Can you explain the pause in CC

[Hans Blaster]

Ok - since we're comparing our current 140 years' worth of data to the past - give me some dates where a similar spike in CO2 occurred - data from a span of 140 years in the distant past.

Maybe you can show us the data from 15,000,140 BC to 15,000,000 BC?
Or maybe you can show us 15,000,000 BC to 14,999,860 BC?

Or better yet - since OUR data has been gathered and compiled, at a minimum, annually for at least 140 years now, maybe you can produce the table for us that provides the annualized data for the past 15,000,000 years?

This is either a profound misunderstanding of the prehistoric climate record, in which case we can help you understand what your seeing, or a very disingenuous question.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The current situation of CO2 levels are optimal for plant growth. The level of co2 aboard submarines is 5000 ppm you just have to become used to it. Oxegen levels are twenty percent.

Neither 5000 ppm, 500 ppm, nor even 400 ppm is ideal for the thermal balance of the current biosphere, human settlement pattern and economic activity.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Do you think Al Gores prediction of a sea level rise of 20 feet is rational ?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you think Al Gores prediction of a sea level rise of 20 feet is rational ?

Algore's not a scientist, so I don't care what he said about climate prediction.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Why do you think that the CO2 level of Manua Loa Hawaii is representative of the global average ? The previous station in Antarctica still has a ppm of CO2 at 300+ not above 400 ppm. We are basing the global average on one station , unlike the temperature data recievers and satillite receivers.

 

[Gene2memE]

Why do you think that the CO2 level of Manua Loa Hawaii is representative of the global average ?

Because global CO2 measured by stations globally and CO2 measured at Manua Loa have been with a few parts per million of each other for the last 40 years.

The previous station in Antarctica still has a ppm of CO2 at 300+ not above 400 ppm.

Except that they're not. Antarctic measurements passed 400 ppm in 2016.

We are basing the global average on one station , unlike the temperature data recievers and satillite receivers.

Except we're not. The global average of CO2 ppm is measured by network of 66 stations, and about 20 aircraft and a couple of towers and surface recorders. The reason Manua Loa is commonly used as a datapoint is that it has the longest continuous record of direct atmospheric CO2 measurements and there's nearly no difference between it and global measurements.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you think Al Gores prediction of a sea level rise of 20 feet is rational ?

I don't know what he based it on - it depends on the amount of ice melt, which depends on temperature and timescale. If the whole antarctic ice cap melted, it could be 10 times his prediction - in the long term (~1,000 years).

In the short term, i.e. this century, 3 feet or more is quite feasible, and that would cause serious flooding problems, if not abandonment, for many of the world's major coastal cities, some of which are already on a knife-edge, and major population migrations away from low-lying coastal areas and flood plains.

 

[greatcloudlives]

It's impossible for the sea level to rise 20 feet even if all the ice on Earth melted. Al Gore is wrong. The current melt rate is about 6 Inches per year.

Why do you think that all of the past warming events, the Holocene maximums, the Roman warming period and the Medival warming period happened. Each period of time is 1,500 years apart and was global In extent. I believe that these warmings are caused by the sun perhaps a combination of the malancovitch cycling process. The proxy data of these warmings is well recognized by hundreds of studies by many different scientists groups.

The Information about this is from the book Unstoppable global warming every 1,500 years by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. I recommend you read the book.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's impossible for the sea level to rise 20 feet even if all the ice on Earth melted. Al Gore is wrong. The current melt rate is about 6 Inches per year.

This is just factually incorrect. The volume of ice in the Antarctic Ice Sheet is enough to raise the ocean levels by 58 m (about 190 feet). This does not say how quickly that would occur.

I have no idea what your 6 inch/year melt rate is. It's not the rate of sea level rise (not even close to that large), and the ice melts are not uniform in Antarctica and Greenland and don't occur by a uniform amount being taken off the top (or bottom).

 

[Hans Blaster]

The Information about this is from the book Unstoppable global warming every 1,500 years by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. I recommend you read the book.

These two seem to have a "talent" for finding arguments to defend large economic concerns of rather eclectic variety. Singer was at least in the right field.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Oh right I don't mean 6 Inches per year that is too much. That was a mistake on my part. I meant to say 6 Inches per 100 years.

Now what about the two Holocene maximums and the Roman warming period and the MWP. All of these were global and warmer than today.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh right I don't mean 6 Inches per year that is too much. That was a mistake on my part. I meant to say 6 Inches per 100 years.

Fair enough. This doesn't impact the largest potential rise, of course.

 

[Ophiolite]

Now what about the two Holocene maximums and the Roman warming period and the MWP. All of these were global and warmer than today.

Irrelevant. We are in the here and now. And here and now these changes are:

• Extremely rapid. (Irrelevant if anything that fast happened in the past.)
• Demonstrably related to human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. (If you disagree I have a stunning sales offer for you: a bridge in New York. You'll just love it.)
  
• Responsible for consequences (many of them already evident) that even at best have major, and in some cases devastating, impacts on human populations, settlements, economies, agriculture, business, health, local/regional/international cooperation, not to mention the effects on the biosphere at large.

And the solutions have the following benefits:

• Improved quality of life, planet-wide
• Minimal cost (unless you are CEO of a large oil company, or the like)
• More robust environment
• Greater appreciation of the biosphere

So, even if we were totally mistaken, the solutions would leave us with a better planet. Denying this opportunity just marks one out as a threat to civilisation. Do you wish to be thought of that way?

 

[greatcloudlives]

Without the El Nino years of 1998 and 2015 the satellite temperature is going down slightly. The current solor cycle number 24 is even cooler than the cycle number 23. The monthly rate of warming has been down for the last few months. So I expect the same from the June results of temperatures.

Why do alarmist always spout off about CO2 levels when that is only one positive feedback of warming. Clouds and ocean currents and percipitation are negative feedbacks of warming and we do not have enough imformation about them currently. I am certain that the reason why we can't say for certain that we know what those negative feedbacks mean is because so much attention has been placed on CO2 levels. We need more research into the impact of clouds and percipitation on climate.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am certain that the reason why we can't say for certain that we know what those negative feedbacks mean is because so much attention has been placed on CO2 levels.

I suspect that is because you have no idea what climate scientists and meteorologists do all day.

 

[greatcloudlives]

And I suspect you don't respect any criticism of the CO2 theroy which is scientifically an incorrect way to treat a theroy. For instance a proven experiment is the doubling of CO2 in a model of today's atmosphere without considering any other factors. Then slowly increase the amount of CO2 by small incriminates. What you get is an initial sharp increase in temperature than a flattening out. Doubling from today's concentration, holding all other parameters constant, has a negligible effect. I am quoting North Dakota state climatoligest John Bluelme. That's only one of many holes in the theroy. That expirament can be repeated time and time again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I suspect you don't respect any criticism of the CO2 theroy which is scientifically an incorrect way to treat a theroy. For instance a proven experiment is the doubling of CO2 in a model of today's atmosphere without considering any other factors. Then slowly increase the amount of CO2 by small incriminates. What you get is an initial sharp increase in temperature than a flattening out. Doubling from today's concentration, holding all other parameters constant, has a negligible effect. I am quoting North Dakota state climatoligest John Bluelme. That's only one of many holes in the theroy. That expirament can be repeated time and time again.

No, if people brought up proper criticism we would have no problem. Instead all we see is attacks by those that have no understanding of the science whatsoever. Peer review is how new ideas are tested and criticized. Do you think that there is some major conspiracy going on?

 

[greatcloudlives]

Yes climategate and the many people , editors and scientists as well who have been fired for questioning the theroy.

After climategate destroyed the objective viewpoint of the agw theroy, the public interest fell way off. Both believers and skeptic ranks are growing but skeptics especially skeptic scientists are growing faster and by more numbers. Global warming is just a hobby of mine but I have been looking at the debate for 40 years. The general public are mostly parrots of whatever the media tells them.

The important debate is in peer reviewied publications, look out for the country of Canada really speaking out on the subject of the CO2 theroy. Because they are tired of paying for an unproven theroy and the temperature in Canada is going down. They are very [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off. America and England will follow Canada's example.


You have not addressed the CO2 expirament of doubling CO2 levels in a model of the current atmosphere without any other parameters considered how that has a negligible effect. You see after a certain level additional CO2 it has much less effect. This is a proven experiment. As an example, the Jurrasic era had a CO2 level of 6000 ppm and yet the temperature was only 80 degrees, according to the theroy it should have been as hot as Venus. Listen to a debate on the subject , the CO2 theroy skeptic will always bring up doubling CO2 levels.

Oh and the current temperature is going down for four months, it's now at 0.5 degrees Celsius warming. I am looking forward to June's satellite graphs. Do you know that the cycle of sunspots is very low so was the previous one also low.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes climategate and the many people , editors and scientists as well who have been fired for questioning the theroy.

After climategate destroyed the objective viewpoint of the agw theroy, the public interest fell way off. Both believers and skeptic ranks are growing but skeptics especially skeptic scientists are growing faster and by more numbers. Global warming is just a hobby of mine but I have been looking at the debate for 40 years. The general public are mostly parrots of whatever the media tells them.

The important debate is in peer reviewied publications, look out for the country of Canada really speaking out on the subject of the CO2 theroy. Because they are tired of paying for an unproven theroy and the temperature in Canada is going down. They are very [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off. America and England will follow Canada's example.


You have not addressed the CO2 expirament of doubling CO2 levels in a model of the current atmosphere without any other parameters considered how that has a negligible effect. You see after a certain level additional CO2 it has much less effect. This is a proven experiment. As an example, the Jurrasic era had a CO2 level of 6000 ppm and yet the temperature was only 80 degrees, according to the theroy it should have been as hot as Venus. Listen to a debate on the subject , the CO2 theroy skeptic will always bring up doubling CO2 levels.

Oh and the current temperature is going down for four months, it's now at 0.5 degrees Celsius warming. I am looking forward to June's satellite graphs. Do you know that the cycle of sunspots is very low so was the previous one also low.

What makes you think that climategate was a real thing? Only science deniers seem to be taking it seriously.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What makes you think that climategate was a real thing? Only science deniers seem to be taking it seriously.

This "climategate" thing seems to be largely a matter of cherry-picking colloquial language and expressions from the private emails of climate scientists working with complex data sets.