Carbon Dioxide Levels this High Pre-Date Humanity

And there have been less trees on Earth at no other time than now. They absorb CO2.

I can't find anyone mentioning that?

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by Danbones

 

Try to spend more time paying attention to detail...

I know your graph is suppose to show that the unprecedented rise in greenhouse gas emissions in modern times is this time actually preceding the rise in global temperatures. There we have proof that CO2 is main driver of the global climate.

Beside the fact, that your graph uses a resolution of 10 000 years and doesn't tell us anything about short-term variation during the last 400 000yr, it then suddenly changes resolution to 1900yr and even higher to 100yr.

I know that you know what the problem with these kind of comparisons is, instead of the usual knee-jerk to point out how brainwashed people are by Oil-company propaganda, it would have been helpful to address these issues.

The shown levels of CO2 and methane concentrations and the temperature values are also more than questionable.


But your point was to show how in recent times, ever increasing greenhouse gas levels are driving the global temperatures.

If you want people to pay attention to the details, then i notice that ,according to your graph, CO2 levels have never risen above 300ppm and methane levels were never higher than 800ppb in last 400+kyr. Now in modern times CO2 concentration is more than 30 per cent higher than it ever was, during this time period and methane levels have more than doubled.

The highest positive temperature anomaly is 2 degrees C somewhere around 320kyr ago, so even with the much higher resolution at the end point of your graph, unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases don't seem to be a problem at all, because somehow we only see temperature anomalies barely exceeding 1 degree Celius.

But of course we know temperature will go up and it will be catastrophic.

reply to post by Moshpet

It’s looking likely that soon, for the first time in human existence, CO2 levels will hit 400 ppm. CO2 is one of the main gasses driving global warming, and the last time levels exceeded 400 ppm was roughly 2-3 million years ago. That’s not just a long time ago.

Hummm 2 to 3 million years ago...not that long ago.....supposedly no humans driving cars or flying around and be a cancer on mother earth......must be.... sun, earth, natural climate and atmospheric change.....or there really was an ancient civilization that destroyed itself.....my money is on CLIMATE CHANGE without man made squat. The very article itself says it happened before....History repeats?

reply to post by 727Sky


that is the standard comment about climate change. we all know IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE. climate scientists have NEVER EVER denied that!!!! it's a tired boring argument. never ever ever ever in history EVER has the change happened RAPIDLY over a a couple hundred years. NEVER. it's always changed over thousands and thousands of years which allows for adaptation. we do NOT have time to adapt with all these people on the planet.

i will repeat. YES climate change does happen naturally. what we are experiencing now IS TOO FAST.

why is that so complicated to understand?

Climate depot has had some interesting headlines in the last few days, Antarctic shows no warming since satellite records began, 1952 newspaper head lines 'polar ices caps melting at an astonishing rate' , present day Alaska endures record cold while still buried under snow. Longest winter in living memory. there is more, I get daily updates from that news site, some very interesting stuff.

reply to post by pikestaff


climate depot is backed by lobbyists. how can that be biased information?

mediamatters.org...

reply to post by kimar


Gee willikers, nice post. I'm amazed at how many people get away with pooh-poohing the science.

Here's an idea that is so obvious, people don't think of it: PLANT TREES, any billionaire could pay for a global-ecologically significant number.

d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net...
t.co...

Today the frozen Antarctic ice sheet borders the Southern Ocean. But tropical palm trees once flourished there.

The surprising discovery came from a study of drill cores obtained from the seafloor near Antarctica. The results, published in the journal Nature, show that warm ocean currents and high carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the air boosted temperatures, allowing tropical vegetation to grow where visitors today meet only icebergs and freezing cold.

The CO2 content of the atmosphere as assumed for that time interval is not enough on its own to explain the almost tropical conditions in the Antarctic," said Jörg Pross, a paleoclimatologist at the Goethe University and member of the Biodiversity and Climate Research Center in Frankfurt, Germany.

The above was a biodiversity heaven on earth. Heck of allot better than an Ice Age many papers are claiming we are entering again.
Of course as soon as someone comes up with a different outcome they are labeled a fruitcake because if you can not attack the data attack the messenger...This stuff is like religion on so many levels...a bunch of talk with no hard proof with regards to cause and effect..We were supposed to be losing our coastal cities by 2020 was a popular study back in the 80s...Short memories and bad studies...Like butterflies going from one flower of disaster to the next
calderup.wordpress.com...

A mark of a good hypothesis is that it looks better and better as time passes. With the triumph of plate tectonics, diehard opponents were left redfaced and blustering. In 1960 you’d not get a job in an American geology department if you believed in continental drift, but by 1970 you’d not get the job if you didn’t. That’s what a paradigm shift means in practice and it will happen sometime soon with cosmic rays in climate physics.

Same with global warming or the catch all "Climate Change" if the models were correct the earth would have not shown a cooling in the last 16 years; the actual temps have fallen out of the bottom of many models graphs/charts. No worry we will come up with a new model to predict "dire consequences" if you do not pay us money!
www.climatedepot.com... -on-its-headclimate-and-life-control-co2-not-the-other-way-around/
One of the latest papers published says cosmic rays and supernova plays a big part in the process. It probably does for everything effects the earth's weather, the question is by how much.

No problem they are already saying global warming makes the earth colder.....the super late spring and record breaking snow fall in many places of the world brought out the latest "warm is cold" talking points.

Climate is a very complicated process and maybe one day were will have enough information to make a reliable model that reflects earth's weather; we are learning all the time but every "climate Change" study or paper is front page or Google news....More money on the way, look at us we are onboard!! Where opposite studies barely get a mention unless you go to some scientific web sight or journals. I was alive during the Plate tectonics debates and it is funny some of the same attitudes and name calling is still being used on both sides of the climate change argument.. At least then, no one wanted your money, for it was just a heated scientific debate.

I believe in climate change: I also believe all the money in the world from you and I will not change a darn thing.
The climate models were bogus when made; junk in gives junk out, yet, it does not mater to those who have faith everything is man's fault. Agenda 21 and sustainable development is slowly reaching it's goal of convincing people everything is their fault and they can actually do something about it. You want to do something about climate change then stop throwing trash out your car window or along side the road.... at least that way (if this is the end) we will look good when we check out Venus style.

When all the clean coal fired power plants in America are shut down and your electric bill has increased 300 to 600% and your smart meter says what a good person for freezing or burning up, then maybe all the Eco warriors can call Al Gore and surely he will put some Tofu burgers on the solar Barbie for you at his $20+million Sea Side mansion.

In the meantime China continues to build super dirty coal fired plants at approximately 1 every month. The pollution has gotten so bad there kids can not even go outside to play in certain cities. Wait until India gets some infrastructure and manufacturing they will not be far behind. So....ya wanna kill a bunch of people or say hey pay us and we will make it all go away? They will be happy to, no doubt.

Originally posted by MadMax7
And there have been less trees on Earth at no other time than now. They absorb CO2.

I can't find anyone mentioning that?

Trees absorb CO2 during the day when there is sunlight available to perform photosynthesis. But at night, plants can also absorb O2 (or oxygen) at a lower rate in order to keep their metabolic processes going. Many hospital wards would take away plants from rooms and wards at night because of this. Maybe also because of problems with fungus and pollen.

Originally posted by 727Sky
reply to post by Moshpet

 

It’s looking likely that soon, for the first time in human existence, CO2 levels will hit 400 ppm. CO2 is one of the main gasses driving global warming, and the last time levels exceeded 400 ppm was roughly 2-3 million years ago. That’s not just a long time ago.

Hummm 2 to 3 million years ago...not that long ago.....supposedly no humans driving cars or flying around and be a cancer on mother earth......must be.... sun, earth, natural climate and atmospheric change.....or there really was an ancient civilization that destroyed itself.....my money is on CLIMATE CHANGE without man made squat. The very article itself says it happened before....History repeats?

This really shouldn't be too hard of a concept. Of course greenhouse gas levels rise and fall on their own but it happens over thousands or millions of years.

Occasionally GHG's are rapidly driven upwards by a catastrophic event such as a massive volcanic venting and sometimes they are driven down rapidly by the same such as volcanic ash spew or an asteroid smashing into the planet and the sun gets blocked out causing freezing which sequestesters the gasses in ice and permafrost.

The point is, the global mean temperature is directly influenced by how much or how little GHG's are in the troposphere BECAUSE GHG's determine how much energy (heat) from the sun is trapped or allowed to escape.

When GHG's rise or fall rapidly it causes chaotic climate change and triggers extinctions because animal and plant life with few exceptions adapts very slowly.

It doesn't matter that GHG levels in the past were this high or higher or lower, we evolved to live on a planet that had a much lower concentration of them in the atmosphere, we also evolved on a planet with a relatively stable climate. We've had up until now relatively predictable growing, hunting, planting, harvesting and fishing seasons. We are at the beginning stages of not knowing when or where to plant crops, animal migration routes are out of whack which affects hunting and fishing.

We know that there are various ways to increase GHG's in the atmosphere, we know that volcanoes haven't been much of a contributing factor over the last few hundred years. We also know that mankind has literally been pulling and releasing carbon out of the ground and into the air over the last 200 years as well as simultaneously eliminating the planets various methods of sequestering it.

reply to post by talklikeapirat

I know your graph is suppose to show that the unprecedented rise in greenhouse gas emissions in modern times is this time actually preceding the rise in global temperatures. There we have proof that CO2 is main driver of the global climate.

No.

That's hardly the "proof".

The proof lies first and foremost in the physics. That's the part that all the so-called skeptics love to ignore more than anything else.

But we have a very well understood physical cause and effect mechanism that has been tried, tested, repeated, and thus proven through 150 years of rigorous scientific method. Beyond that we have all sorts of independent lines of proof for GHG driven warming that go way more in depth than simply making two lines on a graph match up.

There are very specific signatures in the behaviour of the warming itself (stratospheric cooling, nights warming faster than days, etc) that eliminate other culprits like the Sun, and point directly to an anthropogenic source. There are satellite measurements that distinctly show less and less infrared radiation escaping at wavelengths corresponding to CO2 and CH4. That's right - we have literally measured man made global warming:

Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

^^ But the contrarians love to conveniently ignore all that empirical evidence and make this issue all about some ambiguous correlation, so they can attack their own fluffy weak science, and smother everything in uncertainty and political propaganda instead.


I am much more interested in explicit physics - hard proof - than any superficial connecting of the dots. That stuff's for the "skeptics" sitting at the kiddie table of the global warming debate (aka pretty much all of them). It's useless anyway - because correlation only really proves something after the fact, and by that point it's too late.

But deniers and oil companies happen to LOVE it for this very same reason.

reply to post by talklikeapirat

But your point was to show how in recent times, ever increasing greenhouse gas levels are driving the global temperatures.

No, I did no such thing.

Again - you guys need to try actually paying attention to what people like me are saying, instead of making up your own conversations so you can get ahead of them by one-upping everything. My "point" was to simply show how ridiculous it was of Danbones to imply that CO2 levels are suddenly going up because of rising temps. The graph serves to at least pretty much trounce that idea.


I have to say too the rest of your assessment was rather hypocritical - you started off by criticizing the graph for changing resolution and not telling the whole story, but then used it to immediately draw all sorts of rash conclusions over short time spans without considering the whole story.

The ultimate effect of GHG forcing is well understood to be a long term process. This is why we talk about 'equilibrium' climate sensitivity versus 'transient' climate sensitivity. To simply expect instant gratification here is just ignorant and unreasonable.

GHG's are heat trapping gases, but heat and temperature are not exactly the same thing. That's why we have different heat capacites which determine the temperature of different elements like air and water from how much energy they absorb.

Again, thanks to the bare bones physics, we absolutely know our GHG emissions are trapping this heat - there is no doubt or uncertainty on that. But how this ultimately translates to an atmospheric increase in global temperature is a much more complicated process that simply takes time to resolve. The atmosphere and the oceans and the land and the melting ice and the wind and the extreme weather events all divvy up that excess energy in different ways, and they cycle it back and forth many times over before it can truly settle in under a new equilibrium.

Nonetheless, that's why it all comes back to the physics. We know that extra heat has to settle down somewhere. There's absolutely no way around that. The only case you could make is through some kind of negative feedback process that flips it all back out into space, but nobody has managed to demonstrate that, and the satellite measurements effectively prove it's not happening anyway.

So at the end of the day you're stuck with it. You can make all the cases you want about not being able to feel it, see it, smell it, whatever - but the laws of physics dictate that it must be there.

Meanwhile take a look around and it's actually quite easy to feel it, see it, and smell it anyway. Everyone these days is aware of the changing climate around them - the melting glaciers, the disappearing Arctic, the extreme weather events - most are lucid enough to recognize something is definitely happening.

But again - it all comes back to the physics, not some ambiguous and subjective graph-reading.

Those who understand the physics, understand why (at least a large portion of) it must be man-made. Those who don't, just continue to derail the conversation with irrelevant banter about natural cycles, Al Gore, computer models, carbon taxes - whatever they can muster to avoid facing the difficult and uncomfortable facts here.

Originally posted by pasiphae
reply to post by pikestaff

 

climate depot is backed by lobbyists. how can that be biased information?

mediamatters.org...

Look at his posting history on the Fragile Earth forum. It's pretty much all a bunch of drive-by comments that always start with "I was just reading on climate depot"...

I know the paid shill thing gets thrown around ATS ad nauseum, but honestly if there's one member here I could easily point that finger at - it's this guy.

Probably not paid, mind you, but organizations like CFACT (which funds climatedepot) are notorious for "training" sock-puppet drones like this:

reply to post by mc_squared

whatever they can muster to avoid facing the difficult and uncomfortable facts here.

One man's facts are another man's B.S. the models have been proven wrong over and over again because they do not reflect real world effects. Everything from hacked emails to the models themselves have shown there is much hype and a known (by a few anyway)agenda to make a few rich and the rest pay.

I think we should all be concerned about the environment do not misunderstand my position.

The data points are not complete for any meaningful model or study because they are still learning what some "effect" has and how much "cause" each effect has on the grand picture..... Instead of faith it would behove all of us to look at the science and latest research and from there form a consensus on any consequences we may be facing.

Running off "half cocked" like some Preacher's flock that believes the end of the world is right around the corner has been proved stupid.

Flawed science reaching some conclusion, corrupt scientist being paid to come to a predetermined conclusions, will work for the faithful because it has become their religion. For others ( I include myself in this group) that believe the earth is a little more complicated and no one thing being pushed today is the direct cause of atmospheric anomalies or climate change will wait until more data points are included into the debate.

Many scientist have now got the scent of the climate change debate. New science and studies are being published almost every month which will give a more complete picture of what is going on.

Methane leaks in the colder regions, ocean warming, hydro thermal vents, volcanoes, sun, universe, cosmic rays, etc etc all play a part not just one thing; to focus on one thing of the big picture is like blind men feeling an elephant in a limited area.. One says an elephant is like a rope as he grasp the tail, where another says the elephant is like a tree as he touches a leg. etc etc. Myopic views are just that.... Myopic. How anyone can debate the models are complete and their results are accurate is beyond me.
www.wnd.com...
31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'

Scientists Baffled as Report Proves Global Warming Has Stopped
April 15, 2013 by Joe Martino

In a report released by Spiegel science journal, the admission that the world has been waiting for for a long time is now here: Global Warming has stopped! Spiegel journalist Axel Bojanowski writes “The word has been out for quite some time now that the climate is developing differently than predicted earlier”. He poses the question: “How many more years of stagnation are needed before scientists rethink their predictions of future warming?

People with faith and some kind of agenda always dismiss anything that goes against their preconceived notions an their world view. Sooner or later the facts of a matter and data points will be completed and climate change will be proved one way or the other. The time to panic and destroy economies and societies is not upon us.

reply to post by 727Sky

the models have been proven wrong over and over again because they do not reflect real world effects.

I suspect much of your misunderstanding of what climate models predicted stems from 'climate deniers' favorite memes of "alarmism", "they're predicting an apocalypse tomorrow!" etc etc... no climate models or climate scientists ever said such things. "Dramatic temperature rise" is an accurate statement but deniers never, ever look at the application of the word dramatic.

What does dramatic temperature increase mean? It's dramatic if temperature increases at all, even when it's normal. The difference between freeze and thaw is 1 degree F, that's it. A difference of 1 degree F can trigger buds appearing in the spring in the spring.

When the overall temperature of the planet has warmed by even a fraction of a degree C, it is indeed dramatic and can cause all sorts of problems with weather.

Now what climate models have actually predicted vs what deniers claim they predict are two entirely different things, if we go with what models actually predicted we see that they have been correct.

Forecasts of global temperature rises over the past 15 years have proved remarkably accurate, new analysis of scientists' modelling of climate change shows.

The debate around the accuracy of climate modelling and forecasting has been especially intense recently, due to suggestions that forecasts have exaggerated the warming observed so far – and therefore also the level warming that can be expected in the future. But the new research casts serious doubts on these claims, and should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change.

The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, explores the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree.

Guardian

The time to panic and destroy economies and societies is not upon us.

It should never be upon us, if we as a species had bothered to learn about climate science, if we'd bothered to try and do anything about GHG emissions, if we'd bother to stop living in denial and prepare... there would be no need for panic or destruction of economies. Doing nothing ensures a reality that someday we will be panicking and that economies will be destroyed.

2 million years ago...the Pliocene period. Yes, it got warmer and then there was a massive ice age...but it didnt matter seeing as tho there was also a ELE that happened from an exploding Super nova 130 light yrs away that did major damage to the ozone layer...

reply to post by Moshpet

Maybe it is time to ignore the rhetoric and look for a solution.

People will jump on this cause when the worst of it is on us - and it's all too obvious. They'll be tearing their hair and gnashing their teeth and demanding to know why nobody told them this was going to happen

I swear - this should have been one of those times when we decided to err on the side of caution - and risk being wrong. You know - for the greater good?

Guess we'll see - this coming September should be interesting

reply to post by Kali74


www.wnd.com...

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda

I guess 31,000 who disagree means nothing? Are they all paid by big oil or the solar industry?

Scientists Baffled as Report Proves Global Warming Has Stopped
April 15, 2013 by Joe Martino

In a report released by Spiegel science journal, the admission that the world has been waiting for for a long time is now here: Global Warming has stopped! Spiegel journalist Axel Bojanowski writes “The word has been out for quite some time now that the climate is developing differently than predicted earlier”. He poses the question: “How many more years of stagnation are needed before scientists rethink their predictions of future warming?

People with faith and some kind of agenda always dismiss anything that goes against their preconceived notions an their world view. Sooner or later the facts of a matter and data points will be completed and climate change will be proved one way or the other. The time to panic and destroy economies and societies is not upon us.

I will stick with my original post. If I am right all the climate change people will die of a ripe old age and realize they were wrong or worse yet duped by a well laid out UN agenda 21 disguised as climate change that was written and followed.
30,000 scientist to file a lawsuit against Al Gore...The IPCC is a UN environmental advocacy group and the hockey stick graph which started all this is total B.S.








685 billion in new taxes (just a start) which is a total scam IMO for it will change nothing..and I am not alone in my thoughts See video 1.. China and India, those lands far away who make American and most of Europe look like the pollution garden of Eden in comparison (see 3d video with congressional hearings) ...

We must lead by example is the next catch all phrase; hard to lead anything if your industry, manufacturing and economy is in the tank .....

The sides are divided and as far as I am concerned there is way to much money to be left on the table if the agenda is not pushed and prodded through. Real science be damned!

So, the climate change people will win sooner or later regardless of what the weather is doing; after all it is for mother earth and the children and no amount of science will get in the way of billions and billions of dollars....

When I was growing up in the 50s and 60s the big scare science was another ice age cometh; but they did not have enough political clout and the UN to push their agenda so it just continued to be discussed and some made plans for the glaciers and moved south?...Oh and there were serious consequences to mankind's breeding and pollution of the earth...1950 there were about 2,556,000,053 people and I remember great minds saying the earth could not support 4 billion...Well all those experts are probably dead now and were wrong. 7 billion people would have made many of the doomsday people in the 50s and 60s commit suicide because they could not imagine living in such a crowded world. Same "mankind is a disease on the world" crowd are spouting their hatred today. Is over population a problem it really is in some places of the world where there is not enough food grown or clean drinking water. If some of the dictators would have spent some small fraction of the money they stole on infrastructure then many would not be starving and thirsty..... Naw they were to busy killing each other so any infrastructure would have just been bombed and destroyed, no doubt same yesterday as it is today......

reply to post by 727Sky

In early 2008, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) published their Petition Project, a list of names from people who all claimed to be scientists and who rejected the science behind the theory of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW). This was an attempt to by the OISM to claim that there were far more scientists opposing AGW theory than there are supporting it. This so-called petition took on special importance coming after the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, and specifically the Working Group 1 (WG1) report on the science and attribution of climate change to human civilization.

The WG1 report was authored and reviewed by approximately 2000 scientists with varying expertise in climate and related fields, and so having a list of over 30,000 scientists that rejected the WG1’s conclusions was a powerful meme that AGW skeptics and deniers could use to cast doubt on the IPCC’s conclusions and, indirectly, on the entire theory of climate disruption. And in fact, this meme has become widespread in both legacy and new media today.

It is also false.

Skeptical Science
More from wiki.

I can't link the whole post, but you should read it. By the way WND is an absolutely horrible source, you should have linked the original article.

There was also NEVER a law suit filed against Al Gore. You're propagating myths and lies dispensed of 6 years ago. You also can't seem to stop yourself from accusing people who recognize the scientific merit the AGW Theory stands on, of being religious zealots... it's a weak echo chamber attack, be better than that.

Originally posted by 727Sky
reply to post by Kali74

 

When I was growing up in the 50s and 60s the big scare science was another ice age cometh; but they did not have enough political clout.....

LOL! how many times on this site have the climate change deniers said we're going into a new ice age? i either hear "it's the sun" or "we going into an ice age" i just thought it was humorous that you mentioned that. i grew up in the 80's and i only remember talk of global warming. sure, an ice age was expected to happen EVENTUALLY if and ONLY IF things continued on a normal path of change. the climate has always changed. just not THIS FAST.