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

[orogenicman]

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.

Then I suggest you get busy and confirm or refute it. After all, that is what independent replication of experimental results is all about.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Erm, I don't believe you. See how that works?

 

[jc456]

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.

Then I suggest you get busy and confirm or refute it. After all, that is what independent replication of experimental results is all about.

The research already does that. 95% of models wrong. WRONG. That means getting back to the drawing board and perform some experiments to improve the model. Again, the observed does not match the models. IPCC AR5 report states that. As a geologist, again don't you all take the observed data and confirm the model? In our case for this argument, 95% of the models are wrong.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Then I suggest you get busy and confirm or refute it. After all, that is what independent replication of experimental results is all about.

The research already does that. 95% of models wrong. WRONG. That means getting back to the drawing board and perform some experiments to improve the model. Again, the observed does not match the models. IPCC AR5 report states that. As a geologist, again don't you all take the observed data and confirm the model? In our case for this argument, 95% of the models are wrong.

The OP graph is what is observed. The results of the plant nutrition study is what is observed. I said nothing here about models, did I? If we cannot agree on the observations, discussions about models are pointless.

 

[jc456]

Then I suggest you get busy and confirm or refute it. After all, that is what independent replication of experimental results is all about.

The research already does that. 95% of models wrong. WRONG. That means getting back to the drawing board and perform some experiments to improve the model. Again, the observed does not match the models. IPCC AR5 report states that. As a geologist, again don't you all take the observed data and confirm the model? In our case for this argument, 95% of the models are wrong.

The OP graph is what is observed. The results of the plant nutrition study is what is observed. I said nothing here about models, did I? If we cannot agree on the observations, discussions about models are pointless.

So show a video showing CO2 increasing. Ok, so what? What has that to do with weather, climate, agriculture? There is nothing in your OP to conclude anything other than a line showing CO2 increasing. Ok, then so what. If your point isn't what I was posting against, then excuse me, but the intended video gave me that perception. And perception is everything.

You were infering something.

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

Erm, I don't believe you. See how that works?

Works for me!!! http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/313851-more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.html

70,000 views works for me too!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think Spencer is right on the Cloud reflectivity and aerosols reflecting solar energy back into space. I use his temperature data all the time.

I am a skeptic. There's no reason not to be as people like Hansen, etc have proven me right with agreeing with the pause.

Now, I do think he is extreme and we don't agree that global warming has stopped.

 

[SSDD]

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.

You are no geologist....if you were, you wouldn't need a non geologist to point out the deliberate deception contained in your OP...or perhaps you are a geologist and are perfectly willing to deceive if it suits your political goal.

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.

Yours is a deliberate deception in that it only shows CO2 levels during an ice age and makes no mention of what the atmospheric CO2 levels were like prior to the beginning of that ice age.

particularly when there was little to no land life hundreds of millions of years ago

You are absolutely full of crap and are most certainly no geologist if you actually believe that. Are you claiming that there was no life on earth prior to the present ice age?

While life first appeared on land much earlier, the Triassic period 250 million years ago was teaming with terrestrial life. The global mean temp was around 22C and the atmospheric CO2 was in the neighborhood of 1500 to 2000ppm....then came the Jurassic...more teeming life on land...temperature, again around 22C and atmospheric CO2 in the 2500ppm range. Then comes the cretataceous period...again the average temp was in the neighborhood of 22C and the atmospheric CO2 at the beginning of the period was in excess of 2000ppm and by the end of the period it was about 1000ppm. Next comes the tertiary period...if we examine fossils from that period, we find the oldest examples of modern land animals....temps during that period were as high as 30C according to some sources...CO2 at the beginning of the tertiary...in excess of 1000ppm...then the decent into the present ice age began....CO2 began to fall and bottomed out a bit less than we have today.

Here is a graph with a bit more resolution since you seem to be unable to see the obvious from the graph you have been provided. It shows the decent into the ice age from the eocene optmum about 50 million years ago to the depths of the ice age that the earth is presently exiting.



So again, life on earth was much the same as life today at the time of the Eocene optimum but the temperatures were much warmer and atmospheric CO2 was much higher...then came the ice age. Now, is there any reason to believe that the global mean temperature won't again, reach near 22C as it has been for most of earth's history????and is there any reason to think that CO2 levels below 1000 are normal on planet earth during any time other than an ice age?

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.

We are the most adaptable creature to have ever walked the face of the earth....our survival, in no way, depends on stable climate conditions and if it did, we would be doomed because the history of the earth has shown that climate is not stable here....never has been...never will be.

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.

Alarmist claptrap.

you fail to acknowledge is that there are millions already subsisting on marginal land that will become useless in the coming decades.

Again, alarmist claptrap. History has shown that when the world was warmer, what is desert today was green....what is to cool to be useful as farmland was once lush. Tell me, what do you think the ideal temperature is for life on earth? Consider the historical evidence.

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.

Drought is associated more with cold periods than warm....what was the water situation like during the Eocene optimum when the global mean temp was in the neighborhood of 22C? Is there evidence of extensive drought then or was life blooming?

Whether or not you believe humans are ultimately responsible for global warming, the fact is that it is occurring.

That is what happens when a planet exits an ice age. It has happened before...over and over without our help and the temperature invariably rose to the high side of 20C...the normal temperature for planet earth.

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.

By crippling our economies via taxes on a trace gas in the atmosphere?

 

[Crick]

SSDD,

What mechanism do you believe is causing it to warm as rapidly as it has since the Industrial Revolution?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD,

What mechanism do you believe is causing it to warm as rapidly as it has since the Industrial Revolution?

What mechanism caused all of the other warming and cooling periods?

1) How rapidly is the temperature increasing?
2) Does a fraction of a degree in 100 years seem fast to you?
3) How much of that warming is real and how much is an artifact of bad placement of temperature sensors?
4) How much of that fraction of a degree is due to data tampering of which there has been quite a bit?
5) How fast did temperatures rise during the Holocene optimum....the Minoan warm period...the Roman warm period...and the Medieval warm period which were all warmer than the present and global in nature?

 

[orogenicman]

SSDD,

What mechanism do you believe is causing it to warm as rapidly as it has since the Industrial Revolution?

What mechanism caused all of the other warming and cooling periods?

1) How rapidly is the temperature increasing?
2) Does a fraction of a degree in 100 years seem fast to you?
3) How much of that warming is real and how much is an artifact of bad placement of temperature sensors?
4) How much of that fraction of a degree is due to data tampering of which there has been quite a bit?
5) How fast did temperatures rise during the Holocene optimum....the Minoan warm period...the Roman warm period...and the Medieval warm period which were all warmer than the present and global in nature?

So what you are saying is that you don't know. I only make that conclusion because it appears that you intentionally avoided answering his question.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD,

What mechanism do you believe is causing it to warm as rapidly as it has since the Industrial Revolution?

What mechanism caused all of the other warming and cooling periods?

1) How rapidly is the temperature increasing?
2) Does a fraction of a degree in 100 years seem fast to you?
3) How much of that warming is real and how much is an artifact of bad placement of temperature sensors?
4) How much of that fraction of a degree is due to data tampering of which there has been quite a bit?
5) How fast did temperatures rise during the Holocene optimum....the Minoan warm period...the Roman warm period...and the Medieval warm period which were all warmer than the present and global in nature?

So what you are saying is that you don't know. I only make that conclusion because it appears that you intentionally avoided answering his question.

I am saying that no one knows. There is nothing more than corroboratory evidence that CO2 is the catalyst for the warming and a great deal of observational evidence that says that it is not.

That big ball of fire in the sky drives the climate here on earth now just as it has since the earth has been in existence. If you claim to know that CO2 is the driver of the climate, then you are either delusional or just a liar.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...and in all that time, CO2 never drove climate once

 

[Crick]

SSDD,

What mechanism do you believe is causing it to warm as rapidly as it has since the Industrial Revolution?

What mechanism caused all of the other warming and cooling periods?

1) How rapidly is the temperature increasing?
2) Does a fraction of a degree in 100 years seem fast to you?
3) How much of that warming is real and how much is an artifact of bad placement of temperature sensors?
4) How much of that fraction of a degree is due to data tampering of which there has been quite a bit?
5) How fast did temperatures rise during the Holocene optimum....the Minoan warm period...the Roman warm period...and the Medieval warm period which were all warmer than the present and global in nature?

The temperature has increased 0.9C/150 years or 0.6C/century. I realize things get smeared out badly when looking back that far, but the most rapid change I see in the record you provided looks like 4C/million years or 0.0004C/century.

The current rate of change seems very fast to me, but so what?

Several studies have shown that very, very little of the warming is an artifact from the bad placement of temperature sensors. The satellites weren't badly placed. The ocean measurements weren't badly placed. The warming is real.

And you've missed the point. I asked you to identify the mechanism that is causing the rapid warming the Earth has been experiencing recently. The rate at which we'd been "coming out of the current ice age" accelerated tremendously as we started industrializing. That does not happen without a CAUSE. The scientists at the IPCC have collected an enormous amount of evidence that clearly indicates it is being caused by increased greenhouse gases. You seem to reject that. I ask what cause you have in it's place.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Number of repeatable lab experiments demonstrating a link between temperature increase and an additional wisp of CO2: zero, 0, nada, none, zippo

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SSDD,

What mechanism do you believe is causing it to warm as rapidly as it has since the Industrial Revolution?

What mechanism caused all of the other warming and cooling periods?

1) How rapidly is the temperature increasing?
2) Does a fraction of a degree in 100 years seem fast to you?
3) How much of that warming is real and how much is an artifact of bad placement of temperature sensors?
4) How much of that fraction of a degree is due to data tampering of which there has been quite a bit?
5) How fast did temperatures rise during the Holocene optimum....the Minoan warm period...the Roman warm period...and the Medieval warm period which were all warmer than the present and global in nature?

The temperature has increased 0.9C/150 years or 0.6C/century. I realize things get smeared out badly when looking back that far, but the most rapid change I see in the record you provided looks like 4C/million years or 0.0004C/century.

The current rate of change seems very fast to me, but so what?

Several studies have shown that very, very little of the warming is an artifact from the bad placement of temperature sensors. The satellites weren't badly placed. The ocean measurements weren't badly placed. The warming is real.

And you've missed the point. I asked you to identify the mechanism that is causing the rapid warming the Earth has been experiencing recently. The rate at which we'd been "coming out of the current ice age" accelerated tremendously as we started industrializing. That does not happen without a CAUSE. The scientists at the IPCC have collected an enormous amount of evidence that clearly indicates it is being caused by increased greenhouse gases. You seem to reject that. I ask what cause you have in it's place.

What's the Earth's average temperature?

 

[mamooth]

What's the Earth's average temperature?

Depends on the data set used.

And it doesn't matter which one you use, as long as you go apples to apples and make comparisons within the same data set.

Why did you think that question was going to trip someone up? Don't you understand temperature?

 

[mamooth]

Number of repeatable lab experiments demonstrating a link between temperature increase and an additional wisp of CO2: zero, 0, nada, none, zippo

Except the ones any high schooler can do.

Which you don't count, because they don't recreate the whole earth.

And when a model does do that, you say it doesn't count because it's a model.

You've defined it so it's impossible. So nobody is interested in playing this dishonest game of yours.

 

[mamooth]

I am saying that no one knows. There is nothing more than corroboratory evidence that CO2 is the catalyst for the warming and a great deal of observational evidence that says that it is not.

The atmospheric heat flux measurements say otherwise.

That big ball of fire in the sky drives the climate here on earth now just as it has since the earth has been in existence.

Yet temps go up as solar output goes down, meaning you stink in the common sense department. Oh, that's right, you claim there's a multi-decade lag, but won't identify where all the heat is magically stored, before it springs back to life decades later. It's your magical temporarily vanishing heat theory, to go along with your magical vanishing photon theory. Physics is whatever you want it to be in order to push your weird cult agenda.

If you claim to know that CO2 is the driver of the climate, then you are either delusional or just a liar.

Or it means we don't suck at the science as much as you.