Rockmeister
pfm Member
charts huh.
charts huh.
Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have fluctuated in the past and the fluctuation does have a cyclicality. But that's not the situation today. In a couple of human lifetimes the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased well beyond any previous level in the past 800,000 years.
The graph above shows actual measurements, not speculation, guesses or hunches. The atmospheric concentration of C02, as determined by ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland, provide the data before 1958, direct atmospheric measurement of CO2 at Mauna Loa provides the data after 1958.
If you want to weird yourself out, you can monitor the real-time atmospheric CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa. See https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html and https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/graph.html
I'm going to put this in ginormous red bold font so there's no misunderstanding —
There's absolutely nothing natural about the year-on-year increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. It's increasing because of human activities.
And if you're still doubtful that something other than CO2 is warming the Earth, have a look at this: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Joe
No I get that, my point is that I have a LOT of data showing current CO2 levels way down on the carboniferous or Jurassic eras. I know WHY, but the life, the essential life on this planet has survived higher levels of greenhouse gasses. The plants and animals just shift, they evolve, to adapt to the gasses they breathe. WE panic, because we think we are important. Luckily, we are not, except to be remembered as a catastrophic negative in the planets life, so it's all fine, but for the sake of our great grandchildren, it'll be a much nicer life if we act now.Rock,
Graphs with atmospheric CO2 data that took truly Herculean effort to collect, which are much more useful than feelings, hunches, guesses and I reckons.
Joe
Half a billion years ago life on Earth was simple and largely unicellular.
True enough, but the problem is that the life currently evolved has developed to exploit niches in the ecosystem based on the climate as it would be without anthropogenic warming. Morally, we have no right to alter that ecosystem in ways they can't adapt to.No I get that, my point is that I have a LOT of data showing current CO2 levels way down on the carboniferous or Jurassic eras. I know WHY, but the life, the essential life on this planet has survived higher levels of greenhouse gasses. The plants and animals just shift, they evolve, to adapt to the gasses they breathe. WE panic, because we think we are important. Luckily, we are not, except to be remembered as a catastrophic negative in the planets life, so it's all fine, but for the sake of our great grandchildren, it'll be a much nicer life if we act now.
Swampy,
You say that now, but what if you were an algae in a pond about to be ensnared by some amoeba's pseudopods rather than Alyson Hannigan's embrace?
Joe
We know from the fossils that the sea level was far higher than now and that 10 degrees either side of the equator was probably a dead zone in the oceans.No I get that, my point is that I have a LOT of data showing current CO2 levels way down on the carboniferous or Jurassic eras. I know WHY, but the life, the essential life on this planet has survived higher levels of greenhouse gasses. The plants and animals just shift, they evolve, to adapt to the gasses they breathe. WE panic, because we think we are important. Luckily, we are not, except to be remembered as a catastrophic negative in the planets life, so it's all fine, but for the sake of our great grandchildren, it'll be a much nicer life if we act now.
Indeed. Its poor science to take one set of figures but ignore many other and more complicated available information. For example the equilibrium constant for dissolved carbon dioxide decreases with rising temperature and is more than twice as soluble at 0 degrees than at 20. There is a hell of a lot of water so just a small temperature rise may release a large volume of carbon dioxide. Something else to bear in mind is the luminosity of the Sun. When the Earth first formed ~4.5 Billion years ago the Sun was a lot dimmer and today its luminosity is ~ 43% higher. Its thought that the Sun will as its natural process increase in luminosity by ~10% per billion years. Its not something that we can do anything about except leave home which in the not so distant future will become uninhabitable long before the Sun goes BOOM.charts huh.
"In late 2013, I wrote a piece for TomDispatch titled “Are We Falling Off the Climate Precipice?” Even then, it was already clear enough that we were indeed heading off that cliff. More than five years later, a sober reading of the latest climate change science indicates that we are now genuinely in free fall."
For those not averse to reading seriously important stuff:
https://www.thenation.com/article/climate-disaster-is-upon-us/
Given the current state of scientific knowledge, I agree with the author that it's time to think about learning to say goodbye. And so given the disinterest in the thread, how many here think that climate/societal disaster in 20 years or less is too extreme, and that given a choice to maximize one's connection to the earth & nature or go about BAU with distractions of hope most would choose hope?
It actually sounds quite appealing. Chill out in a pool of slime, kick back, bud off.