Climate Change Consequences

Go here: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2

Specifically, you can look at the depth of 321.2 meters to 443.5 meters. That covers a time period of approximately 10,000 years. And during that time period, the CO2 concentration rose 80 points.

In terms of the CO2 increasing from that span much more rapidly, you can go here: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/g...lectures/kling/carbon_cycle/carbon_cycle.html

 

That's the issue. Where is the impact? What are the likelihood that predicted impacts occur. The value of using historic events is they demonstrate actual impacts. Where are yours??

 

It's the problem with being faithful. No one ever expects to get called on it. So, no there isn't data to support the ppm rise in the current ice core data set. Why? Because it doesn't demonstrate the particulate count in the actual atmosphere. So, they become delinked, which sort of really sucks for those who have published that there is, or must be.

 

Here are two:

The Syrian Civil War
The California Drought

 

Are you claiming that if I scraped the top layer of ice, that it wouldn't precisely match the measured CO2 concentration? Do you have a source for that claim? Have you reviewed any statements from the relevant scientists as to why that might be the case? Do you think that the indicators like ice core data have zero value unless they have a near perfect margin of error?

 

vcfgtgtgtgtgtgtgtgtgtgtgtgtgtgtgtgtgtgtgtgtgtgtgtgtgtgtgtgtgty=

How do you deplete something that is constantly being manufactured? There have almost certainly always been holes in the Ozone layer at the poles because the chief ingredient is sunlight striking oxygen molecules

 

The first is an at best debatable proposition.
The second a failure to understand that so. cal. has been a semi arid bordering on desert climate since about 12,000BC. There is data that suggest there were more lengthy droughts in prehistoric So Cal, and the longes drought in the recorded History was nearly a dozen years from late '20s to late '30s last century.

 

The intelligence value of this post is the real laughing point.

 

Those doom and gloom predictions, spoken with fire and brimstone, like a fanatical preacher, demanding that we send our collective wealth to the Illuminati to create a new world order, shouts loud and clear SCAM. Fear and intimidation from the high priests like Al Gore and DiCaprio, who live like kings. Do you think the elite in the GW/CC religion will make any sacrifice or donate any of their wealth? They're green alright - money green.

 

It's pointless debunking the Deniers really although I commend you for doing so.

It's like playing whac a mole.

They don't care that you prove them wrong time after time.

It's the "noise" they generate that they care about

 

I have never seen evidence this was caused by man. you think we invented CFC's?
Every single thing on earth already exists on Earth so CFC has always been here.

Blaming the very engine that brought on the modern world is foolish at best and dishonest at worst.
Btw, new science is in, they are not "fossil" fuels, they are a result of Earths natural internal processes. No Dinosaurs required.

 

So far at least. On top of that we've gotten no-where near the idea that CO2 heats the globe. In fact, all we're getting from ice cores is --

--just like warming the soda gives up the gas, heating the globe puts CO2 in the air.

 

Thanks for working with me on this. So the data we got is..

Mean
Age of age of CO2
Depth the ice the air concentration
(m) (yr BP) (yr BP) (ppmv)

321.2 14538 11013 263.7
331.6 15208 11326 244.8
342.1 15922 11719 238.3
365.5 17747 13405 236.2
375.6 18580 13989 225.3
443.5 24315 17695 182.2
​

--and while it does show an 80ppm rise in 10k years, it does not show that a similar rise did not occur during any 100 year time span in the past. All we have here are five data points over 10K years.

The website seemed to do a decent job and I got more info by pushing over to like, https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html , but the big step we need to have here is seeing how the recent measurements at Mauna Loa are global, and whether it was caused by people or it happens all the time.

Maybe we could agree that we've yet to post measurements on this thread showing a global 80ppm/100yrs now, and that 80ppm/100 years has never happened before. Tx again.

 

The only problem with your hypothesis is that for every 2 degree C warming in the relevant temperature range, Henry's law constant for CO2 only decreases by 5%. So, this effect cannot account for the near doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. In addition, if the release of CO2 from oceans at higher temperatures would be the only effect, oceans should become more basic as it warms. The opposite is true, since the increased [CO2] that is independent of ocean release acidifies the ocean.

 

Predictably, this discussion became another manifestation of AGW yes or no.

What about someone actually answering the question from the OP: Would warming the plant matter?

Here is my answer from above:

As with everything that changes rapidly, there will be winners and losers.

Winners: Me and others living in the Northeast US, with lower heating costs and longer crop growing seasons.

Losers: Coastal real estate holders.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...could-cost-u-s-homeowners-close-to-1-trillion

There is more than $1 trillion on the line, of course mostly held by the rich. Once they see their beachfront property erode, you can bet that climate change will be addressed in a millisecond.

It's all about the money trail.

 

You pretty much nailed it.

 

What's your point? That bigger plants, including larger trees compared to smaller trees, take in more CO2 than smaller plants? Jeeesh! Will wonders never cease!

You are still missing the point. The green area on earth is much larger than just that made up of trees, especially large trees. When that overall area grows it means a *big* additional area absorbing CO2. A much larger area than just the "tree" part of the globe! Look at the Sahara Desert. It has been retreating for a long time. But trees aren't popping up in the now fertile areas. Crops and pastures are - which take in CO2!

 

That oxygen plume gets generated from taking CO2 out of the air. It simply doesn't matter that each plant only contributes a small piece or the overall plume, it is the overall plume that counts. The size of the midwest corn crop MATTERS!

 

The AGW alarmists are like the guy standing on the street corner with a sign saying "The End Is Near!".

 

If they were never likely then why did they predict them?

 

Those predictions were based on the results given by the computer models of the AGW religionists. The predictions never came to pass which would cause most people to question the validity of the computer models. But not the AGW religionists. Articles of faith *are* articles of faith!

 

The Syrian Civil War is because of religion, not global warming.
And the California drought is OVER. It was temporary just like all droughts in semi-arid areas such as the High Plains. Nothing to do with global warming. If the CA drought was caused by global warming then exactly what caused it to end????

 

Because any prediction of the future includes a margin of error. And because discussing about the worst case scenario is more likely to result in action today and thereby avoid the worst case scenario.

 

I present you with the peer-reviewed studies. Feel free to peruse them at your leisure.

As for what ended the drought, I am unsure, but the fact that California experienced a historic drought and then followed it by a historic flood is consistent with the prediction of increased likelihood of extreme weather events.