Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years to the present

[boedicca]

So, basically we have higher CO2 than during the Ice Ages.

That is AWESOME!

Global Warming been berry berry good to me.

And during all the interglacials in the last 800,000 years. In other words, modern concentrations aren't a natural occurrence. We did it. And are still doing it. And it is having adverse consequences that will only get worse. Not that you give a shit.

Your time scale is too short.

 

[boedicca]

Lower CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!

 

[orogenicman]

So, basically we have higher CO2 than during the Ice Ages.

That is AWESOME!

Global Warming been berry berry good to me.

And during all the interglacials in the last 800,000 years. In other words, modern concentrations aren't a natural occurrence. We did it. And are still doing it. And it is having adverse consequences that will only get worse. Not that you give a shit.

Your time scale is too short.

Right. Let's push the atmosphere back to the early Cambrian, where no animals could live on land. Who knows, maybe you will evolve a tail fluke and survive us all.

 

[bripat9643]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UatUDnFmNTY

Here's the time history of temperature and carbon dioxide over the last 600 million years. Notice that there's no correlation between the two:

 

[SSDD]

The Earth came out of the last ice age 11,000 years ago. And the graph goes back 800,000 years, dude. You didn't know this? Huh.

The earth is still in an ice age....the long climb out of the ice age began 14k years ago. And yes, I know that the graph goes back 800,000 years....the ice age that the earth is in the process of exiting dates back well over a million years. Ever wonder why there are no ice gores going back any further? Duh....there was no ice. Prior to the beginning of the ice age the earth is currently exiting, the average global mean temperature was just shy of 22C....compare that to the average of 14 today. Can you give any reason that we should not expect the temperature to continue to climb until it is once again in the 22C range where it has been for most of the history of the earth?

You didn't know this? Huh?

 

[SSDD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UatUDnFmNTY

We know that CO2 lags temperature....you are showing a graph of CO2 increasing as the earth comes out of an ice age....what's your point? Why not go back to the period prior to the beginning of the ice age? Oh...I know....that would ruin your flawed point because it would show that CO2 was in the range of 1000ppm when the ice age began... Tell me, if CO2 causes warming...how did the earth descend into a deep ice age with CO2 levels at 1000ppm?

The Earth came out of the last ice age 11,000 years ago. And the graph goes back 800,000 years, dude. You didn't know this? Huh.

It's because the earth has been in an ice age for the past million or so years...prior to entering the ice age that the earth is clawing its way out of, the average global temp was about 22C. Is there any reason that we should not expect the temp to continue to climb till it reaches the temp prior to the beginning of the ice age?

 

[SSDD]

And during all the interglacials in the last 800,000 years. In other words, modern concentrations aren't a natural occurrence. We did it. And are still doing it. And it is having adverse consequences that will only get worse. Not that you give a shit.

You really haven't spent much time examining the hoax, have you? CO2 concentrations of 400ppm certainly aren't natural if one looks at earth history. Here, have a look at what CO2 looked like up to the point that the present ice age began. At present, the atmosphere is positively starved for CO2 if one looks at the history of the earth. concentrations in excess of 1000ppm are more natural.

 

[SSDD]

And during all the interglacials in the last 800,000 years. In other words, modern concentrations aren't a natural occurrence. We did it. And are still doing it. And it is having adverse consequences that will only get worse. Not that you give a shit.

Your time scale is too short.

Right. Let's push the atmosphere back to the early Cambrian, where no animals could live on land. Who knows, maybe you will evolve a tail fluke and survive us all.

Are you claiming that CO2 is responsible for evolution also?

 

[Old Rocks]

Look all you lying dumb *****, the last time the CO2 level was where it is today was over 15 million years ago;

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report | UCLA

In 2009, the level then exceeded anything in the last 2 million years.

CO2 Levels Highest in Two Million Years

Knowledge of the evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations throughout the Earth's history is important for a reconstruction of the links between climate and radiative forcing of the Earth's surface temperatures. Although atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the early Cenozoic era (about 60 Myr ago) are widely believed to have been higher than at present, there is disagreement regarding the exact carbon dioxide levels, the timing of the decline and the mechanisms that are most important for the control of CO2 concentrations over geological timescales. Here we use the boron-isotope ratios of ancient planktonic foraminifer shells to estimate the pH of surface-layer sea water throughout the past 60 million years, which can be used to reconstruct atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We estimate CO2 concentrations of more than 2,000 p.p.m. for the late Palaeocene and earliest Eocene periods (from about 60 to 52 Myr ago), and find an erratic decline between 55 and 40 Myr ago that may have been caused by reduced CO2 outgassing from ocean ridges, volcanoes and metamorphic belts and increased carbon burial. Since the early Miocene (about 24 Myr ago), atmospheric CO2 concentrations appear to have remained below 500 p.p.m. and were more stable than before, although transient intervals of CO2 reduction may have occurred during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 Myr ago.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years : Abstract : Nature

 

[SSDD]

Look all you lying dumb *****, the last time the CO2 level was where it is today was over 15 million years ago;

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report | UCLA

In 2009, the level then exceeded anything in the last 2 million years.

CO2 Levels Highest in Two Million Years

Knowledge of the evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations throughout the Earth's history is important for a reconstruction of the links between climate and radiative forcing of the Earth's surface temperatures. Although atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the early Cenozoic era (about 60 Myr ago) are widely believed to have been higher than at present, there is disagreement regarding the exact carbon dioxide levels, the timing of the decline and the mechanisms that are most important for the control of CO2 concentrations over geological timescales. Here we use the boron-isotope ratios of ancient planktonic foraminifer shells to estimate the pH of surface-layer sea water throughout the past 60 million years, which can be used to reconstruct atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We estimate CO2 concentrations of more than 2,000 p.p.m. for the late Palaeocene and earliest Eocene periods (from about 60 to 52 Myr ago), and find an erratic decline between 55 and 40 Myr ago that may have been caused by reduced CO2 outgassing from ocean ridges, volcanoes and metamorphic belts and increased carbon burial. Since the early Miocene (about 24 Myr ago), atmospheric CO2 concentrations appear to have remained below 500 p.p.m. and were more stable than before, although transient intervals of CO2 reduction may have occurred during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 Myr ago.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years : Abstract : Nature

So CO2 hasn't been this high since the earth was well into the decent into the ice age we are presently climbing out of? What's your point? Go back to the time at which the present ice age began and you find CO2 levels at, or above 1000ppm.

Try to answer a question honestly for once in your life rocks..... Over the course of earth's history, what has been the average temperature up to the point that the ice age that the earth is currently exiting began? And for a bonus, is there any reason to think that it won't eventually reach that normal temperature again?

 

[Old Rocks]

Look all you lying dumb *****, the last time the CO2 level was where it is today was over 15 million years ago;

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report | UCLA

In 2009, the level then exceeded anything in the last 2 million years.

CO2 Levels Highest in Two Million Years

Knowledge of the evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations throughout the Earth's history is important for a reconstruction of the links between climate and radiative forcing of the Earth's surface temperatures. Although atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the early Cenozoic era (about 60 Myr ago) are widely believed to have been higher than at present, there is disagreement regarding the exact carbon dioxide levels, the timing of the decline and the mechanisms that are most important for the control of CO2 concentrations over geological timescales. Here we use the boron-isotope ratios of ancient planktonic foraminifer shells to estimate the pH of surface-layer sea water throughout the past 60 million years, which can be used to reconstruct atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We estimate CO2 concentrations of more than 2,000 p.p.m. for the late Palaeocene and earliest Eocene periods (from about 60 to 52 Myr ago), and find an erratic decline between 55 and 40 Myr ago that may have been caused by reduced CO2 outgassing from ocean ridges, volcanoes and metamorphic belts and increased carbon burial. Since the early Miocene (about 24 Myr ago), atmospheric CO2 concentrations appear to have remained below 500 p.p.m. and were more stable than before, although transient intervals of CO2 reduction may have occurred during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 Myr ago.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years : Abstract : Nature

So CO2 hasn't been this high since the earth was well into the decent into the ice age we are presently climbing out of? What's your point? Go back to the time at which the present ice age began and you find CO2 levels at, or above 1000ppm.

Try to answer a question honestly for once in your life rocks..... Over the course of earth's history, what has been the average temperature up to the point that the ice age that the earth is currently exiting began? And for a bonus, is there any reason to think that it won't eventually reach that normal temperature again?

Which Came First: Low CO2 or an Ice Age? - Scientific American

What starts an Ice Age? Clues exist in the remains of coccolithophores, a type of marine algae with a shell.

A study finds that some seven million years ago, the algae had to adapt to low levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They pulled CO2 from the surrounding seas for photosynthesis as well as bicarbonate—commonly known as baking soda. The study is in the journal Nature. [Clara T. Bolton and Heather M. Stoll, Late Miocene threshold response of marine algae to carbon dioxide limitation]

At that same time, sea surface temperatures were dropping, plants that were more efficient at using CO2 came to predominate on land and vast glaciers began to expand on the continents—an Ice Age was underway. The low concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were thus linked to the era’s cool climate.

That situation is now reversed thanks mostly to fossil fuel burning. And the change is happening at least 30,000 times faster this time. In May, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 touched 400 parts per million for the first time in human existence. When they touch 500 ppm, the algae might no longer need the bicarbonate trick.

So it looks like the ice ages began when the the CO2 level hit 500 ppm. Someday, SSDD, you will learn to do research. Maybe.

 

[SSDD]

Try to answer a question honestly for once in your life rocks..... Over the course of earth's history, what has been the average temperature up to the point that the ice age that the earth is currently exiting began? And for a bonus, is there any reason to think that it won't eventually reach that normal temperature again?

Which Came First: Low CO2 or an Ice Age? - Scientific American

What starts an Ice Age? Clues exist in the remains of coccolithophores, a type of marine algae with a shell.

A study finds that some seven million years ago, the algae had to adapt to low levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They pulled CO2 from the surrounding seas for photosynthesis as well as bicarbonate—commonly known as baking soda. The study is in the journal Nature. [Clara T. Bolton and Heather M. Stoll, Late Miocene threshold response of marine algae to carbon dioxide limitation]

At that same time, sea surface temperatures were dropping, plants that were more efficient at using CO2 came to predominate on land and vast glaciers began to expand on the continents—an Ice Age was underway. The low concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were thus linked to the era’s cool climate.

That situation is now reversed thanks mostly to fossil fuel burning. And the change is happening at least 30,000 times faster this time. In May, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 touched 400 parts per million for the first time in human existence. When they touch 500 ppm, the algae might no longer need the bicarbonate trick.

So it looks like the ice ages began when the the CO2 level hit 500 ppm. Someday, SSDD, you will learn to do research. Maybe.

Geez rocks, I am afraid that it is you who is a failure at research. Seven million years ago, the earth was well on its way into a deep ice age. Again, look at the graph and try to actually understand what is being depicted.




Look what was happening 7 million years ago. The ice age wasn't just beginning, the temperature drop was well underway. Seven million years ago, the temperature was considerably cooler than today after having taken a steep plunge from about 21C. CO2 had also taken a dive as the temperatures fell due to the increased ability of the oceans to hold it.

Your article is deceptive at best. First, the ice age didn't just begin 7 million years ago. The decent into the ice age had begun 5 million years earlier. Seven million years ago, temperatures were colder than they are today...down from about 21C. CO2, at 7 million years ago was slightly higher than today even though temps were colder and the CO2 was down from about 1000ppm at the time the decent into the ice age began.

You claim to have some knowledge of geology rocks so why does a non geologist have to point out the deliberate deception in your article. The answer is one of two things. 1) You have no actual knowledge of geology and just take whatever you read at face value if it happens to agree with your position, or 2) You have some knowledge of geology, recognize the deliberate deception and are perfectly willing to pass it along in support of your political position. In either event, you are a bald faced liar.

I couldn't help but note that you dodged the questions I asked. Guess honesty just isn't part of your makeup. Typical of liberals. Here, let me ask again...Over the course of earth's history, what has been the average temperature up to the point that the ice age that the earth is currently exiting began? And for a bonus, is there any reason to think that it won't eventually reach that normal temperature again?

 

[orogenicman]

Try to answer a question honestly for once in your life rocks..... Over the course of earth's history, what has been the average temperature up to the point that the ice age that the earth is currently exiting began? And for a bonus, is there any reason to think that it won't eventually reach that normal temperature again?

Which Came First: Low CO2 or an Ice Age? - Scientific American

What starts an Ice Age? Clues exist in the remains of coccolithophores, a type of marine algae with a shell.

A study finds that some seven million years ago, the algae had to adapt to low levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They pulled CO2 from the surrounding seas for photosynthesis as well as bicarbonate—commonly known as baking soda. The study is in the journal Nature. [Clara T. Bolton and Heather M. Stoll, Late Miocene threshold response of marine algae to carbon dioxide limitation]

At that same time, sea surface temperatures were dropping, plants that were more efficient at using CO2 came to predominate on land and vast glaciers began to expand on the continents—an Ice Age was underway. The low concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were thus linked to the era’s cool climate.

That situation is now reversed thanks mostly to fossil fuel burning. And the change is happening at least 30,000 times faster this time. In May, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 touched 400 parts per million for the first time in human existence. When they touch 500 ppm, the algae might no longer need the bicarbonate trick.

So it looks like the ice ages began when the the CO2 level hit 500 ppm. Someday, SSDD, you will learn to do research. Maybe.

Geez rocks, I am afraid that it is you who is a failure at research. Seven million years ago, the earth was well on its way into a deep ice age. Again, look at the graph and try to actually understand what is being depicted.




Look what was happening 7 million years ago. The ice age wasn't just beginning, the temperature drop was well underway. Seven million years ago, the temperature was considerably cooler than today after having taken a steep plunge from about 21C. CO2 had also taken a dive as the temperatures fell due to the increased ability of the oceans to hold it.

Your article is deceptive at best. First, the ice age didn't just begin 7 million years ago. The decent into the ice age had begun 5 million years earlier. Seven million years ago, temperatures were colder than they are today...down from about 21C. CO2, at 7 million years ago was slightly higher than today even though temps were colder and the CO2 was down from about 1000ppm at the time the decent into the ice age began.

You claim to have some knowledge of geology rocks so why does a non geologist have to point out the deliberate deception in your article. The answer is one of two things. 1) You have no actual knowledge of geology and just take whatever you read at face value if it happens to agree with your position, or 2) You have some knowledge of geology, recognize the deliberate deception and are perfectly willing to pass it along in support of your political position. In either event, you are a bald faced liar.

I couldn't help but note that you dodged the questions I asked. Guess honesty just isn't part of your makeup. Typical of liberals. Here, let me ask again...Over the course of earth's history, what has been the average temperature up to the point that the ice age that the earth is currently exiting began? And for a bonus, is there any reason to think that it won't eventually reach that normal temperature again?

I'm a geologist, and the first thing I notice is your lack of understanding of the scale of your own graph. Mine, for instance, in the OP, is at the scale of years to decades, while yours is in the range of a million to ten million years or so, not very useful for comparison purposes nor relevant to the current situation, particularly when there was little to no land life hundreds of millions of years ago. Yes sir, things were different then; no one is debating this. What you are also glossing over is the fact that at no time up until the past 10,000 years or less, have there been humans living by the millions in cities along ocean coastlines dependent on stable conditions for their very existence. What you are glossing over is the fact that humans depend on crops for their survival, crops that will lose nutritional value in a higher CO2 atmosphere. What you fail to acknowledge is that there are millions already subsisting on marginal land that will become useless in the coming decades. What you have said nothing about is the fact that billions depend on marginal water supplies that are not only going to dry up in the future, but are drying up as we speak. Whether or not you believe humans are ultimately responsible for global warming, the fact is that it is occurring. The fact is that we need stop the bickering and start preparing for that inevitability by minimizing our human and economic losses, which I have no doubt will be great.

 

[skookerasbil]

Which Came First: Low CO2 or an Ice Age? - Scientific American

What starts an Ice Age? Clues exist in the remains of coccolithophores, a type of marine algae with a shell.

A study finds that some seven million years ago, the algae had to adapt to low levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They pulled CO2 from the surrounding seas for photosynthesis as well as bicarbonate—commonly known as baking soda. The study is in the journal Nature. [Clara T. Bolton and Heather M. Stoll, Late Miocene threshold response of marine algae to carbon dioxide limitation]

At that same time, sea surface temperatures were dropping, plants that were more efficient at using CO2 came to predominate on land and vast glaciers began to expand on the continents—an Ice Age was underway. The low concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were thus linked to the era’s cool climate.

That situation is now reversed thanks mostly to fossil fuel burning. And the change is happening at least 30,000 times faster this time. In May, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 touched 400 parts per million for the first time in human existence. When they touch 500 ppm, the algae might no longer need the bicarbonate trick.

So it looks like the ice ages began when the the CO2 level hit 500 ppm. Someday, SSDD, you will learn to do research. Maybe.

Geez rocks, I am afraid that it is you who is a failure at research. Seven million years ago, the earth was well on its way into a deep ice age. Again, look at the graph and try to actually understand what is being depicted.




Look what was happening 7 million years ago. The ice age wasn't just beginning, the temperature drop was well underway. Seven million years ago, the temperature was considerably cooler than today after having taken a steep plunge from about 21C. CO2 had also taken a dive as the temperatures fell due to the increased ability of the oceans to hold it.

Your article is deceptive at best. First, the ice age didn't just begin 7 million years ago. The decent into the ice age had begun 5 million years earlier. Seven million years ago, temperatures were colder than they are today...down from about 21C. CO2, at 7 million years ago was slightly higher than today even though temps were colder and the CO2 was down from about 1000ppm at the time the decent into the ice age began.

You claim to have some knowledge of geology rocks so why does a non geologist have to point out the deliberate deception in your article. The answer is one of two things. 1) You have no actual knowledge of geology and just take whatever you read at face value if it happens to agree with your position, or 2) You have some knowledge of geology, recognize the deliberate deception and are perfectly willing to pass it along in support of your political position. In either event, you are a bald faced liar.

I couldn't help but note that you dodged the questions I asked. Guess honesty just isn't part of your makeup. Typical of liberals. Here, let me ask again...Over the course of earth's history, what has been the average temperature up to the point that the ice age that the earth is currently exiting began? And for a bonus, is there any reason to think that it won't eventually reach that normal temperature again?

I'm a geologist, and the first thing I notice is your lack of understanding of the scale of your own graph. Mine, for instance, in the OP, is at the scale of years to decades, while yours is in the range of a million to ten million years or so, not very useful for comparison purposes nor relevant to the current situation, particularly when there was little to no land life hundreds of millions of years ago. Yes sir, things were different then; no one is debating this. What you are also glossing over is the fact that at no time up until the past 10,000 years or less, have there been humans living by the millions in cities along ocean coastlines dependent on stable conditions for their very existence. What you are glossing over is the fact that humans depend on crops for their survival, crops that will lose nutritional value in a higher CO2 atmosphere. What you fail to acknowledge is that there are millions already subsisting on marginal land that will become useless in the coming decades. What you have said nothing about is the fact that billions depend on marginal water supplies that are not only going to dry up in the future, but are drying up as we speak. Whether or not you believe humans are ultimately responsible for global warming, the fact is that it is occurring. The fact is that we need stop the bickering and start preparing for that inevitability by minimizing our human and economic losses, which I have no doubt will be great.

Opinions, when it comes to science, are gay.

This guys opinion may be gay too >>> 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD


And that's the point. Nobody knows shit about shit with climate change so you don't go making policy decisions based upon speculation.......cause that would be gay.

 

[skookerasbil]

Try to answer a question honestly for once in your life rocks..... Over the course of earth's history, what has been the average temperature up to the point that the ice age that the earth is currently exiting began? And for a bonus, is there any reason to think that it won't eventually reach that normal temperature again?

Which Came First: Low CO2 or an Ice Age? - Scientific American

What starts an Ice Age? Clues exist in the remains of coccolithophores, a type of marine algae with a shell.

A study finds that some seven million years ago, the algae had to adapt to low levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They pulled CO2 from the surrounding seas for photosynthesis as well as bicarbonate—commonly known as baking soda. The study is in the journal Nature. [Clara T. Bolton and Heather M. Stoll, Late Miocene threshold response of marine algae to carbon dioxide limitation]

At that same time, sea surface temperatures were dropping, plants that were more efficient at using CO2 came to predominate on land and vast glaciers began to expand on the continents—an Ice Age was underway. The low concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were thus linked to the era’s cool climate.

That situation is now reversed thanks mostly to fossil fuel burning. And the change is happening at least 30,000 times faster this time. In May, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 touched 400 parts per million for the first time in human existence. When they touch 500 ppm, the algae might no longer need the bicarbonate trick.

So it looks like the ice ages began when the the CO2 level hit 500 ppm. Someday, SSDD, you will learn to do research. Maybe.

Geez rocks, I am afraid that it is you who is a failure at research. Seven million years ago, the earth was well on its way into a deep ice age. Again, look at the graph and try to actually understand what is being depicted.




Look what was happening 7 million years ago. The ice age wasn't just beginning, the temperature drop was well underway. Seven million years ago, the temperature was considerably cooler than today after having taken a steep plunge from about 21C. CO2 had also taken a dive as the temperatures fell due to the increased ability of the oceans to hold it.

Your article is deceptive at best. First, the ice age didn't just begin 7 million years ago. The decent into the ice age had begun 5 million years earlier. Seven million years ago, temperatures were colder than they are today...down from about 21C. CO2, at 7 million years ago was slightly higher than today even though temps were colder and the CO2 was down from about 1000ppm at the time the decent into the ice age began.

You claim to have some knowledge of geology rocks so why does a non geologist have to point out the deliberate deception in your article. The answer is one of two things. 1) You have no actual knowledge of geology and just take whatever you read at face value if it happens to agree with your position, or 2) You have some knowledge of geology, recognize the deliberate deception and are perfectly willing to pass it along in support of your political position. In either event, you are a bald faced liar.

I couldn't help but note that you dodged the questions I asked. Guess honesty just isn't part of your makeup. Typical of liberals. Here, let me ask again...Over the course of earth's history, what has been the average temperature up to the point that the ice age that the earth is currently exiting began? And for a bonus, is there any reason to think that it won't eventually reach that normal temperature again?

As per usual...SSDD schools the amateurs.


Oh God.....I love this forum......and what is truly astonishing......they keep coming back to get humiliated.

 

[jc456]

Which Came First: Low CO2 or an Ice Age? - Scientific American

What starts an Ice Age? Clues exist in the remains of coccolithophores, a type of marine algae with a shell.

A study finds that some seven million years ago, the algae had to adapt to low levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They pulled CO2 from the surrounding seas for photosynthesis as well as bicarbonate—commonly known as baking soda. The study is in the journal Nature. [Clara T. Bolton and Heather M. Stoll, Late Miocene threshold response of marine algae to carbon dioxide limitation]

At that same time, sea surface temperatures were dropping, plants that were more efficient at using CO2 came to predominate on land and vast glaciers began to expand on the continents—an Ice Age was underway. The low concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were thus linked to the era’s cool climate.

That situation is now reversed thanks mostly to fossil fuel burning. And the change is happening at least 30,000 times faster this time. In May, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 touched 400 parts per million for the first time in human existence. When they touch 500 ppm, the algae might no longer need the bicarbonate trick.

So it looks like the ice ages began when the the CO2 level hit 500 ppm. Someday, SSDD, you will learn to do research. Maybe.

Geez rocks, I am afraid that it is you who is a failure at research. Seven million years ago, the earth was well on its way into a deep ice age. Again, look at the graph and try to actually understand what is being depicted.




Look what was happening 7 million years ago. The ice age wasn't just beginning, the temperature drop was well underway. Seven million years ago, the temperature was considerably cooler than today after having taken a steep plunge from about 21C. CO2 had also taken a dive as the temperatures fell due to the increased ability of the oceans to hold it.

Your article is deceptive at best. First, the ice age didn't just begin 7 million years ago. The decent into the ice age had begun 5 million years earlier. Seven million years ago, temperatures were colder than they are today...down from about 21C. CO2, at 7 million years ago was slightly higher than today even though temps were colder and the CO2 was down from about 1000ppm at the time the decent into the ice age began.

You claim to have some knowledge of geology rocks so why does a non geologist have to point out the deliberate deception in your article. The answer is one of two things. 1) You have no actual knowledge of geology and just take whatever you read at face value if it happens to agree with your position, or 2) You have some knowledge of geology, recognize the deliberate deception and are perfectly willing to pass it along in support of your political position. In either event, you are a bald faced liar.

I couldn't help but note that you dodged the questions I asked. Guess honesty just isn't part of your makeup. Typical of liberals. Here, let me ask again...Over the course of earth's history, what has been the average temperature up to the point that the ice age that the earth is currently exiting began? And for a bonus, is there any reason to think that it won't eventually reach that normal temperature again?

I'm a geologist, and the first thing I notice is your lack of understanding of the scale of your own graph. Mine, for instance, in the OP, is at the scale of years to decades, while yours is in the range of a million to ten million years or so, not very useful for comparison purposes nor relevant to the current situation, particularly when there was little to no land life hundreds of millions of years ago. Yes sir, things were different then; no one is debating this. What you are also glossing over is the fact that at no time up until the past 10,000 years or less, have there been humans living by the millions in cities along ocean coastlines dependent on stable conditions for their very existence. What you are glossing over is the fact that humans depend on crops for their survival, crops that will lose nutritional value in a higher CO2 atmosphere. What you fail to acknowledge is that there are millions already subsisting on marginal land that will become useless in the coming decades. What you have said nothing about is the fact that billions depend on marginal water supplies that are not only going to dry up in the future, but are drying up as we speak. Whether or not you believe humans are ultimately responsible for global warming, the fact is that it is occurring. The fact is that we need stop the bickering and start preparing for that inevitability by minimizing our human and economic losses, which I have no doubt will be great.

so you're a geologist eh? So do you ever have to prove your theories or are you just allowed to theorize and move on? You just made a claim that (bolded) crops will lose nutrional value. Have you tested that? Do you as a geologist have the tested results of too much CO2 causing a loss of nutrion? Because there are many experiments that show the exact opposite. So, if you have the confirmation, let's see it.

 

[orogenicman]

Geez rocks, I am afraid that it is you who is a failure at research. Seven million years ago, the earth was well on its way into a deep ice age. Again, look at the graph and try to actually understand what is being depicted.




Look what was happening 7 million years ago. The ice age wasn't just beginning, the temperature drop was well underway. Seven million years ago, the temperature was considerably cooler than today after having taken a steep plunge from about 21C. CO2 had also taken a dive as the temperatures fell due to the increased ability of the oceans to hold it.

Your article is deceptive at best. First, the ice age didn't just begin 7 million years ago. The decent into the ice age had begun 5 million years earlier. Seven million years ago, temperatures were colder than they are today...down from about 21C. CO2, at 7 million years ago was slightly higher than today even though temps were colder and the CO2 was down from about 1000ppm at the time the decent into the ice age began.

You claim to have some knowledge of geology rocks so why does a non geologist have to point out the deliberate deception in your article. The answer is one of two things. 1) You have no actual knowledge of geology and just take whatever you read at face value if it happens to agree with your position, or 2) You have some knowledge of geology, recognize the deliberate deception and are perfectly willing to pass it along in support of your political position. In either event, you are a bald faced liar.

I couldn't help but note that you dodged the questions I asked. Guess honesty just isn't part of your makeup. Typical of liberals. Here, let me ask again...Over the course of earth's history, what has been the average temperature up to the point that the ice age that the earth is currently exiting began? And for a bonus, is there any reason to think that it won't eventually reach that normal temperature again?

I'm a geologist, and the first thing I notice is your lack of understanding of the scale of your own graph. Mine, for instance, in the OP, is at the scale of years to decades, while yours is in the range of a million to ten million years or so, not very useful for comparison purposes nor relevant to the current situation, particularly when there was little to no land life hundreds of millions of years ago. Yes sir, things were different then; no one is debating this. What you are also glossing over is the fact that at no time up until the past 10,000 years or less, have there been humans living by the millions in cities along ocean coastlines dependent on stable conditions for their very existence. What you are glossing over is the fact that humans depend on crops for their survival, crops that will lose nutritional value in a higher CO2 atmosphere. What you fail to acknowledge is that there are millions already subsisting on marginal land that will become useless in the coming decades. What you have said nothing about is the fact that billions depend on marginal water supplies that are not only going to dry up in the future, but are drying up as we speak. Whether or not you believe humans are ultimately responsible for global warming, the fact is that it is occurring. The fact is that we need stop the bickering and start preparing for that inevitability by minimizing our human and economic losses, which I have no doubt will be great.

Opinions, when it comes to science, are gay.

This guys opinion may be gay too >>> 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD


And that's the point. Nobody knows shit about shit with climate change so you don't go making policy decisions based upon speculation.......cause that would be gay.

Believing anything Roy Spencer says - GAY.

 

[orogenicman]

Geez rocks, I am afraid that it is you who is a failure at research. Seven million years ago, the earth was well on its way into a deep ice age. Again, look at the graph and try to actually understand what is being depicted.




Look what was happening 7 million years ago. The ice age wasn't just beginning, the temperature drop was well underway. Seven million years ago, the temperature was considerably cooler than today after having taken a steep plunge from about 21C. CO2 had also taken a dive as the temperatures fell due to the increased ability of the oceans to hold it.

Your article is deceptive at best. First, the ice age didn't just begin 7 million years ago. The decent into the ice age had begun 5 million years earlier. Seven million years ago, temperatures were colder than they are today...down from about 21C. CO2, at 7 million years ago was slightly higher than today even though temps were colder and the CO2 was down from about 1000ppm at the time the decent into the ice age began.

You claim to have some knowledge of geology rocks so why does a non geologist have to point out the deliberate deception in your article. The answer is one of two things. 1) You have no actual knowledge of geology and just take whatever you read at face value if it happens to agree with your position, or 2) You have some knowledge of geology, recognize the deliberate deception and are perfectly willing to pass it along in support of your political position. In either event, you are a bald faced liar.

I couldn't help but note that you dodged the questions I asked. Guess honesty just isn't part of your makeup. Typical of liberals. Here, let me ask again...Over the course of earth's history, what has been the average temperature up to the point that the ice age that the earth is currently exiting began? And for a bonus, is there any reason to think that it won't eventually reach that normal temperature again?

I'm a geologist, and the first thing I notice is your lack of understanding of the scale of your own graph. Mine, for instance, in the OP, is at the scale of years to decades, while yours is in the range of a million to ten million years or so, not very useful for comparison purposes nor relevant to the current situation, particularly when there was little to no land life hundreds of millions of years ago. Yes sir, things were different then; no one is debating this. What you are also glossing over is the fact that at no time up until the past 10,000 years or less, have there been humans living by the millions in cities along ocean coastlines dependent on stable conditions for their very existence. What you are glossing over is the fact that humans depend on crops for their survival, crops that will lose nutritional value in a higher CO2 atmosphere. What you fail to acknowledge is that there are millions already subsisting on marginal land that will become useless in the coming decades. What you have said nothing about is the fact that billions depend on marginal water supplies that are not only going to dry up in the future, but are drying up as we speak. Whether or not you believe humans are ultimately responsible for global warming, the fact is that it is occurring. The fact is that we need stop the bickering and start preparing for that inevitability by minimizing our human and economic losses, which I have no doubt will be great.

so you're a geologist eh? So do you ever have to prove your theories or are you just allowed to theorize and move on? You just made a claim that (bolded) crops will lose nutrional value. Have you tested that? Do you as a geologist have the tested results of too much CO2 causing a loss of nutrion? Because there are many experiments that show the exact opposite. So, if you have the confirmation, let's see it.

My bad. I assumed that you folks actually keep up with current research. The research you are talking about demonstrates that, up to a point, increases in CO2 concentrations aids plant growth. Very little work had been done on the effects on nutrition. Here is the paper I am referring to :

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13179.html

 

[skookerasbil]

I'm a geologist, and the first thing I notice is your lack of understanding of the scale of your own graph. Mine, for instance, in the OP, is at the scale of years to decades, while yours is in the range of a million to ten million years or so, not very useful for comparison purposes nor relevant to the current situation, particularly when there was little to no land life hundreds of millions of years ago. Yes sir, things were different then; no one is debating this. What you are also glossing over is the fact that at no time up until the past 10,000 years or less, have there been humans living by the millions in cities along ocean coastlines dependent on stable conditions for their very existence. What you are glossing over is the fact that humans depend on crops for their survival, crops that will lose nutritional value in a higher CO2 atmosphere. What you fail to acknowledge is that there are millions already subsisting on marginal land that will become useless in the coming decades. What you have said nothing about is the fact that billions depend on marginal water supplies that are not only going to dry up in the future, but are drying up as we speak. Whether or not you believe humans are ultimately responsible for global warming, the fact is that it is occurring. The fact is that we need stop the bickering and start preparing for that inevitability by minimizing our human and economic losses, which I have no doubt will be great.

Opinions, when it comes to science, are gay.

This guys opinion may be gay too >>> 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD


And that's the point. Nobody knows shit about shit with climate change so you don't go making policy decisions based upon speculation.......cause that would be gay.

Believing anything Roy Spencer says - GAY.

s0n......you're still not getting it.

The whole point is nobody should believe anything ANYBODY says, one way or another. No conclusions can be made either way....we still have decades and decades which are needed to study this climate shit. And for you s0n......gotta exit that bubble one of these days and climb out of the matrix. Special interests dominate this whole debate on both sides.

 

[jc456]

I'm a geologist, and the first thing I notice is your lack of understanding of the scale of your own graph. Mine, for instance, in the OP, is at the scale of years to decades, while yours is in the range of a million to ten million years or so, not very useful for comparison purposes nor relevant to the current situation, particularly when there was little to no land life hundreds of millions of years ago. Yes sir, things were different then; no one is debating this. What you are also glossing over is the fact that at no time up until the past 10,000 years or less, have there been humans living by the millions in cities along ocean coastlines dependent on stable conditions for their very existence. What you are glossing over is the fact that humans depend on crops for their survival, crops that will lose nutritional value in a higher CO2 atmosphere. What you fail to acknowledge is that there are millions already subsisting on marginal land that will become useless in the coming decades. What you have said nothing about is the fact that billions depend on marginal water supplies that are not only going to dry up in the future, but are drying up as we speak. Whether or not you believe humans are ultimately responsible for global warming, the fact is that it is occurring. The fact is that we need stop the bickering and start preparing for that inevitability by minimizing our human and economic losses, which I have no doubt will be great.

so you're a geologist eh? So do you ever have to prove your theories or are you just allowed to theorize and move on? You just made a claim that (bolded) crops will lose nutrional value. Have you tested that? Do you as a geologist have the tested results of too much CO2 causing a loss of nutrion? Because there are many experiments that show the exact opposite. So, if you have the confirmation, let's see it.

My bad. I assumed that you folks actually keep up with current research. The research you are talking about demonstrates that, up to a point, increases in CO2 concentrations aids plant growth. Very little work had been done on the effects on nutrition. Here is the paper I am referring to :

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13179.html

research, reearch, research, but still no actual confirmation of that research. Again, you claim to be a geologist, isn't that part of the responsibility to prove out the research? Or, like I said, you merely believe what someone tells you. LOL.