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

[SSDD]

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.

Really? What sort of proxy gives you that sort of resolution?

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

Compared to that non existent proxy that gives you those numbers?

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.

40% is very little? OK. If you say so. Of course the warming is real. It has been going on for 14 thousand years now. It is called coming out of an ice age. What do you expect? What was the temperature prior to the beginning of the ice age? What caused it? What triggered the warming that started us out of it? Is there any reason to expect that the temperature won't rise back to the temperature it was prior to the beginning of the ice age?

you've missed the point. I asked you to identify the mechanism that is causing the rapid warming the Earth has been experiencing recently.

Recently? There has been no warming recently. Damned near 20 years now with no warming while atmospheric CO2 increases merrily on its way. A fraction of a degree in 100 years...coming out of the little ice age is by no means (unless you are chicken little) rapid warming.

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.

And you can say with how much certainty, and based on what, that previous exits from cold periods along the path of exiting this ice age were not equally rapid?

 

[SSDD]

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.

They don't show that CO2 causes warming either. Those experiments mostly show the heat of compression, but some show other things. What they don't show is that CO2 in the open atmosphere can cause warming.

 

[SSDD]

The atmospheric heat flux measurements say otherwise.

No they don't. If they did, perhaps we would know why the warming stopped.

 

[Crick]

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.

Really? What sort of proxy gives you that sort of resolution?

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

Compared to that non existent proxy that gives you those numbers?



40% is very little? OK. If you say so. Of course the warming is real. It has been going on for 14 thousand years now. It is called coming out of an ice age. What do you expect? What was the temperature prior to the beginning of the ice age? What caused it? What triggered the warming that started us out of it? Is there any reason to expect that the temperature won't rise back to the temperature it was prior to the beginning of the ice age?

you've missed the point. I asked you to identify the mechanism that is causing the rapid warming the Earth has been experiencing recently.

Recently? There has been no warming recently. Damned near 20 years now with no warming while atmospheric CO2 increases merrily on its way. A fraction of a degree in 100 years...coming out of the little ice age is by no means (unless you are chicken little) rapid warming.

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.

And you can say with how much certainty, and based on what, that previous exits from cold periods along the path of exiting this ice age were not equally rapid?

Are you actually going to try to deny that the rate of warming has increased in the last 150 years? Of course you are. You've already tried to deny there's been any warming at all. And what studies show 40% of observed warming is from poor sensor siting?

 

[orogenicman]

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.

So you are in denial of 100 years of scientific evidence that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas, are you? Oh dear.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

I thought your theory was "Adding 100PPM of CO2 to Earth atmosphere will cause a discernible increase in temperature of between .5 to 8 degrees which ever comes first"?

Do you have a theory you can put into simple words?

 

[orogenicman]

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.

I thought your theory was "Adding 100PPM of CO2 to Earth atmosphere will cause a discernible increase in temperature of between .5 to 8 degrees which ever comes first"?

Do you have a theory you can put into simple words?

The effective volume of the Earth's atmosphere is about 4.2 billion cubic kilometers. 100 ppm of that is a friggin lot of CO2 (42,000,000 cubic kilometers). We are currently near 400 ppm (210,000,000 cubic kilometers). Are you honestly going to argue that this volume of CO2 is inert in our atmosphere?

 

[SSDD]

Are you actually going to try to deny that the rate of warming has increased in the last 150 years? Of course you are. You've already tried to deny there's been any warming at all. And what studies show 40% of observed warming is from poor sensor siting?

Presently, it is not warming. As to denying that it has warmed, you are simply lying. The earth is coming out of an ice age with a long way to go...what do you expect. Most of the 20th century warming happened before the end of the second world war....the bulk of the remainder is in all likelihood due to the urban heat island effect.

The only actual study that has taken a serious look at sensor sitting.
New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial | Watts Up With That?

Want some papers regarding UHI?

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

00509.1http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010JD015452.shtml

Quantitative estimates of warming by urbanization in South Korea over the past 55 years (1954?2008)

There is plenty more if you care to look. Then there is the fact that the CRN..NOAA'state of the art surface temperature network...the equipment is pristine and the locations are meticulously situated to the point that no "adjustment" is necessary. You don't hear much about that network because the results coming out of there don't support the claims of any warming, much less rapid warming.

The fact is that hand waving and histrionics on the part of warmest wackos really is no reason for anyone to get excited. When pressed on what sort of data you rely on to make your crazy claims...you are ashamed to answer and instead change gears to attack me...or whoever else may ask you who told you that such fine resolution was available via proxy data.

So again...

What was the temperature prior to the beginning of the ice age that earth is currently exiting?

Is there any reason to expect that the temperature will not climb back to that level?

Do you have any actual evidence that the temperature did not climb at least as fast, if not faster leading up to the Holocene maximum, the Minoan warm period, the Roman warm perod, or the medieval warm period? The Vostok ice cores suggest that the present warming is no big deal and in fact, quite minor.

 

[SSDD]

So you are in denial of 100 years of scientific evidence that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas, are you? Oh dear.

Can you show me a single repeatable measurable experiment that demonstrates that CO2 can cause warming in the open atmosphere? The fact is that there is no 100 years of "evidence" that CO2 alters the temperature at all. There is 100 years of assumption, and guesswork, and fudge factor...but no actual evidence at all. If you think that there is any such actual evidence.....then lets see it. Maybe you can produce what no other warmer has managed to do to date.

 

[SSDD]

The effective volume of the Earth's atmosphere is about 4.2 billion cubic kilometers. 100 ppm of that is a friggin lot of CO2 (42,000,000 cubic kilometers). We are currently near 400 ppm (210,000,000 cubic kilometers). Are you honestly going to argue that this volume of CO2 is inert in our atmosphere?

Can you show any proof at all that it isn't? We all know that CO2 absorbs and emits IR but absorption and emission do not equal warming....that is an assumption on your part. if there were any actual proof to support your beliefs, it would be everywhere...inescapable and yet, us skeptics are asking continuously and it never seems to come forth.

 

[orogenicman]

The effective volume of the Earth's atmosphere is about 4.2 billion cubic kilometers. 100 ppm of that is a friggin lot of CO2 (42,000,000 cubic kilometers). We are currently near 400 ppm (210,000,000 cubic kilometers). Are you honestly going to argue that this volume of CO2 is inert in our atmosphere?

Can you show any proof at all that it isn't? We all know that CO2 absorbs and emits IR but absorption and emission do not equal warming....that is an assumption on your part. if there were any actual proof to support your beliefs, it would be everywhere...inescapable and yet, us skeptics are asking continuously and it never seems to come forth.

The energy has to go somewhere? Or are you now going to argue against the laws of thermodynamics?

 

[Old Rocks]

SSDD is going to flap yap and repeat whatever nonsense he can think of on the spur of the moment. In spite of all the Physicists in the world stating otherwise, he will claim that CO2 does not block the longwave IR that is radiated from the earth.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[SSDD]

The effective volume of the Earth's atmosphere is about 4.2 billion cubic kilometers. 100 ppm of that is a friggin lot of CO2 (42,000,000 cubic kilometers). We are currently near 400 ppm (210,000,000 cubic kilometers). Are you honestly going to argue that this volume of CO2 is inert in our atmosphere?

Can you show any proof at all that it isn't? We all know that CO2 absorbs and emits IR but absorption and emission do not equal warming....that is an assumption on your part. if there were any actual proof to support your beliefs, it would be everywhere...inescapable and yet, us skeptics are asking continuously and it never seems to come forth.

The energy has to go somewhere? Or are you now going to argue against the laws of thermodynamics?

Satellites tell us that outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere is increasing and has been for some time.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD is going to flap yap and repeat whatever nonsense he can think of on the spur of the moment. In spite of all the Physicists in the world stating otherwise, he will claim that CO2 does not block the longwave IR that is radiated from the earth.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Actually rocks, it is physicists who made a skeptic of me...that and the common sense it requires to look around and see that the models aren't doing a good job of predicting reality....that alone should make a skeptic of any thinking person as the supposed physics of the hypothetical greenhouse effect are personified in the models and the models are failing....therefore the physics are wrong.

And absorption and emission do not equal blocking....they only equal absorption and emission.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

I thought your theory was "Adding 100PPM of CO2 to Earth atmosphere will cause a discernible increase in temperature of between .5 to 8 degrees which ever comes first"?

Do you have a theory you can put into simple words?

The effective volume of the Earth's atmosphere is about 4.2 billion cubic kilometers. 100 ppm of that is a friggin lot of CO2 (42,000,000 cubic kilometers). We are currently near 400 ppm (210,000,000 cubic kilometers). Are you honestly going to argue that this volume of CO2 is inert in our atmosphere?

Is "Are you honestly going to argue that this volume of CO2 is inert in our atmosphere?" your scientific theory?

You also seem to be confused about the meaning of PPM; it's parts per million. No matter the volume of the atmosphere, we're adding what can be generously described as a "trace amount"

 

[mamooth]

Satellites tell us that outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere is increasing and has been for some time.

The actual data says the opposite of your claim. Of course, that's never stopped you from making any claims before.

Satellite-Based Reconstruction of the Tropical Oceanic Clear-Sky Outgoing Longwave Radiation and Comparison with Climate Models -- Gastineau et al. (2014)

AMS Journals Online
---
While the tropical ocean surface temperature has risen by roughly 0.2 K from 1982 to 2004, the reconstructed OLR remains stable over the ocean. Consequently, there is an increase in the clear-sky greenhouse effect (GHE) of 0.80 W m^2 decade−1
---

A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS – Chapman et al. (2013)

SPIE | Proceeding | A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS
---
Decadal trends for AIRS spectra from 2002-2012 indicate continued decrease of -0.06 K/yr in the trend of CO2 BT (700cm-1 and 2250cm-1), a decrease of -0.04 K/yr of O3 BT (1050 cm-1), and a decrease of -0.03 K/yr of the CH4 BT (1300cm-1).
---

You'll ignore the summary studies, of course, and find a cherrypicked graph of a location somewhere that shows uncorrected ENSO effects.

 

[mamooth]

Those experiments mostly show the heat of compression,.

That's a laughably stupid claim, so delusional that only you could make it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Those experiments mostly show the heat of compression,.

That's a laughably stupid claim, so delusional that only you could make it.

Can you state your AGW theory?

 

[mamooth]

No matter the volume of the atmosphere, we're adding what can be generously described as a "trace amount"

A drop of India ink in a glass of water also has a 100 ppm concentration, yet it blocks all visible light. According to your kook "a trace can't block radiation!" theory, that can't happen. Yet it does. Therefore, your claim is clearly dead wrong.

This is grade school level stuff, but you consistently fail at it. It's tough to get someone to not be stupid when their beloved political cult has ordered them to be stupid.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No matter the volume of the atmosphere, we're adding what can be generously described as a "trace amount"

A drop of India ink in a glass of water also has a 100 ppm concentration, yet it blocks all visible light. According to your kook "a trace can't block radiation!" theory, that can't happen. Yet it does. Therefore, your claim is clearly dead wrong.

This is grade school level stuff, but you consistently fail at it. It's tough to get someone to not be stupid when their beloved political cult has ordered them to be stupid.

Really?

Let's say there's 5,000 drops to a cup.

You need 200 cups to make up 1,000,000 drops.

There's 16 cups in a gallon, so 1MM drops takes 12.5 gallon.

And you're telling us that 1 drop in 12.5 gallons will block all visible light?

So, what's your AGW theory again? I must have missed it