Chuck explain?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

YOUR CLAIM (post 21) not mine! The geological studies which show high CO2 levels in preshistoric times also show the 100 ppmv levels during the Miocene epoch which are 1/4 present day values and invalidating your claim of lowest levels in history of the world. It is you picking and choosing data.

dml, you are making this too easy. You refuted your own post, within your own post.
Where did you possibly derive the 100 ppm figure from?
You do realize that below 150 ppm photosynthesis stops, the food chain collapses and life on earth goes extinct? Spoiler alert, that didn't actually occur, as evidenced by the continued existence of life on earth today.

I only bring this up to support the statement that current levels are so close to the lowest in history that it falls within the margin of error.

I assume you read the above graph and guessed at the 100 ppm. And because the graph goes up to 8000 ppm to include the full range of concentrations over 600 million years, it is impossible to detect a difference of a even few hundred ppm, as evidenced by your 100 ppm guess. Data from stomata of fossilized leaves indicates Miocene CO2 levels fluctuated between 3 to 7 times more than your estimate throughout the epoch.

The difference between todays near starvation levels of CO2, and the actual starvation levels at the height of the last ice age equates to only 3% of the total 7000 ppm range of CO2 levels over the past 600 million years. In other words, we are only 3% higher than the lowest level since life began, compared to the highest level. That difference is undetectable on a linear graph, as you were kind enough to point out for us.

When are you going to take my advice and have your BS detector recalibrated? It seems to be working completely opposite to how it is supposed to.

[dmlfarmer]

dml, you are making this too easy. You refuted your own post, within your own post.
Where did you possibly derive the 100 ppm figure from?
You do realize that below 150 ppm photosynthesis stops, the food chain collapses and life on earth goes extinct? Spoiler alert, that didn't actually occur, as evidenced by the continued existence of life on earth today.

I only bring this up to support the statement that current levels are so close to the lowest in history that it falls within the margin of error.

I assume you read the above graph and guessed at the 100 ppm. And because the graph goes up to 8000 ppm to include the full range of concentrations over 600 million years, it is impossible to detect a difference of a even few hundred ppm, as evidenced by your 100 ppm guess. Data from stomata of fossilized leaves indicates Miocene CO2 levels fluctuated between 3 to 7 times more than your estimate throughout the epoch.

The difference between todays near starvation levels of CO2, and the actual starvation levels at the height of the last ice age equates to only 3% of the total 7000 ppm range of CO2 levels over the past 600 million years. In other words, we are only 3% higher than the lowest level since life began, compared to the highest level. That difference is undetectable on a linear graph, as you were kind enough to point out for us.

When are you going to take my advice and have your BS detector recalibrated? It seems to be working completely opposite to how it is supposed to.

AF5 when are you going to follow the links posted that back up claims instead of thinking you know everything? I provided the direct quote where I got the 100ppm figure as well as the link to the page on which this figure was posted. It appears you are too lazy to follow a link associated with data I presented and would rather simply insult and claim I must have made that figure up. Go back to the post where I quoted the 100 ppm, and follow the link posted right beside it if you want to see where the figure comes from.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that in the 800,000 years homo sapiens have been walking this planet CO2 levels have consistently cycled between 180 and 300 ppm, lower in periods of glaciation and higher in interglacial periods. Yet in the last 150 years that cycle has been broken and is now measured CO2 levels are 1/3 higher than any point in man's history. You claim that this increase is not significant based on prehistoric CO2 levels, but it is most certainly is significant in the time man has been around.

You claim that this higher CO2 will green the earth and it definitely will in parts of the world where there is adequate precipitation to account for more growth and higher temperatures. But at the same time it may also bring about changes in weather that have negative impacts. Shifts in trade winds, more severe storms, wet conditions when we need dry etc. Just because plants grow better in higher CO2 levels does not mean there may not be negative consequences as well.

Anyway, I tried not to get into climate change discussions as the forum was crying about it being all that the "leftists" talk about. However, when Saskfarmer started this thread with his claim that current C02 levels are the lowest in the history of the world I had to call BS because actual data proves this not to be true and even you refuse to look at 800,000 years of data that proves this to be false and instead deflect into insults.

Oh and by the way you do realize that at one point in earths history there was little O2 in the atmosphere right and yet through the wonders on nature, bacteria in the oceans converted the atmosphere to one which now supports man and animals. There have been a number of mass extinction events where we have lost entire species yet somehow life regenerates, although different. To claim that earth could never support any type of life again if co2 levels fall below your magic number of 150 is very narrow minded thinking.

[oneoff]

And just why does anyone want to go back to a mile high layer of ice over Canada just so we have 180 ppm CO2.

Wouldn't hurt to entertain the thought that the current interglacial period was scheduledby Mother Nature alone.

Summarized as a 5th glaciation period (on Mother Natures schedule ...alone) will have longer lasting and more consequential changes than global warming caused partially human releasing of stored carbon.

At least consider the thought.

[dmlfarmer]

Oneoff you are absolutely right, no one wants an ice age. But no one in saskatchewan wants it to be an inland sea either as was the case in prehistoric times when CO2 was very high. No one wants all coastal areas to be submerged and having to relocate a quarter or more of the population of the world. No one wants topics to become uninhabitable because of high tempertures and having the resultant flood of mass migration to cooler areas like Canada. This scenerio is just as ludicrous as claims that unless we burn fossil fuels we are going to be under a mile of ice in a few years.

The point is, man does not know with certainty the actual impact a level of 415 PPM and rising of CO2 on our enviornment, weather, and health because it has never happened in the time man has been on this planet. We know permafrost that has never melted is now melting. What viruses could be trapped in that ice that could make any pandemic man has survived look like just a headache? We know the glaciers that supply much of the fresh water around the world are melting at an increasing rate. What does man do when they are gone?

Lets be honest, we are not going to shut down use of fossil fuels tomorrow or ever. And it will never be all or nothing. Green energy is never going to replace fossil fuels 100% or fossil fuels will never stop adaptation to green energy 100% and anyone trying to make the argument that 100% is impossible is hurting their own position. But we can certainly reduce the use of them to slow emissions.

There are always better ways of doing anything. Smart people look for those ways. Fools are those who insist the current ways are the only way and refuse to adapt.

[dmlfarmer]

A century ago this same type of argument was being made by farmers over replacing horses with tractors. Most farmers were convinced that horses were superior and the work that they do on a farm would never be replaced by an internal combustion engine. WW1 pushed farms to mechanization as horses were needed in the war effort. Still it was after the second world war before most farms stopped using horses completely.

Interestingly, horses were replaced in cities before on farms not because of convenience and efficiency but because it reduced pollution. City dwellers were tired of the horse s**t covering the streets, the smell, and the flies and they drove the adaptation of automobile. Just as city people are driving e cars and green energy.

Farmers are going to get steamrolled unless we show what we do is environmentally superior and we actually store carbon rather than emit it.

[chuckChuck]

Scientist know that there is a time lag between rising and higher CO2 levels and global temperature increases. The reason we are seeing relatively modest increases in global temperatures instead of very dramatic increases at these historically higher levels of C02 is because most of the warming energy has gone into oceans. It takes a hell of a lot of energy to warm the worlds massive oceans.

On the May long weekend go for a swim in your nearest lake. The air temperature may have warmed up beyond 20 degrees C, but the lake temperature has not. It will take several weeks of warm summer temperatures to push the lake temperatures up a few degrees.

There is no impending ice age coming. You can take the idea of an ice age off the radar. Global glaciers, ice sheets and sea ice mass are shrinking significantly. There is not one scientific organization that says we are heading back into an ice age. On the contrary, climate scientists are predicting significant warming which we are already beginning to see.

[chuckChuck]

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content

Change over time

More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. Recent studies estimate that warming of the upper oceans accounts for about 63 percent of the total increase in the amount of stored heat in the climate system from 1971 to 2010, and warming from 700 meters down to the ocean floor adds about another 30 percent.

graph of multiple time series of heat stored in different layers of the ocean from 1993-2019



Annual ocean heat content compared to the 1993 average from 1993-2019, based on multiple data sets: surface to depths of 700 meters (2,300 feet) in shades of red, orange, and yellow; from 700-2,000 meters (6,650 feet) in shades of green and blue; and below 6,650 feet (2,000 meters) as a gray wedge. Graph by NOAA Climate.gov, adapted from Figure 3.6 in State of the Climate in 2019. See original figure for details about data sources and uncertainty.

Less than a watt per square meter might seem like a small change, but multiplied by the surface area of the ocean (more than 360 million square kilometers), that translates into an enormous global energy imbalance. It means that while the atmosphere has been spared from the full extent of global warming for now, heat already stored in the ocean will eventually be released, committing Earth to additional warming in the future.

[chuckChuck]

And just why does anyone want to go back to a mile high layer of ice over Canada just so we have 180 ppm CO2.

Wouldn't hurt to entertain the thought that the current interglacial period was scheduledby Mother Nature alone.

Summarized as a 5th glaciation period (on Mother Natures schedule ...alone) will have longer lasting and more consequential changes than global warming caused partially human releasing of stored carbon.

At least consider the thought.

Models that account only for the effects of natural processes are not able to explain the warming observed over the past century. Models that also account for the greenhouse gases emitted by humans are able to explain this warming.

[chuckChuck]

All the problems you listed are important environmental problems as well. But why ignore what scientists are saying about the impact climate change will have on the earth and many of those problems? Its the mother of all environmental problems.

You missed the point that CO2 has gone up rapidly from human causes.

[SASKFARMER]

Chuck no one is looking at the whole history they are picking numbers for the cause because that's who pays the bills. It's the cause that spending billions on these charts and graphs and it's not science.

You cant figure that out yet. Wow is all I have to say.

Maybe read with an open mind ( tough for die-hard believers)

FAKE INVISIBLE CATASTROPHES AND THREATS OF DOOM.

See in my example the polar bears are dying, show a sick old bear on its last days so all the bleeding hearts fall down and cry. The reality is no one who is crying will actually ever see a real polar bear in the wild only one in a Zoo till they shut all those down. So it's easy to do the old sleight of hand.

Same with the sea ice in the ARtic. Who will ever travel to the North pole. Not many and guess what the MSM can print or televise anything and the sheep believe.

HEll Trudeau is Santa Clause to Some in Toronto it's working.

Charts are fun to paste but maybe look a little deeper.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

dml, I followed your link. It was wikipedia, not a respected scientific organization, Chuck will be along shortly to discipline you.

But at least wikipedia does provide links to the sources. The impossible claim of 100 ppm supposedly comes from this paper.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190927033455/http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2%28GCA%29.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20190927033455/http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2%28GCA%29.pdf
For some reason only available through the wayback machine.
Which makes no mention of 100 ppm during the miocene. Neither do any of the other links attached to that reference.
The paper does say repeatedly that

, all cool events are associated with CO2 levels below 1000 ppm. A CO2 threshold of below 500 ppm is
suggested for the initiation of widespread, continental glaciations,

We are below 500, way below 1000. And we are cold, bouncing along the bottom of the range, stuck in a glacial epoch.
Unless you can find the source of the 100 ppm claim, Perhaps you should suggest an edit to Wikipedia.

The miocene was full of mammals (including our direct ancestors) and plants that we would recognize. How could they possibly have survivived through 100 ppm?
And no, the continents were not in significantly different positions 23 million years. About the only big change since then was the closing of the panama isthmus

[Guest]

Oh, oh chuck
God damn Details again

[Guest]

I’ll say it again co2 is not the problem, it’s been way higher or lower throughout the history of the world. The point is the world has managed just fine to adjust.

The issue with man is we pollute the oceans, cut down forests, etc. Think people, the carbon sink just can’t keep up, how much of it has been chopped down, roads and cities using up area that was once part of that sink. Oceans have massive plastic islands as well as pollutants vastly reducing the ability of phytoplankton to do its job of absorbing carbon dioxide (probably the biggest sink).

Yes man is impacting the world in a negative way but IMO it’s not co2 that’s the real enemy. When modern man leaves the planet the earth will probably breathe a huge sigh of relief.

Hurry up Elon, herd them on board, Mars here they come.

Absolutely true
Cities are the problem and they lecture us
We need to work on the problems we can see like water pollution
Air pollution in cities etc

[chuckChuck]

You can see shrinking glaciers! David Schindler was very clear about the impact losing glaciers will have on fresh water.

"But this way of thinking about Canada’s freshwater is misleading, Schindler said, because what sustains that water supply is runoff. With climate change already affecting Canada’s glaciers and increasing incidents of drought, our freshwater supply is in danger.

“You can’t talk about water without talking about climate change,” Schindler said. “We know that the snow packs in these mountain ranges are dwindling as last winter gave us a good example of. The glaciers supply a tiny amount of the total annual flow of a river but it comes at a critical time of the hot, dry summer.”

Schindler said the Bow River Glacier can supply up to 50 per cent of the river’s water during dry spells. But he said, over the last century, the Bow River Glacier has dramatically retreated threatening water supply for cities like Calgary as well as the cold water necessary to sustain the river’s famous cold water fish species during the hotter months of July to September.
Wildfires, Both Cause and Outcome of Climate Change, Consume Freshwater

[SASKFARMER]

Think for yourself instead of cut and paste we would maybe believe you if you show your reasoning.