that sea level NOW Would DESTROY Many of our Largest cities and coasts.

They're filled with Democrats so what's the problem?

 

[ding]

The Last Time Earth had >800 ppm of Atmospheric CO2...​

...It cooled.

 

[jc456]

Temperature and CO2 both rose. What's wrong with you?

And CO2 always lags temperature. Didn’t you read his earlier posts? Wow are you an imbecile

 

[ding]

The Last Time Earth had >900 ppm of Atmospheric CO2...​

...It cooled.

 

[ding]

1. CO2 lagging temperature by 800 to 1000 years is a sign the atmosphere is NOT controlling the climate.
2. CO2 lagging temperature by 800 to 1000 years is a sign the ocean is controlling the climate.
3. CO2 levels dropping in response to a colder climate is because the ocean is absorbing CO2 which is what colder temperatures cause.
4. CO2 levels increasing in response to a warmer climate is because the ocean is releasing CO2 which is what warmer temperatures cause.
5. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a function of temperature.
6. At some point in time after the industrial revolution CO2 became a function of man's CO2 emissions.
7. At no point can CO2 be seen as driving the planet's climate. That would be driven by how the ocean distributes heat across the planet. Specifically the Arctic.

 

[Crick]

1. CO2 lagging temperature by 800 to 1000 years is a sign the atmosphere is NOT controlling the climate.
2. CO2 lagging temperature by 800 to 1000 years is a sign the ocean is controlling the climate.
3. CO2 levels dropping in response to a colder climate is because the ocean is absorbing CO2 which is what colder temperatures cause.
4. CO2 levels increasing in response to a warmer climate is because the ocean is releasing CO2 which is what warmer temperatures cause.
5. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a function of temperature.
6. At some point in time after the industrial revolution CO2 became a function of man's CO2 emissions.
7. At no point can CO2 be seen as driving the planet's climate. That would be driven by how the ocean distributes heat across the planet. Specifically the Arctic.

View attachment 985591

Shakun's work and that of several that have followed him shows that CO2 warming (the Greenhouse effect) has been a significant positive feedback to Milankovitch forcing. If you want to claim that increasing CO2 won't warm the planet, you need to show us your work - the work that refutes that work of scientists going back over 170 years. The sort of work you attempted to claim that actual scientists publishing actual studies in actual peer-reviewed journals failed to show. And then, when I showed you that work precisely, you tried to claim that the test was whether or not I was willing to explain it to you. Just out of curiosity, what was your last math class?

 

[ding]

Shakun's work and that of several that have followed him shows that CO2 warming (the Greenhouse effect) has been a significant positive feedback to Milankovitch forcing. If you want to claim that increasing CO2 won't warm the planet, you need to show us your work - the work that refutes that work of scientists going back over 170 years. The sort of work you attempted to claim that actual scientists publishing actual studies in actual peer-reviewed journals failed to show. And then, when I showed you that work precisely, you tried to claim that the test was whether or not I was willing to explain it to you. Just out of curiosity, what was your last math class?

Feel free to explain that mechanism in your own words.

 

[Crick]

Feel free to explain that mechanism in your own words.

Why? Are you having difficulty understanding the source text? Why would my explanation be required?

 

[ding]

Why? Are you having difficulty understanding the source text? Why would my explanation be required?

Because the links don't answer my question. Prove me wrong by summarizing it.

 

[Crick]

Because the links don't answer my question. Prove me wrong by summarizing it.

If the links cannot answer your question, neither could my summation. If the problem is that you need explanation of some point or other, you're going to have to ask directly.

 

[ding]

If the links cannot answer your question, neither could my summation. If the problem is that you need explanation of some point or other, you're going to have to ask directly.

You can't answer it because there is no answer.

 

[BackAgain]

The OP seems to imagine that humans had anything to do with the atmospheric concentration of co2 back in those days.

Here’s the thing. If humans didn’t cause relatively high levels of atmospheric co2 back 3 million years then what makes apu imagine that we somehow do, these days?

 

[Crick]

The OP seems to imagine that humans had anything to do with the atmospheric concentration of co2 back in those days.

He quite obviously does not.

Here’s the thing. If humans didn’t cause relatively high levels of atmospheric co2 back 3 million years then what makes apu imagine that we somehow do, these days?

What in heaven's name makes you think that human cannot cause high levels of CO2? That humans are responsible has been demonstrated by two independent methods. 1) Simple bookkeeping. It is possible to make a very good estimate of the total amount of all the varieties of fossil fuels that humans have burned since the Industrial Revolution. Knowing that, the total amount of CO2 produced may be calculated. Understanding the carbon cycle, it is then possible to estimate how much CO2 would have been added to the atmosphere and how much to the oceans. Those numbers synch almost perfectly. 2) Isotopic analysis. The ratio of various isotopes of oygen and carbon allow dating when a chemical process took place. That dating identifies virtually every molecule beyond the 280 ppm of CO2 that our atmosphere held prior to the Industrial Revolution as the product of the combustion of fossil fuels.

 

[ding]

The OP seems to imagine that humans had anything to do with the atmospheric concentration of co2 back in those days.

Here’s the thing. If humans didn’t cause relatively high levels of atmospheric co2 back 3 million years then what makes apu imagine that we somehow do, these days?

The OP is a moron.

 

[BackAgain]

He quite obviously does not.

Wrong. He sure does.

What in heaven's name makes you think that human cannot cause high levels of CO2?

Since I never made that argument, I will proceed on the assumption that you’ve taken a bad fall and bumped your head.

 

[Crick]

Wrong. He sure does.


Since I never made that argument, I will proceed on the assumption that you’ve taken a bad fall and bumped your head.

You made the argument that nothing exists that would make someone believe that humans are responsible today.

 

[BackAgain]

You made the argument that nothing exists that would make someone believe that humans are responsible today.

No. I didn’t. Try to be honest.

 

[Crick]

If humans didn’t cause relatively high levels of atmospheric co2 back 3 million years then what makes apu imagine that we somehow do, these days?

You made the argument that nothing exists that would make someone believe that humans are responsible today.

I believe this says precisely what I said it says.