http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/13/global-warming-effects_n_897135.html
This is what the world looked like at 3,000 ppm CO2 during the Devonian. None of these plants or animals would exist without CO2.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
Recent Comments
- arn on Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- Robertvd on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- roaddog on Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- Bob G on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- Disillusioned on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- Ulric Lyons on “Impossible Heatwaves”
- William on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- William on 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- czechlist on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- arn on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
Typical BS from a Know Nothing PR firm!
“Typical BS from a Know Nothing PR firm!
Typical BS from a know nothing, period.
Apparently you don’t know that the sun was 4% cooler in the Devonian. So, if the Devonian where as warm or warmer than today it would be the result of higher CO2 levels.
And yes, you would need a lot of CO2 to compensate for that amount, so please don’t prove yourself a know nothing twice over by saying that 4% lower luminosity would result in a trivial temperature drop. You do know the equation, don’t you?
There is no correlation between CO2 levels and paleo-temperature.The Ordovician had steady CO2 levels of 4,000 ppm and temperatures varied by 10C. Similarly during the last 300,000 years CO2 was constrained between 200 and 300 ppm and temperatures also varied by 10C.
Time to stop pretending that you understand something which you have no clue about.
“There is no correlation between CO2 levels and paleo-temperature.The Ordovician had steady CO2 levels of 4,000 ppm and temperatures varied by 10C.”
CO2 was only one player in regulating earth’s temperatures back then. You had continental drift and ocean currents which played a large part. That doesn’t mean that CO2 wasn’t a major player but those two other factors would contribute to high temperature fluctuations.
Continental drift could make the difference between easy glaciation and no glaciation. Ocean currents are also a major player throughout earth’s history.
And no, there was not have a steady level of CO2 throughout the Ordovician. CO2 levels dropped throughout its duration until it got to about 3,000 ppm during its terminal when a major ice age came about (Don’t forget a weaker sun of about 4.5-5%).
Regardless of the proportion of influence that each factor would provide (in the long term-100s million years), without CO2 the earth would freeze; especially with a weaker sun.
“Similarly during the last 300,000 years CO2 was constrained between 200 and 300 ppm and temperatures also varied by 10C.”
During the last 300,000 years the Earth has been on a hair trigger for glaciation. The big players have been the Milankovitch cycles and outgassing of CO2 from the oceans after a certain level of temperature increase. In other words, a synergetic effect. Albedo from growing ice caps would also play a role-another positive feedback loop.
“Time to stop pretending that you understand something which you have no clue about.”
Time to stop pretending that the world is one dimensional.
From 20,000 years ago to the present temperatures rose 10C while CO2 rose 100 ppm. Over the last 100 years, temperatures rose only 0.6C while CO2 rose 100 ppm. There is no correlation between temperature and CO2.
Again, you’re not taking co-factors into account.
There is no meaningful comparison between the rise in temperatures from ice age to interlacial as opposed to current GW because our current temperature rise is not being affected by the following:
1. The Milankovitch cycles would increase earth’s warming aside from the CO2
2. The positive feedback loop of albedo change as the ice sheets retreat. That would also give us more heat besides the CO2.
The above most likely accounts for the bulk of the temperature rise after the Younger Dryas but ithe Milankovitch cycles are irrelevant, in our current situation.
Furthermore, the following is not being taken into account in our current GW situation:
1. Thermal lag.
2. Albedo change due to the Arctic ice cap shrinking.
3. Aerosol reflection that would not have been present in the past. I’m referring to all aerosols emmited by all fossil fuel burning.
4. Lower than average solar activity.
I forgot what caused the Dust Bowl? Maybe you could remind me.
IWB if significant factiors are not being taken into account. Then all your assertions are just speculation, constructed in over-confident language.
“Time to stop pretending that the world is one dimensional”
Time to stop pretending that there are no uncertainties about either the past or the present. If there were no uncertainties there would be little argument, and this blog wouldn’t exist.
IWB:
I am familiar with the so called Quiet Sun Paradox!
“The above most likely accounts for the bulk of the temperature rise after the Younger Dryas but ithe Milankovitch cycles are irrelevant, in our current situation.”
Is total BS because we do not live in a period separate from the history of the globe. We are experiencing an extension of all the weather patterns that came before, so those and continental drift need to be taken into account. Current weather / climate is the result of all that has gone on before and even though you downplay it thermal lag has a lot to do with current conditions of Global Cooling! You leave out the most important aerosols, those provided by natural factors such as smoke from volcano activity and forest fires along with dust and naturally occurring sulfates. In my neck of the woods there is an almost constant blue haze that has been described as “Smoke”, resulting in the name Smokey Mountains of the other longer region known as the Blue Ridge Mountains. Both part of the Appalachian Mountain range that also has a dramatic effect on regional weather.
In the state I currently live in there are 4 distinct climate regions and in Nevada there are also 4 regions from personal experience I can say that within those region are sub regions with their own climate characteristics that make the NCDC’s designations of climate regions worthless. Climate is not an average as the average discards the true climate signal.
Your number two has no logic behind it as the minimum is at the time of solar influence waning for the year in that region.
From HuffPo:
“The fact is, most climate models do suggest that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide will spur increased plant growth, and that this will have some mitigating effect on what would otherwise be unchecked global warming”.
Climate models predict effects on plant growth do they? News to me, and presumably the modellers too. Wonderful things these models.
My goodness, the lack of self awareness is epic. Almost feel like writing a 300,000 word alliterative poem in honour of it.