Can you explain the pause in CC

[DerSchweik]

Yes we can know.

The Proof Is in the Atmosphere | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA

In fact, the last time they where this high was when 15 million years ago.

The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist

So we can know. The question is, are we going to keep making it higher and raising the temperature, or are we going to level it out and try to make the Earth livable.

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?

 

[Paulos23]

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?

So you saying a big spike that we have had in the last 140 years is not knowable that it happened in over 15,000,000 years? What, all the CO2 goes away how fast? (Hint)

And what would cause that spike? Other than a massive volcano or worldwide forest fire (which would leave other traces) I don't know of one. You are pointing at gaps in data, saying that you can't know it all to justify we don't have to do anything for our current CO2 levels.

You claim makes no sense, since we are seeing problems now with our high CO2 levels.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's a good question - understand though - it's not my data - it's data gathered by, and used by climate scientists and their followers in support of their climate science claims. I posted the links in post #33.

Since I'm using their own data to make my point, presumably the origin of the data are not in question.

The link got jammed up above another version of the plot, so I did not see it.

Missing from your original posting of the plot was the title and horizontal axis labels. The data is from an Antarctic ice core and plotted in time before present (years), so that the current epoch is on the left. I couldn't quite figure out the temporal sampling of the measurements. (More important than the width of the lines on the plot.) As such, I can't tell how much history is merged together in each sample, and from it how large a "spike" could occur and be missed by the ice core sampling. (That is could a large, but brief spike be missed.)

 

[Gene2memE]

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?

Here's a list of papers using proxy measures to provide a historical record of atmospheric CO2. Most papers are relatively short term (last 10 to 20 million years), but some go back as far as 60 or 300 million years.

Papers on atmospheric CO2 from proxies

This is a great site by the way - it takes a common talking point in the AGW debate and links the most recent and/or most important papers on the topic.

For instance, it has a list of 224 papers related to the "pause":

Global warming hiatus paper list, version 1.0 (224 papers), part 1

Of course, the "pause" wasn't any such thing, just a very mild slowing during the interval from the peak between a particularly high El Nino and a more normal one.

The same arguments have been trotted out before - in the 1980s and in the 1990s - whenever new instrument record temperatures aren't being recorded.

Usually what happens is that you take a peak/record warm run, then arbitrarily select an interval when temperatures aren't setting the same records, and declare that there is either a pause or a cooling period.

Of course, actual climatologists acknowledge that short term flatlining of the warming trend or even cooling can occur over the short term. Its even in the IPCC reports. What's important is the long term trend.

Which is (unfortunately) inexorably upwards.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I posted the graph - intentionally, and with full knowledge of that spike.

My point - again - is that we don't know that similar spikes haven't occurred in the past - no data can possibly support such knowledge - for quite obvious reasons stated.

Unless maybe you can produce the annual data for an equivalent period of time, say, 1300 to 1440? Or how about the annual data for 1440 BC to 1300 BC? 6140 BC to 6000 BC? 200,140 BC to 200,000 BC?

You posted it but you do not seem to realize what it implies.

I am going to ask you a rather basic question. How does the Greenhouse Effect work?

 

[DerSchweik]

You posted it but you do not seem to realize what it implies.

I am going to ask you a rather basic question. How does the Greenhouse Effect work?

Lemme guess, could that be where someone won't honestly address your fundamental point but will blithely respond with a condescending insult instead?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lemme guess, could that be where someone won't honestly address your fundamental point but will blithely respond with a condescending insult instead?

Let's not make false accusations. Or false claims for that matter. Science deniers practically never honestly address fundamental points. Part of the problem is that they do not even understand the fundamentals of the science that they deny. Most people that try to claim that AGW is not scientific do not even understand somethings as basic and uncontroversial as the Greenhouse Effect. By your dodge it appears that you do not understand it either. I could help you to understand it but I refuse to lecture into the air. Do you wish to learn?

 

[greatcloudlives]

Temperatures and CO2 levels were much higher than now in the past. CO2 has been 8000 ppm and temperatures have been at 80 globally. CO2 is at close to a historical low.royalsocity.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

Temperatures and CO2 levels were much higher than now in the past. CO2 has been 8000 ppm and temperatures have been at 80 globally. CO2 is at close to a historical low.

Not in the last 5 million years or more.

The Sun is getting warmer over the eons so a CO2 level that we had in the Ordovician would be disastrous today.

 

[greatcloudlives]

The proxy graph that is posted on the #33 post does not have the medieval warm period or the Roman warming period or the Holocene maximums or the five other warmings we have had in the past. They are measured by using proxy data and are well recognized by the paleographic data. All of them were warmer than now or the same as now.

 

[greatcloudlives]

andymaypetrophysisist.com the temperature record of the Holocene maximums were warmer than today.

 

[greatcloudlives]

climate.geologist-1011. net here we see what has happened in the past climate proxy record.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The proxy graph that is posted on the #33 post does not have the medieval warm period or the Roman warming period or the Holocene maximums or the five other warmings we have had in the past. They are measured by using proxy data and are well recognized by the paleographic data. All of them were warmer than now or the same as now.

The Medieval Warm Period does show. It is a small blip because it was not global.

 

[Subduction Zone]

climate.geologist-1011. net here we see what has happened in the past climate proxy record.

Another failed link.

 

[Hieronymus]

Your link is incorrect: This Roy Spencer, PhD is the correct link.

This graph comes from the website page you tried to link to and is, I assume, the graph you're referring to. It shows an ongoing upward trend from 1979 to 2020 when compared to the 1981 to 2010 average temperatures.

The reason land based measurements don't include the oceans is because they are land based measurements. Ocean based measurements are based on the collective data from satellites, surface floats and underwater probes. Prior to satellite measurement, ocean based measurement came from floats and ship based sensors.

OB

This is the controversial "adjusted" graph they use to scare the heck out of us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the controversial "adjusted" graph they use to scare the heck out of us.

What was controversial about that graph?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Temperatures and CO2 levels were much higher than now in the past. CO2 has been 8000 ppm and temperatures have been at 80 globally. CO2 is at close to a historical low.royalsocity.org

You seriously need some help. So here is some for you:

LMGTFY

 

[Hans Blaster]

The proxy graph that is posted on the #33 post does not have the medieval warm period or the Roman warming period or the Holocene maximums or the five other warmings we have had in the past. They are measured by using proxy data and are well recognized by the paleographic data. All of them were warmer than now or the same as now.

The plot in Post #34 is *not* a proxy. It is a direct measurement of the CO2 levels for the last 800 kyr made by measuring trapped bubbles of atmosphere in Antarctic ice cores. Within various measurement fuzziness, these are measurements of the *actual* past CO2 levels seen in Antarctica over nearly 1 million years.

A plot of past temperature would be made by proxies as there are no thermometers existing back then, but this is not a plot of temperature.

 

[greatcloudlives]

It's been repeatedly said that the MWP was global and warmer than now. Scientists who used many different types of proxies all graph the Holocene maximums and the Roman warming period and the MWP. You can't get around the data the MWP has been found in New Zealand and Australia and South America and China all over the world. This is true for the Holocene maximums and the Roman warming period as well. Also 410 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is close to the historical low in climate history.

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.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Also 410 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is close to the historical low in climate history.

Not even close. On the previous page in post #33 there is literally a plot showing CO2 levels for the last 800,000 years and not until the modern, industrial era has the CO2 level gone above *300* ppm. Far from being a historical low, 400 ppm has only been exceeded in the entire history of the human species since the invention of internet message boards.