NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

originally posted by: defcon5

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
So?
How do you know that higher CO2 is going to do anything climatologically?

If nothing else can be proven, it can be proven that its leading to ocean acidification. That is killing off the corals, plankton, and other calcifying organisms that help sink the excess CO2. I believe that Venus is also frequently pointed to as a planet where we can observe runaway CO2 and greenhouse gasses.

During the last ice age the salt in the oceans was more concentrated because of the reduced water volume. The sea level was 100 to 300 feet lower. (I sure would like to see the human archeology down there.) Some salts are acidic, some salts are basic, at any rate, the co2 concentration would have increased from colder temperature and decreased volume. All the marine flora and fauna alive today lived through that period of acidification.

a reply to: raymundoko
I think that its a very precariously balanced system, and it doesn't take much for us to push it over the precipice. Once that happens many of the natural systems actually start to work against us and make the situation become rapidly out of control.

All the AGW theory is possible, but none of it has been proven to be true, applicable, or sufficient effect.

This is completely false. The effect has been measured quantitatively in the atmosphere for decades, as has the changes from human influence. The greenhouse effect and its increase is an observed scientific fact.

The sun could attenuate the co2 by the radiational decomposition of CO2, hiding a natural CO2 spike. An extinct or non-detected micro organism could boost the CO2 like an epidemic, and then die, maybe as a regular effect of the Earth's natural rhythms.

And my posterior might also engender an anomalous spontaneous flux of simian aviators.

How do you know?

How do you know?

Empirical evidence and science.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

In other words, you do not know how to do residence time calculations.

It is cute that some come here with no background in atmospheric chemistry yet make these claims with no scientific backing and try to pass them off as fact. That might work on a FB or Fox News discussion but here on ATS do not expect to make pseudoscience claims and expect the majority on this forum to believe it.

Science and facts please!

a reply to: defcon5

So in the past when the earth had far more co2 was the earth destroyed by heat and hurricanes? Hint, the answer is no. It was destroyed by massive volcanism. Then an asteroid. Life was actually flourishing with megafauna up until that happened...

In fact, co2 was around 750PPM when the asteroid hit 65 million years ago, and dropped drastically after. It then dropped again during the extinction even 34 million years ago to about 600PPM, then 20 million years ago to 300PPM. It is unanimously agreed upon in science that the ice sheets formed once we dropped below 600PPM.

These low co2 amounts actually caused many plants to go extinct 7m~ years ago.

So when you say we are in a precarious situation at 400PPM, I really am not sure why you think that other than AGW doom and gloom. The earth, historically and scientifically, has fared better with higher co2.

a reply to: raymundoko

Do you have sources to back up this claim?

It is also speculated that we had a thicker atmosphere back then. Other things to consider are the moon being closer to the Earth which does effect the weather.

Until you can show me residence time calculations, I will not believe you have a Master's in Atmospheric Chemistry as you have claimed.

a reply to: ProfessorChaos

It's frustrating that people think I believe in climate change because of some documentary or study.

I live in Michigan, and despite wbat anyone says, it's getting hotter each year.

The winters are getting weaker and weaker... this year had some heavy snowfall, but June has been ridiculous as far as heat goes. I can't be outside for more than 15 mins...in JUNE!!!

Changes are happening. No need to read a study on it, it's already obvious.

a reply to: jrod

Wait, I thought you were completely obsessed and well versed? And you are asking me to backup basic facts?

en.wikipedia.org...'s_atmosphere#Measuring_ancient-Earth_carbon_dioxide_concentration

As recently as 2007 scientists reasoned that CO2 concentrations could be safely allowed to reach 550 parts per million

Various proxy measurements have been used to attempt to determine atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations millions of years in the past. These include boron and carbon isotope ratios in certain types of marine sediments, and the number of stomata observed on fossil plant leaves. While these measurements give much less precise estimates of carbon dioxide concentration than ice cores, there is evidence for very high CO
2 volume concentrations between 200 and 150 million years ago of over 3,000 ppm, and between 600 and 400 million years ago of over 6,000 ppm.[10] In more recent times, atmospheric CO
2 concentration continued to fall after about 60 million years ago. About 34 million years ago, the time of the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event and when the Antarctic ice sheet started to take its current form, CO
2 is found to have been about 760 ppm,[27] and there is geochemical evidence that concentrations were less than 300 ppm by about 20 million years ago. Carbon dioxide decrease, with a tipping point of 600 ppm, was the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation.[28] Low CO
2 concentrations may have been the stimulus that favored the evolution of C4 plants, which increased greatly in abundance between 7 and 5 million years ago.[29]

a reply to: applesthateatpeople

What about people in Georgia who are having cooler summers and colder/longer winters?

a reply to: jrod

I claimed I had a masters in atmospheric chemistry? Do you care to check that claim real quick? I have a masters in atmospheric PHYSICS AND DYNAMICS. Granted you have to be well versed in atmospheric chemistry to complete those programs.

I also did not see you request of me to do a residence calculation? Do you really want me to? Why? the IPCC already has them all complete...I don't disagree with their assessment of co2 lasting a full century...

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: applesthateatpeople

What about people in Georgia who are having cooler summers and colder/longer winters?

What about them?

I didn't say "global warming"...

I said "climate change" and then stated that from personal experience, I can say there is no doubt MICHIGAN is getting hotter.

a reply to: raymundoko

Wiki is not a credible source. It's been over a decade since I was in a university and it is not easy to simply google those kind of answers. I just want to know where you got the numbers from.


Throwing numbers out there and expecting this board to blindly believe them is not how it works.

a reply to: raymundoko

It is the internet. Anyone can claim to have a degree, be an expert, ect..

Residence time calculations are easy to do for someone with your background. It will be a good excessive for this board and those who care about the human induced climate change problem.

a reply to: jrod

Wait...wiki isn't a credible source? OK fine.

www.grida.no.../climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-2.htm
phys.org...
www.sciencedaily.com...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Edit: Forgot this one: sei-us.org...

a reply to: jrod

It's not like I just popped up in an climate change thread and suddenly had a degree. I've been here for many years and posted my education info in my original introduction post.

And again, what is the point of doing a residence time calculation? Have I disagreed with the official data on how long co2 stays in the atmosphere? The calculations already exist and I don't think you could find an educated person who disagrees...and if I did do a calculation, what is to prevent you from saying I didn't copy/paste it from somewhere? I don't have anything to prove really.I haven't said anything that isn't true and backed up factually by science. Most of my data comes from the latest IPCC report and WUWT.

a reply to: raymundoko



Thank for the links. It helps to have them when there are so many skeptics who denounce climate changes and have nothing to back up their claims.

By showing us some residence time calculations for CO2, you will gain a lot of credibility on this board. It has been over a decade since I've crunched the numbers like that. It will be interesting to see , especially now with an extra 20ppm of CO2 than there was a decade ago.

We know they have been manipulating the data..

CLIMATEGATE comes to mind, and we have had MANY THREADS and discussions on this..

We can post all re-lated articles but that should be up to the OP..

This is just another blow to the lying cap and trade carbon tax monkeys
and AL GORES BS infamous Hockey Stick Charts.

hahah bunch of lyers..

now i'm not saying the climate has not been changing but we did have an ICE AGE before all over the world..
of course climates change

When have I denounced climate change? I've only denounced how much man actually has to do with it.

Is man ruining his ecosystem? Yes, absolutely, people suck.

Is man changing the climate? Yes, but so negligibly that it probably doesn't even matter.

Is 400ppm of co2 an issue? No, even the IIPCC says that we don't really have an issue until we hit 550.

a reply to: jrod

Edit: I personally look forward to a post glacial age of 600ppm+ with beach front property in the south. Humans actually GAIN land from rising sea levels as 80% of humans live near a coast. We gain thousands of miles of coast line with rising sea levels. Will my grandparents house still exist? Probably not...

a reply to: GenerationGap



According to this.
It may have been about the same. If we go by the temperature.

a reply to: raymundoko

CO2, CH4,, and other molecules are good vital signs for the health of this planet. A 40% increase in CO2 in a short amount of time raises flags.

Since this board is fortunate to have an expert in the field, I was hoping to see said calculations. Its been a decade and I need a refresher.