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

[BackAgain]

I believe this says precisely what I said it says.

It does say what it says. You idiot.

Just not what you misinterpret it as saying.

**** off crick. You’re a moron.

 

[BackAgain]

It does say what it says. You idiot.

Just not what you misinterpret it as saying.

**** off crick. You’re a moron.

Just to clarify things for prick, f it happened before without human intervention, and it did, it can obviously happens again without human intervention.

I have had a private conversation (with a more reasonable person) who maintains that the present increasing atmospheric levels of co2 from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm can be traced to humanity.

While I don’t accept his argument let’s just say that I did buy it. Then, for the sake of the argument, let’s take the next step.

So what?

The evidence supporting the notion that an increase in atmospheric co2 somehow “causes” climate warming or climate “change” is still extremely weak.

We don’t live in a closed system glass enclosed greenhouse.

 

[ding]

The Last Time Earth had >1000 ppm of Atmospheric CO2...​

...It cooled.

 

[Crick]

Just to clarify things for prick, f it happened before without human intervention, and it did, it can obviously happens again without human intervention.

I have never said that it could NOT happen without humans. No one has said that. I have said all along that it having happened before without humans does NOT mean it cannot happen because of humans.

I have had a private conversation (with a more reasonable person) who maintains that the present increasing atmospheric levels of co2 from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm can be traced to humanity.

I and other posters have pointed out that fact here on numerous occasions. Isotopic analysis shows that every bit of CO2 above 280 ppm is the result of the combustion of fossil fuels. This is validated by simple bookkeeping: good estimates can be made of the total amount of fossil fuel that humans have burned and the amount of CO2 that would produce may be calculated. Those result is almost precisely the same answer as does the isotopic analysis.

While I don’t accept his argument let’s just say that I did buy it. Then, for the sake of the argument, let’s take the next step.

Why don't you accept that argument?

So what?

Because CO2 is responsible for one-third of the 57C degrees of greenhouse warming this planet is curently experiencing. Increasing its atmospheric level by 50% will have a significant affect.

The evidence supporting the notion that an increase in atmospheric co2 somehow “causes” climate warming or climate “change” is still extremely weak.

It is a great deal more than a notion and it isn't the least bit "weak". It is a very widely accepted theory backed by clear cut experimental results, fundamental physics and absolute mountains of evidence.

We don’t live in a closed system glass enclosed greenhouse.

We live on a planet whose atmosphere has components that absorb IR radiation. Those components slow the escape of thermal radiation to space and thus increase the planet's equilibrium temperature. If it weren't for the greenhouse effect of those gases, there would be no life on this planet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have never said that it could NOT happen without humans. No one has said that. I have said all along that it having happened before without humans does NOT mean it cannot happen because of humans.

I and other posters have pointed out that fact here on numerous occasions. Isotopic analysis shows that every bit of CO2 above 280 ppm is the result of the combustion of fossil fuels. This is validated by simple bookkeeping: good estimates can be made of the total amount of fossil fuel that humans have burned and the amount of CO2 that would produce may be calculated. Those result is almost precisely the same answer as does the isotopic analysis.

Why don't you accept that argument?

Because CO2 is responsible for one-third of the 57C degrees of greenhouse warming this planet is curently experiencing. Increasing its atmospheric level by 50% will have a significant affect.

It is a great deal more than a notion and it isn't the least bit "weak". It is a very widely accepted theory backed by clear cut experimental results, fundamental physics and absolute mountains of evidence.

We live on a planet whose atmosphere has components that absorb IR radiation. Those components slow the escape of thermal radiation to space and thus increase the planet's equilibrium temperature. If it weren't for the greenhouse effect of those gases, there would be no life on this planet.

Because CO2 is responsible for one-third of the 57C degrees of greenhouse warming this planet is currently experiencing

57F

 

[BackAgain]

I have never said that it could NOT happen without humans. No one has said that. I have said all along that it having happened before without humans does NOT mean it cannot happen because of humans.

I and other posters have pointed out that fact here on numerous occasions. Isotopic analysis shows that every bit of CO2 above 280 ppm is the result of the combustion of fossil fuels. This is validated by simple bookkeeping: good estimates can be made of the total amount of fossil fuel that humans have burned and the amount of CO2 that would produce may be calculated. Those result is almost precisely the same answer as does the isotopic analysis.

Why don't you accept that argument?

Because CO2 is responsible for one-third of the 57C degrees of greenhouse warming this planet is curently experiencing. Increasing its atmospheric level by 50% will have a significant affect.

It is a great deal more than a notion and it isn't the least bit "weak". It is a very widely accepted theory backed by clear cut experimental results, fundamental physics and absolute mountains of evidence.

We live on a planet whose atmosphere has components that absorb IR radiation. Those components slow the escape of thermal radiation to space and thus increase the planet's equilibrium temperature. If it weren't for the greenhouse effect of those gases, there would be no life on this planet.

You make many claims. But you don’t support them.

 

[Crick]

You make many claims. But you don’t support them.

I post more links and links to scholarly articles than any other poster on this forum.

How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans?

Fossil fuels are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts so high so quickly.

www.climate.gov

Education - Stable Isotopes NOAA GML

GML conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.

gml.noaa.gov

The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide - NASA Science

Part Two: Satellites from NASA and other space agencies are revealing surprising new insights into atmospheric carbon dioxide, the principal human-produced driver of climate change.

science.nasa.gov

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GB006170

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? Comment savons-nous que l’augmentation récente du CO2 est due aux activités humaines ? (mise-à-jour)

RealClimate: Note:This is an update to an earlier post, which many found to be too technical. The original, and a series of comments on it, can be found here. See also a more recent post here for an even less technical discussion. Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have...

www.realclimate.org

Education - Stable Isotopes NOAA GML

GML conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.

gml.noaa.gov

Human Activity Recorded in Carbon Isotopic Composition of Atmospheric CO2 in Gliwice Urban Area and Surroundings (Southern Poland) in the Years 2011–2013 | Radiocarbon | Cambridge Core

Human Activity Recorded in Carbon Isotopic Composition of Atmospheric CO2 in Gliwice Urban Area and Surroundings (Southern Poland) in the Years 2011–2013 - Volume 62 Issue 1

www.cambridge.org

Changes to Carbon Isotopes in Atmospheric CO2 Over the Industrial Era and Into the Future - PMC

In this “Grand Challenges” paper, we review how the carbon isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2 has changed since the Industrial Revolution due to human activities and their influence on the natural carbon cycle, and we provide new estimates of ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Isotopic measurements of carbon dioxide: the role of measurement science and standards - Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

Isotopic measurements provide valuable information about the origin of greenhouse gases — as carbon dioxide levels increase, there is a corresponding shift towards lighter isotopic composition similar to that of fossil fuels. Detecting such isotopic shifts, however, requires extremely precise...

link.springer.com

Google AI
Scientists use isotopic analysis to determine the origin of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere and how much of it comes from human activities. The carbon and oxygen isotope ratios in CO2 can indicate whether the CO2 comes from anthropogenic or geological sources. These isotopic fingerprints, or signatures, are caused by exchange between sources and sinks in different ecosystems. For example, fossil fuels have a different ratio of heavy-to-light carbon atoms than other sources, which instruments can measure.
Here are some ways that scientists use carbon isotopes to determine the source of CO2:

• Carbon-14
  This radioactive isotope decays over time, and young organic matter has more carbon-14 than older organic matter. Fossil fuels have no measurable carbon-14, so scientists can determine if the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is due to fossil fuel emissions by studying how the concentration of carbon-14 has changed.
• Carbon-13 to carbon-12 ratio
  As carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have risen, the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 has fallen. This means that the source of the extra carbon dioxide must be enriched in "light" carbon-12, which is a signature of fossil fuel emissions.
  
  
  
  
  

 

[ding]

I post more links and links to scholarly articles than any other poster on this forum.

How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans?

Fossil fuels are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts so high so quickly.

www.climate.gov

Education - Stable Isotopes NOAA GML

GML conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.

gml.noaa.gov

The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide - NASA Science

Part Two: Satellites from NASA and other space agencies are revealing surprising new insights into atmospheric carbon dioxide, the principal human-produced driver of climate change.

science.nasa.gov

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GB006170

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? Comment savons-nous que l’augmentation récente du CO2 est due aux activités humaines ? (mise-à-jour)

RealClimate: Note:This is an update to an earlier post, which many found to be too technical. The original, and a series of comments on it, can be found here. See also a more recent post here for an even less technical discussion. Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have...

www.realclimate.org

Education - Stable Isotopes NOAA GML

GML conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.

gml.noaa.gov

Human Activity Recorded in Carbon Isotopic Composition of Atmospheric CO2 in Gliwice Urban Area and Surroundings (Southern Poland) in the Years 2011–2013 | Radiocarbon | Cambridge Core

Human Activity Recorded in Carbon Isotopic Composition of Atmospheric CO2 in Gliwice Urban Area and Surroundings (Southern Poland) in the Years 2011–2013 - Volume 62 Issue 1

www.cambridge.org

Changes to Carbon Isotopes in Atmospheric CO2 Over the Industrial Era and Into the Future - PMC

In this “Grand Challenges” paper, we review how the carbon isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2 has changed since the Industrial Revolution due to human activities and their influence on the natural carbon cycle, and we provide new estimates of ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Isotopic measurements of carbon dioxide: the role of measurement science and standards - Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

Isotopic measurements provide valuable information about the origin of greenhouse gases — as carbon dioxide levels increase, there is a corresponding shift towards lighter isotopic composition similar to that of fossil fuels. Detecting such isotopic shifts, however, requires extremely precise...

link.springer.com

Google AI
Scientists use isotopic analysis to determine the origin of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere and how much of it comes from human activities. The carbon and oxygen isotope ratios in CO2 can indicate whether the CO2 comes from anthropogenic or geological sources. These isotopic fingerprints, or signatures, are caused by exchange between sources and sinks in different ecosystems. For example, fossil fuels have a different ratio of heavy-to-light carbon atoms than other sources, which instruments can measure.
Here are some ways that scientists use carbon isotopes to determine the source of CO2:

• Carbon-14
  This radioactive isotope decays over time, and young organic matter has more carbon-14 than older organic matter. Fossil fuels have no measurable carbon-14, so scientists can determine if the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is due to fossil fuel emissions by studying how the concentration of carbon-14 has changed.
• Carbon-13 to carbon-12 ratio
  As carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have risen, the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 has fallen. This means that the source of the extra carbon dioxide must be enriched in "light" carbon-12, which is a signature of fossil fuel emissions.
  
  
  
  

And not a single one of them have argued that the ocean doesn't drive the climate of the planet.

 

[Crick]

And not a single one of them have argued that the ocean doesn't drive the climate of the planet.

I have linked to numerous articles that ALL state that the glacial-interglacial cycle is initiated by Milankovitch orbital forcing. Despite numerous attempts, you have not linked to a SINGLE article that supports your contention and, in fact, I have had no difficulty finding statements in YOUR linked articles that refute your contentions. Since, as far as I can tell, you are the ONLY person on this planet who has ever believed changes in ocean circulation were responsible for the glacial-interglacial cycle AND for the warming of the past 150 years, no scientist has ever wasted the time and effort putting pen to paper to address the idea. Does that actually surprise you?

 

[ding]

I have linked to numerous articles that ALL state that the glacial-interglacial cycle is initiated by Milankovitch orbital forcing. Despite numerous attempts, you have not linked to a SINGLE article that supports your contention and, in fact, I have had no difficulty finding statements in YOUR linked articles that refute your contentions. Since, as far as I can tell, you are the ONLY person on this planet who has ever believed changes in ocean circulation were responsible for the glacial-interglacial cycle AND for the warming of the past 150 years, no scientist has ever wasted the time and effort putting pen to paper to address the idea. Does that actually surprise you?

Orbital cycles can never be the cause of abrupt climate changes. By inspection, glacial events are abrupt. Not sure how anyone can argue they are not given the nature of their feedback and the shape of the oxygen isotope curve.

D-O events are abrupt warming followed by abrupt cooling. All over the course of several decades. The same mechanism that drives the warming and cooling trends of D-O events is the cause of glacial events both glacial and interglacial.

The planet warms when heat is circulated from the Atlantic to the Arctic.
The planet cools when heat circulation is disrupted from the Atlantic to the Arctic.

 

[Crick]

Orbital cycles can never be the cause of abrupt climate changes.

No one has ever said they were. You're ignoring the point I made earlier in response to that same comment: the glacial-interglacial cycle is not an abrupt climate change.

By inspection, glacial events are abrupt.

Really?

Cooling seems to be consistently faster than warming. So let's look at that cooling at about 120,000 years BP. Obviously this is calibrated eyeball stuff, but I'm on a 28" monitor and I've zoomed the graph to full screen. It appears that that temperature drop took 14,300 years to drop 11C. That's 0.0008C/year or 0.08C/century. The historically slower warming rate from 1982 to the present has been taking place at 2C/century, twenty five times that rate. I thus reject your characterization.

Not sure how anyone can argue they are not given the nature of their feedback and the shape of the oxygen isotope curve.

The graph above which I am certain you've seen before, is essentially nothing but the oxygen isotope curve.

D-O events are abrupt warming followed by abrupt cooling.

Yes. But the glacial-interglacial cycle is not a D-O event.

All over the course of several decades.

Very exciting. Do you want to suggest that the current warming is a D-O event?

The same mechanism that drives the warming and cooling trends of D-O events is the cause of glacial events both glacial and interglacial.

And you have peer-reviewed evidence of that?

The planet warms when heat is circulated from the Atlantic to the Arctic.

God all ******* mighty, no it does not. Moving heat around the planet does not cause the planet to warm, it simply moves the ******* heat around. To heat the planet you have to alter the energy flux across the system's boundaries. You aren't doing so.

The planet cools when heat circulation is disrupted from the Atlantic to the Arctic.

No it does not. It simply stops moving the heat around the planet. It makes no change to the energy flux across the system's boundaries.

View attachment 991882

For weeks now you have attempted to claim that the oceans moving heat around the world changes the planet's temperature yet you have never been able to suggest a mechanism by which this is happening. There is a reason for your failure. Your contention fails. That's what it looks like when someone (you in this case) makes a mistake.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It appears that that temperature drop took 14,300 years to drop 11C. That's 0.0008C/year or 0.08C/century. The historically slower warming rate from 1982 to the present has been taking place at 2C/century, twenty five times that rate.

It's beyond moronic to look at a change over a 14,300-year period and try to
compare it to a rate over a 40-year period.

 

[Crick]

It's beyond moronic to look at a change over a 14,300-year period and try to
compare it to a rate over a 40-year period.

We know a great deal about what has been happening over that 40 year period. We have a very good idea what global temperatures will do were our CO2 emissions left unchecked. The total temperature change from AGW and from the glacial-interglacial cycle are within the same order of magnitude. And if your nitpicking is all you've got to save the species from global warming, then pack it up and go home.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We know a great deal about what has been happening over that 40 year period. We have a very good idea what global temperatures will do were our CO2 emissions left unchecked. The total temperature change from AGW and from the glacial-interglacial cycle are within the same order of magnitude. And if your nitpicking is all you've got to save the species from global warming, then pack it up and go home.

We know a great deal about what has been happening over that 40 year period.

Yes, we do.

We have a very good idea what global temperatures will do were our CO2 emissions left unchecked.

No, we don't. And we don't know what global temperatures will do if we waste $76 trillion on windmills and solar panels.

The total temperature change from AGW and from the glacial-interglacial cycle are within the same order of magnitude.

You'll have to better explain what you mean by this.

And if your nitpicking is all you've got to save the species from global warming

Nitpicking? Like mocking your 14,300-year vs 40-year comparisons? DURR.

Why not compare it to some 5-year periods? Or 1 year?

 

[ding]

No one has ever said they were. You're ignoring the point I made earlier in response to that same comment: the glacial-interglacial cycle is not an abrupt climate change.

Really?
View attachment 992032
Cooling seems to be consistently faster than warming. So let's look at that cooling at about 120,000 years BP. Obviously this is calibrated eyeball stuff, but I'm on a 28" monitor and I've zoomed the graph to full screen. It appears that that temperature drop took 14,300 years to drop 11C. That's 0.0008C/year or 0.08C/century. The historically slower warming rate from 1982 to the present has been taking place at 2C/century, twenty five times that rate. I thus reject your characterization.

The graph above which I am certain you've seen before, is essentially nothing but the oxygen isotope curve.

Yes. But the glacial-interglacial cycle is not a D-O event.

Very exciting. Do you want to suggest that the current warming is a D-O event?

And you have peer-reviewed evidence of that?

God all ******* mighty, no it does not. Moving heat around the planet does not cause the planet to warm, it simply moves the ******* heat around. To heat the planet you have to alter the energy flux across the system's boundaries. You aren't doing so.

No it does not. It simply stops moving the heat around the planet. It makes no change to the energy flux across the system's boundaries.

For weeks now you have attempted to claim that the oceans moving heat around the world changes the planet's temperature yet you have never been able to suggest a mechanism by which this is happening. There is a reason for your failure. Your contention fails. That's what it looks like when someone (you in this case) makes a mistake.

According to the marine records, the Eemian interglacial ended with a rapid cooling event about 110,000 years ago (e.g., Imbrie et al., 1984; Martinson et al., 1987), which also shows up in ice cores and pollen records from across Eurasia. From a relatively high resolution core in the North Atlantic. Adkins et al. (1997) suggested that the final cooling event took less than 400 years, and it might have been much more rapid.

Sudden climate changes in the recent geological record

 

[ding]

No one has ever said they were. You're ignoring the point I made earlier in response to that same comment: the glacial-interglacial cycle is not an abrupt climate change.

D-O events - which are glacial to interglacial and interglacial to glacial events - say otherwise.

Imbrie et al., 1984; Martinson et al., 1987 and Adkins et al. (1997) say interglacial to glacial events are rapid events.

You need to face the fact that changing ocean currents explain all of the climate events of the past 3 million years.

 

[Crick]

D-O events - which are glacial to interglacial and interglacial to glacial events - say otherwise.

Imbrie et al., 1984; Martinson et al., 1987 and Adkins et al. (1997) say interglacial to glacial events are rapid events.

You need to face the fact that changing ocean currents explain all of the climate events of the past 3 million years.

Then you need to answer the two obvious questions: why does every expert on the ******* planet say the cycle is driven by orbital forcing? Why does NO ONE beside YOU say it is driven by ocean currents?

 

[ding]

Then you need to answer the two obvious questions: why does every expert on the ******* planet say the cycle is driven by orbital forcing? Why does NO ONE beside YOU say it is driven by ocean currents?

"...The idea of Gulf Stream slowdowns as a mechanism in climate change is not merely theoretical. There is actually evidence from the study of ocean sediments that deepwater formation in the north Atlantic was diminished during the sudden cold Heinrich events and other colder phases of the last 130,000 years, including the Younger Dryas phase (e.g., Fairbanks, 1989; Kennett, 1990; Maslin, 199x). The same appears to have been true further back in time to 1.5 Myr ago (Raymo et al. 1998). The process also 'switched on' rapidly at times when climates suddenly warmed around the north Atlantic Basin, such as at the beginning of interstadials or the beginning of the present interglacial (Ramussen et al. 1997). Decreasing deep water formation occurred at times when the climate was cooling towards the end of an interstadial, and it diminished suddenly with the final cooling event that marked the end of the interstadial (Ramussen et al., 1997), and over a period of less than 300 years at the beginning of the Younger Dryas (e.g., Berger and Jansen, 1995)...."

Sudden climate changes in the recent geological record

 

[marvin martian]

1. "pliocene era" - Google Search


2. And NO REBUTTAL TO: the Meat

Royal Meteorological Society

"The last time carbon dioxide was so plentiful in our planet's atmosphere was in the Pliocene era, around 3 million years ago. Life on Earth was dominated by giant mammals; humans and chimps had shared their last common ancestor. Although the Sun's force was about the Same, the sea levels were 15 metres (50') higher and Arctic summer temperatures were 14 degrees higher than the present day.".."

`

All those Pliocene cars and trucks, huh?

 

[Crick]

All those Pliocene cars and trucks, huh?

What's your point?