04 Apr 19
@metal-brain saidTwo questions related to this:
"Back in reality, we know the Pliocene was hot and CO2 was up, glaciers were gone and sea levels were high. Currently, CO2 is up, glaciers are melting and seas are rising. Where do you think we are headed here?"
CO2 was up during the Pliocene because of the same reason CO2 levels were up in the past as shown by ice core samples, they were the result of higher temps.
...[text shortened]... is seems normal to you for some strange reason. I guess I'll call it Samuel George Morton syndrome.
Has CO2 ever (in nature) gone up that high that fast?
How fast did it happen (C02 and temp increases) back then (in the Pliocene), in the absence of humans? The highest resolution data I have seen is in 10,000 year increments, which is useless for our current debate regarding rate of change. We can say, however, that C02 was high, sea levels were high, and temps were high.
05 Apr 19
@wildgrass saidHe is swimming in the Egyptian river.....
Two questions related to this:
Has CO2 ever (in nature) gone up that high that fast?
How fast did it happen (C02 and temp increases) back then (in the Pliocene), in the absence of humans? The highest resolution data I have seen is in 10,000 year increments, which is useless for our current debate regarding rate of change. We can say, however, that C02 was high, sea levels were high, and temps were high.
05 Apr 19
@sonhouse saidTrees regrow quickly and coal burning was limited. There is no evidence CO2 increased 200 years ago. Ice core samples exist to show how much CO2 there was back then. Why is it that not a single article promoting that bunk theory mentions proof in an ice core sample? Simple. There isn't any proof. It is a stupid assertion and nothing more.
Two hundred years ago whole states were decimated of trees, burned to the ground for the production of steel in the 1700's. That alone added CO2 to the atmosphere, burning wholesale whole forests. I don't think you quite understand the devastation that caused back then. Now our Eastern US forests are all basically new growth and the bio diversity and the entire ecosystem there is different now. Old growth trees are a relic not a usual thing in the East here.
05 Apr 19
2 edits
@wildgrass saidNot that I am aware of. That is exactly why you should be careful not to assert a causality you are not sure of. CO2 might be the main cause of any anthropogenic warming that may be happening. It is a popular theory that has gained traction since Al Gore made his backwards cause and effect myth popular. He is a propagandist. He still promotes that backwards cause and effect and people like you refuse to abandon that myth. You have even resorted to a bunk theory about a CO2 increase 200 years ago that never happened.
Two questions related to this:
Has CO2 ever (in nature) gone up that high that fast?
How fast did it happen (C02 and temp increases) back then (in the Pliocene), in the absence of humans? The highest resolution data I have seen is in 10,000 year increments, which is useless for our current debate regarding rate of change. We can say, however, that C02 was high, sea levels were high, and temps were high.
The ice core samples show temperatures caused more CO2 in the atmosphere. That is because a warmer ocean cannot hold as much CO2 as a colder ocean. You can do a home experiment with 2 cans of soda pop for an exaggerated example of the effect. Take 2 cans of cold pop out of the fridge and open them both. Put one back in the fridge and leave the other out to get warm. The warm one will go flat because it cannot hold as much CO2 as the cold one.
There you go, real science. Your cause and effect is backwards. The Pliocene was no different. The ocean became too warm to hold as much CO2 so it was expelled into the atmosphere. Give up your backwards cause and effect. Embrace real science, not that propaganda Al Gore brainwashed people into believing.
Global warming is mostly natural. Sea level rise proves that.
05 Apr 19
@metal-brain saidWhat theory did I resort to again? The one that rigorously determined that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs infrared radiation? The studies showing that high CO2 concentrations in air increase heat retention from sunlight?
Not that I am aware of. That is exactly why you should be careful not to assert a causality you are not sure of. CO2 might be the main cause of any anthropogenic warming that may be happening. It is a popular theory that has gained traction since Al Gore made his backwards cause and effect myth popular. He is a propagandist. He still promotes that backwards cause and effe ...[text shortened]... brainwashed people into believing.
Global warming is mostly natural. Sea level rise proves that.
You are comparing Pliocene data in 10,000 year windows (at best) and trying to correlate it to what's happened in the past 200 years? Maybe it seems accurate to you but it's not.
Currently, we are not conducting your cold pop experiment. Quite the opposite. Someone went into your coke can and popped all the CO2 bubbles manually.
What happens when you take a temperate climate Earth and double the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere in 200 years? We're about to find out. Hold on to your hat.
05 Apr 19
@wildgrass said"What happens when you take a temperate climate Earth and double the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere in 200 years? We're about to find out. Hold on to your hat."
What theory did I resort to again? The one that rigorously determined that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs infrared radiation? The studies showing that high CO2 concentrations in air increase heat retention from sunlight?
You are comparing Pliocene data in 10,000 year windows (at best) and trying to correlate it to what's happened in the past 200 years? Maybe it see ...[text shortened]... the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere in 200 years? We're about to find out. Hold on to your hat.
I can't believe I have to correct you on this, but CO2 has tripled, not doubled.
We have already found out that today we have about the same CO2 levels as the Pliocene and it is not even close to as warm as the Pliocene was. There were no glaciers at all. They all melted, yet life flourished.
I know, you are going to say the climate is changing too fast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535%E2%80%93536
Fast changes happen. They happen naturally. Colder is worse than warmer. Stop denying that fact.
05 Apr 19
@metal-brain saidYou keep forgetting about the possibility during that era methane may have burst on the scene due to permafrost thaws. That would explain the heat at that time. But you don't want to include that bit in your calculus.
"What happens when you take a temperate climate Earth and double the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere in 200 years? We're about to find out. Hold on to your hat."
I can't believe I have to correct you on this, but CO2 has tripled, not doubled.
We have already found out that today we have about the same CO2 levels as the Pliocene and it is not even close to as war ...[text shortened]...
Fast changes happen. They happen naturally. Colder is worse than warmer. Stop denying that fact.
06 Apr 19
@sonhouse saidWhat is your source of information?
You keep forgetting about the possibility during that era methane may have burst on the scene due to permafrost thaws. That would explain the heat at that time. But you don't want to include that bit in your calculus.
06 Apr 19
@metal-brain saidwhat do YOU think this link says?
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
06 Apr 19
@humy saidIt says something the data they provide does not support. I provided NASA's data knowing alarmists would be very unlikely to dispute it. You have had months to show a more than 50% man made increase in sea level rise. NASA's own data shows the main cause of GW is natural. I even went back to 1950 which was generous considering CO2 levels were not even that high back then. 1980 could arguably be a better point for CO2 spiking. How does that compare to the 40 years before that?
what do YOU think this link says?
How would you use sea level rise to estimate a percentage of increase? You have never proposed anything yourself. You just keep digressing away from the data. Avoiding it like the plague, really.
06 Apr 19
11 edits
@metal-brain saidClearly false. That data doesn't show whether the sea level is or isn't natural, whether 'mainly' or not. It ONLY shows sea level rise.
NASA's own data shows the main cause of GW is natural.
I even went back to 1950 which was generous considering CO2 levels were not even that high back then.
What has how high CO2 was in 1950 got to do with it? WHY 1950 and not, say, year 2000? It is a totally arbitrary and baseless choice of year.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to estimate the percentage of how much of that sea level increase is man made by that data of sea level rise plus CO2 changes alone. It can only be done by taking into account ALL the main relevant variables, NOT JUST CO2 and sea level rise alone.
I ask you yet again, what equation or maths formula (which you claimed is just "simple maths" ) do you use to estimate the percentage of how much of that sea level increase is man made by that sea level data plus CO2 data alone? I claim no such formula exists.
Your continuous refusal to answer that very simple question proves you either lie or don't know what you are talking about.
1980 could arguably be a better point for CO2 spiking.
Why? What is your "argument" for that?
Answer; as continuous proven by you refusal to state your argument, you have no such argument for that.
And why 1980 and not, say, 2000? What do YOU think is so 'special' (in terms of relevance) about year 1980 in particular which you keep quoting?
How would you use sea level rise to estimate a percentage of increase?"percentage of increase" of what? I have no idea what you are referring to here. But I assert it is IMPOSSIBLE to estimate the "percentage of increase" of anything from sea level rise alone, other than of course the percentage of increase of sea level rise itself since some completely arbitrary chosen point in time in the past.
06 Apr 19
@humy saidSo you refuse to use that data to conclude anything. That is what I thought. You want to rely on gossip and avoid any science. You are an absolute waste of time.
Clearly false. That data doesn't show whether the sea level is or isn't natural, whether 'mainly' or not. It ONLY shows sea level rise.I even went back to 1950 which was generous considering CO2 levels were not even that high back then.
What has how high CO2 was in 1950 got to do with it? WHY 1950 and not, say, year 2000? It is a totally arbitrary and basele ...[text shortened]... increase of sea level rise itself since some completely arbitrary chosen point in time in the past.
06 Apr 19
@metal-brain saidNo, unlike you, I use that data to conclude only what can logically be concluded from it and not try and conclude something that cannot logically be concluded from it.
So you refuse to use that data to conclude anything.
This is part of the logic of scientific method.
I see you refuse to answer any of my questions; we all know why.
06 Apr 19
1 edit
@metal-brain saidYes you are getting around to the point that all climate change deniers end up at. CO2 is at the Pliocene, temps are rising, glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising. You don't think people are causing a measurable difference (which many people disagree with)..... but those are the facts. Instead of looking for solutions, deniers want to embrace our 3 degrees of warming. The Vikings seemed to like it.
I can't believe I have to correct you on this, but CO2 has tripled, not doubled.
We have already found out that today we have about the same CO2 levels as the Pliocene and it is not even close to as warm as the Pliocene was. There were no glaciers at all. They all melted, yet life flourished.
I'd rather look for solutions. We know enough about our climate to make some reasonable predictions about what would happen if we lowered carbon emissions and changed land use policies. Despite your view that they cost too much money, both proposals are cost neutral. Look it up.