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

[orogenicman]

The greenhouse hypothesis is nothing more than an energy budget...energy into the system...energy out of the system...resulting temperature. Tell me, how do you suppose the physics of energy transfer are different on any other planet than they are here on earth? Do you really think it matters where the energy comes from?

Name a planet that has an energy budget remotely like Earth's. As far as I can tell, there is only one data point on that graph. Good luck with that. And yes it does matter not only where the energy comes from but how fast and for how long it builds up. Bubba, you need to sit down and let the scientists do their work. Obviously, you are not qualified.

So you admit that the greenhouse hypothesis is, as I have claimed for decades, an ad hoc construct custom tailored for earth and it has nothing to do with the actual physics of energy transfer. If it did, then, like the atmospheric thermal effect posed by N&Z, you could plug the parameters of any planet with an atmosphere into it and get an accurate prediction of the temperature on that planet. The atmospheric thermal effect is based on actual physics and therefore works anywhere it is tried as the physics operate the same everywhere. The problem the atmospheric thermal effect has is that it is not useful as a political tool. It doesn't care what the composition of an atmosphere is beyond the atomic weight of the gasses found in it, therefore, no particular gas can be demonized for political purposes....never mind that it is very accurate and based on actual physical laws.

Nice of one of you to finally admit that the greenhouse hypothesis isn't actually science but a tool used to fool the great unwashed.

I rest my case.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Name a planet that has an energy budget remotely like Earth's. As far as I can tell, there is only one data point on that graph. Good luck with that. And yes it does matter not only where the energy comes from but how fast and for how long it builds up. Bubba, you need to sit down and let the scientists do their work. Obviously, you are not qualified.

So you admit that the greenhouse hypothesis is, as I have claimed for decades, an ad hoc construct custom tailored for earth and it has nothing to do with the actual physics of energy transfer. If it did, then, like the atmospheric thermal effect posed by N&Z, you could plug the parameters of any planet with an atmosphere into it and get an accurate prediction of the temperature on that planet. The atmospheric thermal effect is based on actual physics and therefore works anywhere it is tried as the physics operate the same everywhere. The problem the atmospheric thermal effect has is that it is not useful as a political tool. It doesn't care what the composition of an atmosphere is beyond the atomic weight of the gasses found in it, therefore, no particular gas can be demonized for political purposes....never mind that it is very accurate and based on actual physical laws.

Nice of one of you to finally admit that the greenhouse hypothesis isn't actually science but a tool used to fool the great unwashed.

I rest my case.

You have no case

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[SSDD]

I rest my case.

Of course you do. To answer either exposes you as a fool or a bald faced liar. That is the nature of trying to support a pseudoscientific hoax...you eventually get yourself into a place where there is no answer that leaves you looking even remotely intelligent.

Imagine trying to explain why a hypothesis that supposedly describes the energy cycle of a planet will only work on that planet. Imagine how stupid one would look trying to explain why the physics of energy transfer are different on another planet.

Best you rest your case instead of trying to explain that bit of lunacy.

 

[Crick]

Silly boy. Don't project. It makes you look more foolish than you already are.

And not answering the question is an implied admission of guilt.

What question, where? Oh, you mean my question? The one YOU didn't answer?

Rhetorical bullshit does not constitute a question. That he wasted no time or effort attempting to answer it only shows that he's smarter than you who apparently expected him to do so.

 

[ScienceRocks]

800,000 years, but in the middle of a "global land pause" in temperature for the past 10 years. This year is a analog year within the Enso...So if we're below .64-.65c it may show that we could of cooled slightly.

This isn't convincing anyone.

 

[orogenicman]

I rest my case.

Of course you do. To answer either exposes you as a fool or a bald faced liar. That is the nature of trying to support a pseudoscientific hoax...you eventually get yourself into a place where there is no answer that leaves you looking even remotely intelligent.

Imagine trying to explain why a hypothesis that supposedly describes the energy cycle of a planet will only work on that planet. Imagine how stupid one would look trying to explain why the physics of energy transfer are different on another planet.

Best you rest your case instead of trying to explain that bit of lunacy.

So it is your contention that climate change is a hoax in the same way that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax? Oh my.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I rest my case.

Of course you do. To answer either exposes you as a fool or a bald faced liar. That is the nature of trying to support a pseudoscientific hoax...you eventually get yourself into a place where there is no answer that leaves you looking even remotely intelligent.

Imagine trying to explain why a hypothesis that supposedly describes the energy cycle of a planet will only work on that planet. Imagine how stupid one would look trying to explain why the physics of energy transfer are different on another planet.

Best you rest your case instead of trying to explain that bit of lunacy.

So it is your contention that climate change is a hoax in the same way that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax? Oh my.

Moon landings? What?

Just show us the lab experiment demonstrating a temperature increase from a 100, hell made it 200ppm increase in CO2 and we'll go away quietly.

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[SSDD]

So it is your contention that climate change is a hoax in the same way that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax? Oh my.

Of course not. The climate is, and has always been changing. You warmer crazies are the one who think that the climate should do something it has never done in the history of the world and remain static because we happen to be present now. The hoax is that man is altering the global climate...there is not the first bit of actual evidence that we are altering the global climate and nothing that is happening in the climate is even remotely unprecedented or outside the bounds of natural variability.

 

[orogenicman]

So it is your contention that climate change is a hoax in the same way that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax? Oh my.

Of course not. The climate is, and has always been changing. You warmer crazies are the one who think that the climate should do something it has never done in the history of the world and remain static because we happen to be present now. The hoax is that man is altering the global climate...there is not the first bit of actual evidence that we are altering the global climate and nothing that is happening in the climate is even remotely unprecedented or outside the bounds of natural variability.

So, not only is it a hoax, in your view, but a global science conspiracy. Oh my.

 

[SSDD]

So it is your contention that climate change is a hoax in the same way that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax? Oh my.

Of course not. The climate is, and has always been changing. You warmer crazies are the one who think that the climate should do something it has never done in the history of the world and remain static because we happen to be present now. The hoax is that man is altering the global climate...there is not the first bit of actual evidence that we are altering the global climate and nothing that is happening in the climate is even remotely unprecedented or outside the bounds of natural variability.

So, not only is it a hoax, in your view, but a global science conspiracy. Oh my.

I can't help but notice that all your answers lately have been nothing but logical fallacies. Making up an answer for me and then saying "oh my" hardly bolsters your case. You are the one who said conspiracy, not me and suggesting that I did, is just plain dishonest...but then you also claim to be a geologist who doesn't know the difference between an interglacial and an ice age and who was unaware that the earth is still in an ice age so honesty really isn't your best thing, is it?

Climate science, I believe, is the unfortunate victim of an error cascade...it has happened to far more credible, and rigorous branches of science than climate science. If you don't low what an error cascade is, look it up.

By the way, you could go a long way towards your cause simply by posting the hard evidence that man is altering the global climate. Us skeptics keep asking and you warmer wackos keep not producing. What should we make of that? What passes for evidence in your minds is invariably not.

 

[orogenicman]

Of course not. The climate is, and has always been changing. You warmer crazies are the one who think that the climate should do something it has never done in the history of the world and remain static because we happen to be present now. The hoax is that man is altering the global climate...there is not the first bit of actual evidence that we are altering the global climate and nothing that is happening in the climate is even remotely unprecedented or outside the bounds of natural variability.

So, not only is it a hoax, in your view, but a global science conspiracy. Oh my.

I can't help but notice that all your answers lately have been nothing but logical fallacies. Making up an answer for me and then saying "oh my" hardly bolsters your case. You are the one who said conspiracy, not me and suggesting that I did, is just plain dishonest...but then you also claim to be a geologist who doesn't know the difference between an interglacial and an ice age and who was unaware that the earth is still in an ice age so honesty really isn't your best thing, is it?

Climate science, I believe, is the unfortunate victim of an error cascade...it has happened to far more credible, and rigorous branches of science than climate science. If you don't low what an error cascade is, look it up.

By the way, you could go a long way towards your cause simply by posting the hard evidence that man is altering the global climate. Us skeptics keep asking and you warmer wackos keep not producing. What should we make of that? What passes for evidence in your minds is invariably not.

"It's a hoax. No wait. It's an error cascade. No wait. It's, it's, it's..

 

[Crick]

So it is your contention that climate change is a hoax in the same way that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax? Oh my.

Of course not. The climate is, and has always been changing. You warmer crazies are the one who think that the climate should do something it has never done in the history of the world and remain static because we happen to be present now. The hoax is that man is altering the global climate...there is not the first bit of actual evidence that we are altering the global climate and nothing that is happening in the climate is even remotely unprecedented or outside the bounds of natural variability.

You say it's a hoax then you deny that you've said it's a hoax than you say it's a hoax.

The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is unprecedented in at least 800,000 years.

The rate at which CO2 levels have risen since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is unprecedented since the KT Boundary incident, 65 million years ago.

The rate at which temperatures have increased since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is unprecedented at least in the entire Holocene and quite likely since the last major deglaciation.

The ONLY workable cause for that unprecedented warming is that unprecedented rise in GHGs. The amount of GHGs released to the atmosphere by human activities may be calculated by basic book keeping and the amount of warming it would produce, calculable from basic principles, matches the warming observed.

Hoax? Get real.

 

[SSDD]

"It's a hoax. No wait. It's an error cascade. No wait. It's, it's, it's..

Lets call it a pseudoscientific hoax. In any event, you are still not answering questions and a different logical fallacy is still a logical fallacy.

 

[SSDD]

You say it's a hoax then you deny that you've said it's a hoax than you say it's a hoax.

The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is unprecedented in at least 800,000 years.

Low levels of CO2 during an ice age...who would have thought. The level right now is very low when compared to the time before the ice age began.

rate at which CO2 levels have risen since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is unprecedented since the KT Boundary incident, 65 million years ago.

Which proxy gives you resolution down to the century level? Answer: None. You are either making it up or repeating information given to you by someone else who made it up.

rate at which temperatures have increased since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is unprecedented at least in the entire Holocene and quite likely since the last major deglaciation.

Again, what proxy can give you resolution down to the century level with accuracy down to fractions of a degree. Answer: None. Again you either made it up or are repeating information given to you by someone who made it up.

ONLY workable cause for that unprecedented warming is that unprecedented rise in GHGs. The amount of GHGs released to the atmosphere by human activities may be calculated by basic book keeping and the amount of warming it would produce, calculable from basic principles, matches the warming observed.

The first order of business is to prove that the warming is unprecedented. We know that the holocene maximum was quite a bit warmer than the present as was the minoan, the roman, and the medieval warm periods. No proxy data can provide resolution fine enough to know how quickly the warming during those periods came on but they were warmer and no proxy can really tell us that much about atmospheric CO2....certain....problems exist with knowing exactly what the atmospheric CO2 was like at any given time. We can know that rising CO2 follows temperature rises, but not much about the actual concentration of CO2...

Again, made up data....either from your own ass or from someone else's ass. In either event shit is shit.

? Get real.

Political hoax...scientific error cascade.

 

[Crick]

It does not require century resolution as the current process has been climbing for over a century and a half and could not possibly turn around in less than another century and a half. And of course if, as you claim, this leap in CO2 and temperature is simply our continued departure from an ice age, there is no reason for the rate of CO2 or temperature to slow at all. It will carry on for milennia. Thus the requirements for resolution in paleo data come wa-a-a-a-y down.

And of course you are still faced with the problem of explaining WHY the rate of CO2 and temperature increase suddenly accelerated when it did.

If what 97% of the world's climate scientists hold to be true is true - that AGW has been taking place - the process is explicitly unprecedented as our history lacks another instance of an industrially developed population to have produced the CO2 that we have been producing. Your habit in this debate of ignoring the FACT that humans have produced virtually every molecule needed to have taken the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is more than a little shortsighted of you. For you to continue to claim the process is natural and does not involve human activity is difficult to understand.

 

[orogenicman]

"It's a hoax. No wait. It's an error cascade. No wait. It's, it's, it's..

Lets call it a pseudoscientific hoax. In any event, you are still not answering questions and a different logical fallacy is still a logical fallacy.

So it is not just a hoax, but a pseudoscientific hoax. So I should take some time to reconsider?

Erm:

 

[SSDD]

It does not require century resolution as the current process has been climbing for over a century and a half and could not possibly turn around in less than another century and a half. And of course if, as you claim, this leap in CO2 and temperature is simply our continued departure from an ice age, there is no reason for the rate of CO2 or temperature to slow at all. It will carry on for milennia. Thus the requirements for resolution in paleo data come wa-a-a-a-y down.

The claims you make certainly do require century resolution...which you can't provide leaving us again with the fact that you either made up your claims or repeated claims made up by someone else.

of course you are still faced with the problem of explaining WHY the rate of CO2 and temperature increase suddenly accelerated when it did.

Actually, the problem with why belongs to you. Most of the twentieth century warming occurred prior to 1940 when human CO2 production was small and the atmospheric levels were considered "safe". So explain that if you like...or try and claim that most of the 20th century warming didn't happen prior to 1940.

what 97% of the world's climate scientists hold to be true is true - that AGW has been taking place

The number itself is a lie...everything about AGW is a lie.

 

[SSDD]

So it is not just a hoax, but a pseudoscientific hoax. So I should take some time to reconsider?

No point...you have already drunk to deeply of the kook aid. Probably no help for you and when the whole house of cards falls down around you, you will still be in denial just as you have for the past 20 years.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The only relevant question is as follows: If the U.S. shut down all of its coal-fired power plants, mothballed all of its SUV's, killed all of its farting cattle, and decreed that we all must become organic subsistence farmers, and everyone else on earth continued doing what we know they are going to do anyway, WOULD OUR SELF-IMPOSED MISERY MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER IN THE FUTURE CLIMATE OF THE UNITED STATES?

The answer is clearly, "No."

Carry on.

Straw man argument. Congratulations.

No. It wasn't and it isn't a straw man argument. Anyway, putting your false label on it isn't the same as addressing the point.

Is it your contention that the United States or that even all the people of the world, collectively, have the slightest fucking ability to cause global warming by virtue of the "green house gasses" we emit? Do we have the slightest damn ability to PREVENT global warming by any action we might take? Can we stop an impending ice age, too?

Specifically, what in your grandiose imagination would all of us collectively have to do (and over what time frame) to achieve this remarkable ability to modify the planetary climate?

Your well-grounded scientific (possibly even peer reviewed) bases for your position?

 

[orogenicman]

The only relevant question is as follows: If the U.S. shut down all of its coal-fired power plants, mothballed all of its SUV's, killed all of its farting cattle, and decreed that we all must become organic subsistence farmers, and everyone else on earth continued doing what we know they are going to do anyway, WOULD OUR SELF-IMPOSED MISERY MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER IN THE FUTURE CLIMATE OF THE UNITED STATES?

The answer is clearly, "No."

Carry on.

Straw man argument. Congratulations.

No. It wasn't and it isn't a straw man argument. Anyway, putting your false label on it isn't the same as addressing the point.

Is it your contention that the United States or that even all the people of the world, collectively, have the slightest fucking ability to cause global warming by virtue of the "green house gasses" we emit? Do we have the slightest damn ability to PREVENT global warming by any action we might take? Can we stop an impending ice age, too?

Specifically, what in your grandiose imagination would all of us collectively have to do (and over what time frame) to achieve this remarkable ability to modify the planetary climate?

Your well-grounded scientific (possibly even peer reviewed) bases for your position?

It was a straw man argument because climate scientists aren't arguing to get rid of all fossil fuels immediately, and most recognize that fossil fuels will always be in the energy mix in some form or the other.

To answer your questions:

1) Yes.
2) The amount of CO2 we have already released guarantees that we will see effects from Global warming - which, by the way, is already occurring.
3) What impending ice age, where?
4) Support efforts to replace the internal combustion engine with either electric or fuel cell based models. Increase the use of solar and wind power, and other alternative energy sources.