Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[FordGT90Concept]

We're currently at a similar level as it was 2.5 million years ago. There was no human industrial revolution 2.5 million years ago. 25 to 45 million years ago, concentrations were 2-10 times higher than they are today.

What mother nature did over millennia, humans did in 100 years; that's kind of the point: there's no natural explanation for the rapid change.

If the earth can do this without ANY human intervention whatsoever, humanity's TINY contribution that won't even register as a visible change on the larger timescales, will not cause, nor stop, global warming.

Realize that the Rocky Mountains didn't even exist until 55-80 million years ago. Yes, Earth has undergone catastrophic natural changes in the past but what we're observing now isn't natural.

What's "tiny" about introducing billions of tons of carbon to the atmosphere every year?

Scientific America tries to put the amount into context (hint: it's staggering):

The Crazy Scale of Human Carbon Emission

Want some perspective on how much carbon dioxide human activity produces? Here it is

blogs.scientificamerican.com

 

[Papahyooie]

What mother nature did over millennia, humans did in 100 years; that's kind of the point: there's no natural explanation for the rapid change.

What's "tiny" about introducing billions of tons of carbon to the atmosphere every year?

Except we didn't. The changes we see today have happened time and again, with no human intervention whatsoever. What nature did over millennia is literally ten times more drastic than what humans have done. What's "tiny" about it, is that our contribution as a species in it's entirety doesn't even register as a visible change. (I realize it's not on that graph, but even if it was on that graph, it wouldn't be perceptible.) In fact, in 1960 we were well below the average for the past 5 million years, at 320 ppm. The recent spike upward to 400ppm literally only brings us up to the median for that time period.

What did nature do over millennia? Easy. Let's take the top and the bottom of the graph. A high of approx 2250 ppm, and a low of approx 250 ppm, just eyeballing. For a difference of 2000ppm. That's a total swing of 2000 ppm over 45 million years. From 1960 to 2019 (you chose the data, not me) we've got a high of 410 ppm and a low of (I'll give you) 310. For a difference of 100ppm. A total swing of 100ppm. The earth has made swings of 2000ppm with no human intervention whatsoever. Versus our measly 100ppm. And I'll throw this out there too, if I be generous and add data back to 800k years, it only gives humans another 100ppm to work with, which is several times longer than the entire history of modern humanity.

So 200 ppm total swing (SWING, not "rise") since modern humans first walked the earth. Against 2000 ppm total swing that the Earth managed without a single human in existence.

Your claim that humans did in 100 years what nature did over millennia is patently, mathematically false.

 

[the54thvoid]

I think this topic has run its course. It is now a partisan argument over who is right or wrong - no matter what the scientific consensus is. We are changing our planet - that is undeniable - those who do are denying the facts delivered through steady systematic approaches. Graphs given to prove otherwise are irrelevant as they are picked by those in the vast minority. Simply put- the statistics do not back the naysayers.

Regardless, CO2 is the cherry. Soil fertility is the bigger issue, followed, and linked, with water resources and finally, our massive garbage problem. No other species has created as much toxic, or unnatural waste--ever. The climate change argument is great but it detracts from everything else we're doing to make a tremendous mess of our natural resources. Go us - we suck.

 

[Papahyooie]

I think this topic has run its course. It is now a partisan argument over who is right or wrong - no matter what the scientific consensus is. We are changing our planet - that is undeniable - those who do are denying the facts delivered through steady systematic approaches. Graphs given to prove otherwise are irrelevant as they are picked by those in the vast minority. Simply put- the statistics do not back the naysayers.

Except I used Ford's graphs, from his sources (got the one I posted from the same article he got his from)

So... yea. Good try.

 

[Bones]

I think this topic has run its course. It is now a partisan argument over who is right or wrong - no matter what the scientific consensus is. We are changing our planet - that is undeniable - those who do are denying the facts delivered through steady systematic approaches. Graphs given to prove otherwise are irrelevant as they are picked by those in the vast minority. Simply put- the statistics do not back the naysayers.

Regardless, CO2 is the cherry. Soil fertility is the bigger issue, followed, and linked, with water resources and finally, our massive garbage problem. No other species has created as much toxic, or unnatural waste--ever. The climate change argument is great but it detracts from everything else we're doing to make a tremendous mess of our natural resources. Go us - we suck.

We are changing it but not to the extent being portrayed.

Blaming it all on one singular thing is inaccurate, too may factors in play that can and do affect it for any singular source to be blamed save the sun itself, that itself being a huge thing.
I'm sorry but the science says we are doing this ourselves and ourselves alone is made up BS to push a certain someone's agenda (Al Gore).... Just a few years ago (About 25+ or so) climate change supporters said NYC would be underwater by now but it isn't and it's still a very long ways off from being so.
Here's an article about it: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10...climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

I do however say it's a good idea to take care of what we have because it makes sense to do so but I'm not going along with this belief as it's stated.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Except we didn't. The changes we see today have happened time and again, with no human intervention whatsoever. What nature did over millennia is literally ten times more drastic than what humans have done. What's "tiny" about it, is that our contribution as a species in it's entirety doesn't even register as a visible change. (I realize it's not on that graph, but even if it was on that graph, it wouldn't be perceptible.) In fact, in 1960 we were well below the average for the past 5 million years, at 320 ppm. The recent spike upward to 400ppm literally only brings us up to the median for that time period.

What did nature do over millennia? Easy. Let's take the top and the bottom of the graph. A high of approx 2250 ppm, and a low of approx 250 ppm, just eyeballing. For a difference of 2000ppm. That's a total swing of 2000 ppm over 45 million years. From 1960 to 2019 (you chose the data, not me) we've got a high of 410 ppm and a low of (I'll give you) 310. For a difference of 100ppm. A total swing of 100ppm. The earth has made swings of 2000ppm with no human intervention whatsoever. Versus our measly 100ppm. And I'll throw this out there too, if I be generous and add data back to 800k years, it only gives humans another 100ppm to work with, which is several times longer than the entire history of modern humanity.

So 200 ppm total swing (SWING, not "rise") since modern humans first walked the earth. Against 2000 ppm total swing that the Earth managed without a single human in existence.

Your claim that humans did in 100 years what nature did over millennia is patently, mathematically false.

Why do you think they excluded the last 400,000 years? Let's try:

400,000 Years of Carbon Dioxide

Atmospheric CO2 has reached a concentration unseen for more than 400,000 years, up 33% in the last century.

www.climatecentral.org

Slap the two together lining up the graphs and:

It's even worse than it looks.

If all that 1.5 trillion tons of carbon dioxide didn't come from human activity, what did it come from? More importantly, what happened to all that 1.5 trillion tons of carbon dioxide that you allege magically vanished?

Earth is more or less a closed system. It's relatively easy to figure out the balance of things.


59 years, 100 ppm higher which comes to 1.7 ppm per year. If we keep up this pace, we'll reach 2250ppm around the year 3100.

 

[the54thvoid]

I don't come here often because the arguments are rich in belief but poor in fact. I don't argue with climate change deniers, or those who believe we're doing just fine because well, you already disagree with the overwhelming evidence. I am not a climate scientist. I do have a science degree however. I know what science tries to do, as opposed to belief. Most arguments here, by definition, that deny the overwhelming scientific consensus, are nothing but belief. I can't argue with belief. Only a fool can. And science isn't belief-its a system. It's allowed to be tested and to be wrong. And that's why, when the majority of science backs human climate change, it's a very likely position. It could be wrong, but at present, with the best computers and models we have, it seems legit. Moreover, when Exxon started funding climate skepticism in the 70's, it was already an uphill battle for poorly funded science. Worse when Putin is supported by oil rich oligarchs and Trump us an out and out hater- I can see where the lack of acceptance comes from.

So, no matter what a forum member on TPU posts, if it is the 1%, I'll ignore it. I don't care what you believe. Similarly, flat-earthers create convoluted hypothesis to attempt to gain some semblance of scientific profundity.

Point is, cherry picked science is great. But the statistical cherry tree is laden with consensus on human contribution. I will never be able to change minds. Some cannot. But I follow the empirical majority. All sides have vested interests. But one question. If the search for a cleaner, more environmentally sustainable system is the end product, why are people so hateful about it?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

But one question. If the search for a cleaner, more environmentally sustainable system is the end product, why are people so hateful about it?

Because a lot of the proposals are harmful in other ways. Examples: wind farms impact local climate by stirring the air, solar farms cause cooling and affect regional precipitation, and I think it goes without saying that damming waterways is disruptive to wildlife. Let's also not forget the environmental cost of manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines which, for their high material cost, short life span, and relatively low electrical output, is hardly worth it.

So...there's not much agreement in what to do about it.

 

[Papahyooie]

I don't come here often because the arguments are rich in belief but poor in fact. I don't argue with climate change deniers, or those who believe we're doing just fine because well, you already disagree with the overwhelming evidence. I am not a climate scientist. I do have a science degree however. I know what science tries to do, as opposed to belief. Most arguments here, by definition, that deny the overwhelming scientific consensus, are nothing but belief. I can't argue with belief. Only a fool can. And science isn't belief-its a system. It's allowed to be tested and to be wrong. And that's why, when the majority of science backs human climate change, it's a very likely position. It could be wrong, but at present, with the best computers and models we have, it seems legit. Moreover, when Exxon started funding climate skepticism in the 70's, it was already an uphill battle for poorly funded science. Worse when Putin is supported by oil rich oligarchs and Trump us an out and out hater- I can see where the lack of acceptance comes from.

So, no matter what a forum member on TPU posts, if it is the 1%, I'll ignore it. I don't care what you believe. Similarly, flat-earthers create convoluted hypothesis to attempt to gain some semblance of scientific profundity.

Point is, cherry picked science is great. But the statistical cherry tree is laden with consensus on human contribution. I will never be able to change minds. Some cannot. But I follow the empirical majority. All sides have vested interests. But one question. If the search for a cleaner, more environmentally sustainable system is the end product, why are people so hateful about it?

I've said nothing hateful. And as I've said many times in this thread, I'd challenge anybody here to compare their own personal efforts at environmental care and cleaning to mine. I've regularly cleaned trash off beaches (as an effort, not simply picking up a single candy bar wrapper) and oil spills. I've built erosion management systems. I've planted trees, and built small application specific solar and wind power generation systems. I've done FAR more than the average person when it comes to environmental conservation. The idea that climate change deniers hate the environment, or don't want sustainable systems is ad hominem at best. I'm 100% for clean energy. I'm not 100% for using scare tactics to encourage people to support giving government subsidies to billionaires who want a piece of the energy industry pie without risking their own capital on the venture. Climate change scares aren't about the environment. They're about insuring investments.

Why do you think they excluded the last 400,000 years? Let's try:

400,000 Years of Carbon Dioxide

Atmospheric CO2 has reached a concentration unseen for more than 400,000 years, up 33% in the last century.

www.climatecentral.org

Slap the two together lining up the graphs and:

It's even worse than it looks.

If all that 1.5 trillion tons of carbon dioxide didn't come from human activity, what did it come from? More importantly, what happened to all that 1.5 trillion tons of carbon dioxide that you allege magically vanished?

Earth is more or less a closed system. It's relatively easy to figure out the balance of things.


59 years, 100 ppm higher which comes to 1.7 ppm per year. If we keep up this pace, we'll reach 2250ppm around the year 3100.

I dunno, it almost seems like the planet has some means to release and absorb carbon dioxide to regulate it. Considering it has absorbed ten times more carbon dioxide in the past than humans have produced in their existence, I'd say that's probably a good guess. I'm sure there's a bit of lag time for that process to kick in, if it exists. You'd think they'd do some studies on that, but if they did, I'm sure people would take the data meant to study the possibility of historic oceanic carbon storage by comparing millennial results to each other, and juxtapose it with current sensor readings and expect that the data from the two might be an apples to apples comparison, and put it in a graph.

Side note, tell me about the data modeling/smoothing techniques used before and after 1900 in Luthi et al/your graph. What's your opinion on that?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I dunno, it almost seems like the planet has some means to release and absorb carbon dioxide to regulate it. Considering it has absorbed ten times more carbon dioxide in the past than humans have produced in their existence, I'd say that's probably a good guess.

It was "absorbed" as coal and oil which we are now pulling out of the ground and burning.

I'm sure there's a bit of lag time for that process to kick in, if it exists.

Yeah, mass extinction event followed by millions of years of sediment on top compressing it back into oil and coal.

Algae to crude oil: Million-year natural process takes minutes in the lab

Engineers at the US Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) have created a continuous process that produces useful crude oil minutes after harvested algae is introduced. This new process does not require drying out the algae, which grows in water, saving time and energy…

newatlas.com

Side note, tell me about the data modeling/smoothing techniques used before and after 1900 in Luthi et al/your graph. What's your opinion on that?

Could have just searched for it yourself:

High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000–800,000 years before present - Nature

The air bubbles trapped in the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores provide composite records of levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane covering the past 650,000 years. Now the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane concentrations has been extended by two more complete...

www.nature.com

"Vostok (440–0 kyr bp)"

Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica - Nature

The recent completion of drilling at Vostok station in East Antarctica has allowed the extension of the ice record of atmospheric composition and climate to the past four glacial–interglacial cycles. The succession of changes through each climate cycle and termination was similar, and...

www.nature.com

Hemispheric roles of climate forcings during glacial‐interglacial transitions as deduced from the Vostok record and LLN‐2D model experiments

The record for marine isotopic stage 11 - Nature

The marine isotopic stage 11 (MIS 11) is an extraordinarily long interglacial period in the Earth's history that occurred some 400,000 years ago and lasted for about 30,000 years. During this period there were weak, astronomically induced changes in the distribution of solar energy reaching the...

www.nature.com

 

[Papahyooie]

Could have just searched for it yourself:

Edit: That was rude, I suppose. I shouldn't ignore you. My point was for you to tell me what effect you think the difference in techniques and data sources has on your graph there.

Alright, let's keep going then... Your claim that the sudden dips in CO2 are marked by mass extinction events is simply false. There's no evidence of that. Moreover, we're talking about atmospheric CO2, which wouldn't be instantly grabbed into dead dinosaurs and turned into oil. Sure, there is absolutely carbon there... obviously... but it is not the atmospheric carbon that we're looking at. If it was sucked into dead animals, how'd it get into the ice cores? No... the carbon you're talking about is composed of organic matter. And while, yes, we absolutely are talking about humans releasing that into the atmosphere, that's an incomplete picture. Yes, we're absolutely releasing tons of carbon into the atmosphere, I don't doubt that. But seeing as how it has failed to produce even a 1C change over the last hundred years, and more drastic temperature swings have occurred in less time with no human intervention, I rightfully question how valid the correlation is.

Moreover, if we can go back to "slapping the two graphs together"... If you didn't notice, the data sets come from two completely different sources. That might explain the instant negative 150-200 ppm jump where your graph meets mine. The data is incompatible in that manner. They are not analogous.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

My point was for you to tell me what effect you think the difference in techniques and data sources has on your graph there.

What I "think" doesn't matter. Vostok is a location in Antartica where the ice cores were drilled and analyzed. The ice goes back roughly 420,000 years. Why the one graph you referenced decided to start at 0.5 million years ago rather than now is likely because of the kind of studying they were doing (older than ice cores--geological sampling). Geological sampling doesn't use recent layers because they're being manipulated by the environment. That's why they start at old and go back from there (clearing the younger layers before they start analyzing).

TL;DR: every method of measuring historic samples has different advantages and disadvantages. The entire temperature record is composed of many different sample types layered and normalized.

Your claim that the sudden dips in CO2 are marked by mass extinction events is simply false.

I didn't say that. I said that coal and oil deposits were exploiting today exist because of mass extinction events in the past. You should know that coal and oil are comprised of hydrocarbon chains (hydrogen+cabon). During the process of becoming a fossil fuel, the oxygen leaves--often working its way into the surrounding soil. The important thing is that the carbon gets removed from the atmosphere.

These mass extinction events translate to a long-term and effectively (at least until humans enter the picture) permanent reduction in carbon in the troposphere. It's largely why carbon dioxide trended downwards over time.

If it was sucked into dead animals, how'd it get into the ice cores?

Ice locks a sample of the air in itself as it is formed.

But seeing as how it has failed to produce even a 1C change over the last hundred years, and more drastic temperature swings have occurred in less time with no human intervention, I rightfully question how valid the correlation is.

It *did* rise more than 1C over the last 100 years. See line graph under #6.

That might explain the instant negative 150-200 ppm jump where your graph meets mine.

I don't know specifically when yours starts but mine ends at 440,000. If yours starts at 500,000, then there's 60,000 years in there where atmospheric CO2 fell by a lot.


For the record, I don't much care what happened 10,000+ years ago because the data we have for it is the result of indirect analysis. The charts I provided, I did so specifically because they're observed. We can only hypothesize what happened in the past, we can't confirm it. We can confirm what is happening now and in the recent past; we can also use that data to do a decent job at modelling the future.

 

[Papahyooie]

What I "think" doesn't matter. Vostok is a location in Antartica where the ice cores were drilled and analyzed. The ice goes back roughly 420,000 years. Why the one graph you referenced decided to start at 0.5 million years ago rather than now is likely because of the kind of studying they were doing (older than ice cores--geological sampling). Geological sampling doesn't use recent layers because they're being manipulated by the environment. That's why they start at old and go back from there (clearing the younger layers before they start analyzing).

TL;DR: every method of measuring historic samples has different advantages and disadvantages. The entire temperature record is composed of many different sample types layered and normalized.


I didn't say that. I said that coal and oil deposits were exploiting today exist because of mass extinction events in the past. You should know that coal and oil are comprised of hydrocarbon chains (hydrogen+cabon). During the process of becoming a fossil fuel, the oxygen leaves--often working its way into the surrounding soil. The important thing is that the carbon gets removed from the atmosphere.

These mass extinction events translate to a long-term and effectively (at least until humans enter the picture) permanent reduction in carbon in the troposphere. It's largely why carbon dioxide trended downwards over time.


Ice locks a sample of the air in itself as it is formed.


It *did* rise more than 1C over the last 100 years. See line graph under #6.


I don't know specifically when yours starts but mine ends at 440,000. If yours starts at 500,000, then there's 60,000 years in there where atmospheric CO2 fell by a lot.


For the record, I don't much care what happened 10,000+ years ago because the data we have for it is the result of indirect analysis. The charts I provided, I did so specifically because they're observed. We can only hypothesize what happened in the past, we can't confirm it. We can confirm what is happening now and in the recent past; we can also use that data to do a decent job at modelling the future.

What you think may not matter to you, if you decide to completely ignore it, or don't know either way. You're the only who knows which it is. Honestly, it wouldn't have mattered what your answer was, as long as you had one... but you don't. The last thing I will say on that subject is this: If you don't have an opinion on the difference in data modelling techniques and data sources pre and post 1900, then you are either ignorant and aren't qualified to have this conversation, or being willfully blind. I'm not saying this to be mean or anything. I'm saying you are missing out on a huge piece of very defining information here if you don't. I won't go into it because I honestly want you to form your own opinion. Trust me when I say, this is information you NEED to look into, if you haven't. This applies to everything we've posted here, Bradley Mann and Hughes, all of them. I'm sure I've said something about it in the past here, but don't care to dig it up.

I know how fossil fuels are formed. I'm saying the mass quantities of carbon that left the atmosphere did not do it by being absorbed into fossils/fuels.

The temperature did not rise more than 1C over the last 100 years unless you make the very dishonest assumption that a specific low point in the last 100 years is "normal." Temperature has not risen 1C above mean. I see what you're saying... Yes, the temp *technically* has risen over 1C from its lowest point. But that is dubious at best, and dishonest at worst.

The reason the graphs don't match up is because they're entirely different sources, not because there's 60k years where CO2 fell alot. The "Uncharted Territory" graph is from ice core data (juxtaposed with modern instrument readings from halfway around the world, which is dubious as well...) The graph you pasted it into, the data is from deep sea floor geologic cores. They're apples and oranges, you can't just stick them in the same graph, normalize the scales, and call it a day lol.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

If you don't have an opinion on the difference in data modelling techniques and data sources pre and post 1900, then you are either ignorant and aren't qualified to have this conversation, or being willfully blind.

[facepalm.jpg]
This link provides everything you need to know on that subject:

RealClimate: Data Sources

RealClimate: This page is a catalogue that will be kept up to date pointing to selected sources of code and data related to climate science. Please keep us informed of any things we might have missed, or any updates to the links that are needed. Climate data (raw) Climate data (processed)...

www.realclimate.org

I'm saying you are missing out on a huge piece of very defining information here if you don't.

There's not much on this subject I haven't seen. You're not bringing anything new to the table.

I'm saying the mass quantities of carbon that left the atmosphere did not do it by being absorbed into fossils/fuels.

The only thing on Earth that can release and absorb carbon on a grand scale is the oceans. We're already losing coral reefs due to acidification because of the oceans absorbing some of the carbon.

A more plausible explanation is something localized caused the captured CO2 to rise/fall (e.g. nearby volcanic vent). The best way to eliminate that possibility is to take samples from another location but, Antarctica is...not a hospitable place. Maybe some day another expedition will go to Antarctica to take samples from a second source. I'd argue that's a waste of money because we already established what is observed now is abnormal. Those resources are better put into solutions.

The temperature did not rise more than 1C over the last 100 years unless you make the very dishonest assumption that a specific low point in the last 100 years is "normal." Temperature has not risen 1C above mean. I see what you're saying... Yes, the temp *technically* has risen over 1C from its lowest point. But that is dubious at best, and dishonest at worst.

Last time I checked, 100 years ago was 1919 with a mean temperature of -0.3C. 2019, the mean temperature is +0.9C. Difference = +0.9C--0.3C = +1.2C over the century and that's rounding down.

 

[John Naylor]

How does "time and time again" get used 'time and time again" with no evidence.

On tactic is to report "guestimated" CO2 levels when earths survace was molten and covered with volcanoes. This is not a cyclical process. The earth was a molten ball, it cooled, life began, it's over and will not repeat itself.

There were no oceans and no life on the planet so of what relevance is this ?The point is Homo sapiens evolved from their early hominid predecessors between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago. Anything prior to that point is irrelevant. For the last 800,000 years, CO2 levels were 200ish when we had ice age level temps. Every 100,00-110,000 years we've had temps reach this low point and in between we have had worming periods in hich CO2 rose o 280-300 ppm. Today at 420 ppm, we have never, ever seen CO2 levels for since man has existed on this planet. The change in CO2 from ice ages to peak warming periods has never been more than + 100 ppm .... now it's +220 ppm.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The reason the graphs don't match up is because they're entirely different sources, not because there's 60k years where CO2 fell alot. The "Uncharted Territory" graph is from ice core data (juxtaposed with modern instrument readings from halfway around the world, which is dubious as well...) The graph you pasted it into, the data is from deep sea floor geologic cores. They're apples and oranges, you can't just stick them in the same graph, normalize the scales, and call it a day lol.

I noticed the sitation on the picture you provided:

Science | AAAS

science.sciencemag.org

https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/Pagani_etal_2005.pdf

Paleogene = 66-23.03 million years ago. They were specifically looking at 45~25 million years ago. It didn't go to current because their paper wasn't about current.

The fall in pCO2 likely allowed for a critical expansion of ice sheets on Antarctica and promoted conditions that forced the onset of terrestrial C4 photosynthesis.

That first spike to ~400ish was roughly 20 million years ago.


The little cut out is from a second paper by Mark Pagani, et. al.:

Science | AAAS

science.sciencemag.org

Prehistoric global cooling caused by CO2, research finds

www.purdue.edu

However, in a paper published this week in the journal Science, a team of researchers found evidence of widespread cooling. Additional computer modeling of the cooling suggests that the cooling was caused by a reduction of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Even after the continent of Antarctica had drifted to near its present location, its climate was subtropical. Then, 35.5 million years ago, ice formed on Antarctica in about 100,000 years, which is an "overnight" shift in geological terms.

Before the cooling occurred at the end of the Eocene epoch, the Earth was warm and wet, and even the north and south poles experienced subtropical climates. The dinosaurs were long gone from the planet, but there were mammals and many reptiles and amphibians. Then, as the scientists say, poof, this warm wet world, which had existed for millions of years, dramatically changed. Temperatures fell dramatically, many species of mammals as well as most reptiles and amphibians became extinct, and Antarctica was covered in ice and sea levels fell.

...extinction event. Nuff' said.


Huh...well...Mark Pagani passed away in 2016:

In Remembrance: Mark Pagani, Professor of Geology & Geophysics | The Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences

earth.yale.edu

 

[Papahyooie]

[facepalm.jpg]
This link provides everything you need to know on that subject:

RealClimate: Data Sources

RealClimate: This page is a catalogue that will be kept up to date pointing to selected sources of code and data related to climate science. Please keep us informed of any things we might have missed, or any updates to the links that are needed. Climate data (raw) Climate data (processed)...

www.realclimate.org

There's not much on this subject I haven't seen. You're not bringing anything new to the table.


The only thing on Earth that can release and absorb carbon on a grand scale is the oceans. We're already losing coral reefs due to acidification because of the oceans absorbing some of the carbon.

A more plausible explanation is something localized caused the captured CO2 to rise/fall (e.g. nearby volcanic vent). The best way to eliminate that possibility is to take samples from another location but, Antarctica is...not a hospitable place. Maybe some day another expedition will go to Antarctica to take samples from a second source. I'd argue that's a waste of money because we already established what is observed now is abnormal. Those resources are better put into solutions.


Last time I checked, 100 years ago was 1919 with a mean temperature of -0.3C. 2019, the mean temperature is +0.9C. Difference = +0.9C--0.3C = +1.2C over the century and that's rounding down.

You're not getting what I'm saying. You have a list of data sources. Great. That does not address the fact that everything you've posted here has either had the raw data processed through various means, OR had two different data sets OR two different data processing models, compared as if equivalent, or at worst, all three. My question is, are you even aware of that, and if so, what's your opinion on it? Again, you don't necessarily have to answer... just be honest with yourself, and if you can't answer it, go look. That's all.

As for the rest, Ok buddy. You're either willfully trolling, or I'm not explaining myself. 1919 was at nearly the bottom of the range. So while yes... *technically* temperature has risen above 1C since then, that statement is entirely meaningless unless you assume that 1919 was "normal." In the scope of that graph, 1919 was not normal. It was quite far below the mean of the data as a whole. Therefore, it's entirely dishonest to consider that statement in a vacuum.

I told myself I wasn't going to do this again... again. So whatever, I've had my fun for the day. Carry on.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

My question is, are you even aware of that, and if so, what's your opinion on it?

TL;DR: every method of measuring historic samples has different advantages and disadvantages. The entire temperature record is composed of many different sample types layered and normalized.

The link I gave gives the different methods used. For example, Since 1960s, satellites have been used to measure temperatures and Mauna Loa was sampling CO2. Since early 1900s, terrestrial weather stations were used to sample temperatures. Since the 1600s, maritime reports were used to sample temperatures. 420,000 to present, ice cores were used to sample temperature and CO2. Dates before that use fossil and geological records to sample data.

Prior to 420,000, (when CO2 was ~370ppm), there were no permanent glaciers on Antarctica. That's why the ice cores don't go back further than that. We're already above 400 ppm. It stands to reason that Antarctica is going to start shedding ice...oh wait that's already happening.

Again, you don't necessarily have to answer... just be honest with yourself, and if you can't answer it, go look.

In both Pagani papers they sought to correlate an event in fossil records with changes in the atmosphere and succeeded. Using different fields of science to collaborate data points makes the data reliable. I see no reason to contest their analysis.

So while yes... *technically* temperature has risen above 1C since then, that statement is entirely meaningless unless you assume that 1919 was "normal."

You're attempting to move the goal post by defining "normal." I'd argue that graph doesn't go back far enough for a "normal" temperature at all (which would be pre-industrial). What that graph shows is the average temperature for a range of dates, found the average, then indicated whether they are above or below average per year. The entire graph shows the temperature rising about 1C between 1880 and 2019.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Good news in general because lignite is dirtier than your average coal:

Merkel, state leaders agree terms of brown coal exit: document

Germany has reached an agreement with the regions most affected by a plan to phase out the use of brown coal, or lignite, for its power plants by providing about 40 billion euros ($45 billion) in aid, a document reviewed by Reuters showed.

www.reuters.com

 

[Chomiq]

Looks like this year vegetable and fruit prices will rise again just like they did last year due to weather going nuts.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

That's because we're at solar minimum:

Solar Cycle Progression | NOAA / NWS Space Weather Prediction Center

www.swpc.noaa.gov

The sun is relaxing so cosmic radiation from outside of our solar system is bombarding the planet seeding clouds which causes precipitation. As the sun gets more active again, it will get drier.

 

[Komshija]

They are pushing "global warming" propaganda for years. Sure, we produce a lot of CO2 and they are complaining that CO2 reached "dangerous" levels of 408 ppm from 280 or so ppm 200 years ago. During the dinosaurs, eg. some 100 million years ago, Earth was healthier, full of life and CO2 levels were approximately 1800 ppm - more than 4 times current level while the average global temperature was about 3-4 °C higher than today. Oxygen levels were also slightly higher. So...

Much bigger problems are companies like Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont, DOW, Corteva and similar which poison the land and push GMO products than some "global warming" BS.

 

[kapone32]

[IQUOTE="Komshija, post: 4189664, member: 166605"]
They are pushing "global warming" propaganda for years. Sure, we produce a lot of CO2 and they are complaining that CO2 reached "dangerous" levels of 408 ppm from 280 or so ppm 200 years ago. During the dinosaurs, eg. some 100 million years ago, Earth was healthier, full of life and CO2 levels were approximately 1800 ppm - more than 4 times current level while the average global temperature was about 3-4 °C higher than today. Oxygen levels were also slightly higher. So...

Much bigger problems are companies like Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont, DOW, Corteva and similar which poison the land and push GMO products than some "global warming" BS.
[/QUOTE]

None of those companies actions explain 3 Hurricanes in the Atlantic basin in 2017 or Sandy in 2012 that hit 1100 miles of coast at exactly the same time. As much as we may want to deny it it is the actions of the average person that must be included in the conundrum we have created for ourselves. There is hope though. In Canada we have banned personal use of herbicides and pesticides. I have seen an increase in the rodent population in my area but more profound are the menagerie of birds that I have not seen since I was a kid like Canaries, Blue Jays, Falcons, Kites and Hawks.

There is a sobering fact when it comes to CO2. If we are cutting down more trees than we plant (in the time of the dinosaurs some trees were as tall as modern skyscrapers) in key areas like the Amazon or Sub Arctic Pines???? The "Global Warming" debate is based on Western principles but if you subscribe to that it's too late anyway because as much as the West is "responsible", China produces way more CO2 than the West ever did and has no Environmental laws that trump commerce. I am not worried about the Earth. I worry if we will survive the correction when it fully manifests itself example A: The bush fires in Australia (has anyone looked at before and after satellite images) with reports of flames being 70 metres or 229 Feet high and who's smoke cloud has already circled Earth once.

 

[Easy Rhino]

None of those companies actions explain 3 Hurricanes in the Atlantic basin in 2017 or Sandy in 2012 that hit 1100 miles of coast at exactly the same time. As much as we may want to deny it it is the actions of the average person that must be included in the conundrum we have created for ourselves.

You do understand that before humanity there were gigantic hurricanes all the time?

 

[kapone32]

You do understand that before humanity there were gigantic hurricanes all the time?

Yes but not since we have started recording them and in specifics to Sandy. I learned in Geography that due to it's size the Atlantic should never create a hurricane with a diameter of more than 300 miles. We can wax back and forth about the details. One thing I can say with confidence is the weather is much more erratic today than anytime I can remember. Just in the past 6 days we have had 14 C one day -15 the very next day and then 50 MM of rain last weekend and 15 cm of snow this weekend.