Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record...

[flip]

The fact that you would avoid discussing my solution on its merits but flippantly refer to it as "extreme right wing conspiracy theories and politics" gives credence to my suspicion that this whole global warming thing is really just a guise for socialism.

There are a few political realities the global warming crowd needs to recognize. It will be impossible to reach these carbon emissions goals through government coercion (cap and trade or a carbon tax). People won't stand for it. It would require extremely draconian action which would necessarily have to decimate the standard of living. That's political suicide. I've heard goals like 50% reduction in CO2 by the year 2050. Imagine that tomorrow, the United States halted all carbon emitting energy sources- vehicles, planes, trains, lights, machines, factories, TVs, computers, power plants- everything that didn't rely on solar panels and windmills gets turned off. Society would come to a screeching halt. I can only imagine the chaos that would result. And still, that would only reduce world carbon emissions by 25%.

Global warming skeptics also need to be aware of political realities as well- this hysteria isn't going away. You yourself have said that scientists can't predict the results of this. That means no matter what happens, whether the earth gets colder, warmer, or stay the same, it will be held up as evidence of global warming. That's why we should promote wealth-creating policies as the answer. Any solution will have to come in the form of technological advances which are rendered less likely by wealth destroying policies such as cap and trade. If a silver bullet is to come, it won't come from a third world country. Also, notice that when natural disasters, like hurricanes or earthquakes, strike in third world countries, thousands upon thousands of people die. When they strike in wealthy countries, you rarely get more than a handful of deaths. Wealth itself actually makes for a safer society that is more resilient to the catastrophes that might be created by global warming. We should work to make sure all countries are wealthy and thus have the resources to not only develop and implement greener technology, but also to make themselves resilient to whatever natural problems come along.

This thread is about hard facts and a discussion like this would just get us nowhere. I understand your worries and disagree. If the topic was more politic/economy oriented I would perhaps make a reply.

 

[netrox]

......

Were there humans 500,000,000 years ago?

I think we didn't have primates til about 65,000,000 years ago, which is like 100,000,000 years after the CO2 dropped dramatically!

 

[netrox]

Quite comical that Kokonut thinks that the atmosphere 500,000,000 years ago was the same one we have right now.

Totally different atmosphere with different amount of chemicals - it cannot be compared to today's atmosphere and I doubt humans could even survive 500,000,000 years ago.

 

[Hwy99]

Quite comical that Kokonut thinks that the atmosphere 500,000,000 years ago was the same one we have right now.

Totally different atmosphere with different amount of chemicals - it cannot be compared to today's atmosphere and I doubt humans could even survive 500,000,000 years ago.

True!

 

[netrox]

A dead give away on your lack of CO2 knowledge and concentration is seen in your comment. Do you even know what "ppm" means? Parts per million. Current CO2 concentration is 380 ppm or 380 molecules (parts) of CO2 for every 1,000,000 molecules of air. In short, 380 ppm = 380/1,000,000 = .038 percent = .00038.

Got it?

Good boy.

Thanks, you made my day.

flip sure made my day!

Bet your evening is ruined.

 

[darkdog]

This thread is about hard facts and a discussion like this would just get us nowhere. I understand your worries and disagree. If the topic was more politic/economy oriented I would perhaps make a reply.

Really? Because it looks like you're already getting nowhere pretty quickly. Besides, this is the War and Political News section and global warming is very closely linked to economics and politics.

But hey, if you still don't want to grapple with the issues I've brought up, that's fine. It's a free country.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Interesting thread.

I´m with most of PuyoPiyo´s and flip´s posts.

 

[kokonut]

I can recommend you a course in self insight to fully explore if your arguments really are based on actual facts.

So now you admit symptoms at 5000 ppm. Congratulations. 800 next! Comments on over 800 ppm being unhealty versus your earlier claims on 5000 ppm?: Again, 5000 ppm is quite harmless. No one has died from exposure to 5000 ppm unless, of course, as I have asked you repeatedly, if you can provide reports of people who died from exposure to 5000 ppm CO2.

Your graph is from different eras when the mix of greenhouse gases was different and not so very interesting. The purpose of that graph was to show that higher CO2 concentrations existed in the past as high as 7000 down to 500 ppm, which, incidently, during the Tertiary period (when mammals came on to the scene 5 million years ago to 1.8 million years ago) thrived when CO2 was at 1000 ppm down to 500 ppm. Certainly the dinosaur did not die out because CO2 was so high. Nor did the mammals during the Tertiary period. They all thrived. That was my point.

The Vostok graph below, showing the last 240 000 years describes more accurately the current state of earth atmosphere and what drives it. The delays in temperature and CO2 are due to interglacials, where CO2 is following temperature.

Let me interject with a bit of critical thinking here. Does the graph actually tells you which came first on the rise of CO2 and temperature? Which one rose first? I can't tell. Also, note the rise, they both follow closely together but when temperature drops quickly the drop in CO2 doesn't follow as closely. Why doesn't CO2 hug as closely to temperature drop if CO2 is supposedly the main climate driver? Secondly, note the scale, it's on the order of 10,000 years between tics, and 20,000 years between tics on the second one. At that scale you cannot tell if there is a lag time. But don't despair, others have looked at that question on lag time very, very closely.

Working with ice core records from the last three glacial terminations (that is, the last 240,000 years) found that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions." - Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.

Other ice core studies such as the Antarctica Taylor Dome in conjuction with the Vostok to see relationships between the two saw that temp rose first and 900 years later an upward increase in CO2 concentration followed for year 60000 to 20000 before present.
Indermuhle, A., Monnin, E., Stauffer, B. and Stocker, T.F. 2000. Atmospheric CO2 concentration from 60 to 20 kyr BP from the Taylor Dome ice core, Antarctica. Geophysical Research Letters 27: 735-738.

In another ice core study, the Antarctica Dome Concordia from 22,000 to 9,000 before present (that was a period when it went form glacial to interglacial transition) saw that the increase in CO2 concentratoin lagged by 800 years after temperature rose.
Monnin, E., Indermühle, A., Dällenbach, A., Flückiger, J, Stauffer, B., Stocker, T.F., Raynaud, D. and Barnola, J.-M. 2001. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last glacial termination. Science 291: 112-114.

And in another study on the 420,000 years Vostok ice core record it showed that CO2 concentration lagged behind increase in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years.

But let's not stop with ice cores, let's look at sediment records! Love geology stuff! Sediment facies (layerings we can observe) were analyzed in the Gulf of Australia to try and see what the timing of the melting was like after our last ice age. They found out that sea level rapidly rose that began approximately 19,000 years ago and found that the melting occurred before the rise CO2 concentration by about 3,000 years. This study lends support on CO2 lag behind temperature rise with the ice core studies.
Yokoyama, Y., Lambeck, K., Deckker, P.D., Johnston, P. and Fifield, L.K. 2000. Timing of the Last Glacial Maximum from observed sea-level minima. Nature 406: 713-716.

And in the Caillon Argon isotope study in that same 240,000 year Vostok ice core which provides a way to measure the timing of CO2 increase and climate change. That study concludes that increase in CO2 concentration lagged warming by 800 years, give or take 200 years.
Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y. 2003. Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science 299: 1728-1731.

In light what I have provided, again as I have said before, increase in CO2 concentration cannot be the sole/major driver in climate change. The facts do not add up!! Temperature goes up first, then CO2 increase follows. Unless, of course, you can PROVE that CO2 is the primary driver in climate change.

Thank you.

Oh, btw, a bit of interesting piece of graph for you to look at that shows glacial terminations going back 2 million years, note the position of the last ice age which terminated some 15,000 years ago where we began to warm up ever since, including the slow but surely rising CO2. That last ice age where the graph seems to peak, looks like we're due for a downward turn towards glaciation again (but we're talking about way, way outside of our life time so don't worry just yet). It's all cyclical! All nature's doing and not man's. We're just puny creatures compared to the power of Mother nature. Check it out starting on page 2 (of course, a peer reviewed paper! I just want to show you the graph, ignore the rest of the papers unless you like reading it) - http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/zeebe_files/Publications/SchulzZeebeEPSL06.pdf

 

[kokonut]

flip sure made my day!

Bet your evening is ruined.

Nope. He just didn't know.

 

[kokonut]

Quite comical that Kokonut thinks that the atmosphere 500,000,000 years ago was the same one we have right now. Nope. Never made that assertion. Please read carefully what I wrote.

Totally different atmosphere with different amount of chemicals - it cannot be compared to today's atmosphere and I doubt humans could even survive 500,000,000 years ago.

Yet, the subject was about CO2 concentration and not about the chemical compositions in our atmosphere.

Never say never if humans could survive in when CO2 concentration in air is 5000 ppm (and just to make the case no one has shown me any records that a person died from a 5000 ppm exposure to CO2 concentration. Now, as for surviving, could you or others survive and live at an elevation of 12,000 to 15,000 feet in terms of high altitude living?
Living in High Altitudes

The answer is that maybe you cannot but others have because they've adapted to that high altitude environment. At those elevations there is less oxygen available yet people, such as the Tibetan and Andean people, are able to adapt easily to that high altitude environment. The 5000 ppm CO2 concentration (which was that amount 500 million years ago) simply takes up more volume leaving less oxygen to inhale and absorbed into your body. So, if CO2 slowly over centuries gone up to 5000 ppm people will still be around as they slowly adapted to the higher and higher CO2 concentration. It's pretty similar to those who are currently living at elevation of 12,000 to 15,000 feet are able to adapt in a much lower oxygen environment.

 

[flip]

Let me repeat, I said that strolling around in 5000 ppm will ruin your health. If this equals an instant death to you, you must have some cognitive sort of problems. Unhealthy people tends to die earlier than healthy people, that's it.

Now, do you agree with your goverment that over 800 ppm of CO2 is unhealthy?

 

[flip]

Dinosaurs was adjusted to a specific kind of climate. The atmosphere and temperature in the dino-age was different, and you would probably be the only one claiming the air is so fresh that time. Notice the swift change in climate at the end of the dino-era. It was not only dinosaurs who got in trouble, but 70-90 percent of all species became extinct. Something similar happened when great mammals became extinct. Don't worry, and be happy about climate changes..

 

[flip]

No one have claimed CO2 is the only component or allways the driver of temperature. You fail to divide between climate history of earth, and what is humans is doing with the climate right now.

The interglacial lag between temperature and CO2 only happens during 1/6 of the interglacial time if you look at the graph closely. It's funny how you pull up all those links of time of interglacial lags when they don't prove anything and is well known facts to climate scientist.

"In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn’t tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]"

RealClimate: What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming? Quelle information sur le réchauffement climatique nous apportent les études qui concluent à un retard du CO2 sur la température, réalisées à p

 

[flip]

Thank you.

Oh, btw, a bit of interesting piece of graph for you to look at that shows glacial terminations going back 2 million years, note the position of the last ice age which terminated some 15,000 years ago where we began to warm up ever since, including the slow but surely rising CO2. That last ice age where the graph seems to peak, looks like we're due for a downward turn towards glaciation again (but we're talking about way, way outside of our life time so don't worry just yet). It's all cyclical! All nature's doing and not man's. We're just puny creatures compared to the power of Mother nature. Check it out starting on page 2 (of course, a peer reviewed paper! I just want to show you the graph, ignore the rest of the papers unless you like reading it) - http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/zeebe_files/Publications/SchulzZeebeEPSL06.pdf

It's been known for decades, even perhaps a century or two, that we probably are on our way towards a glaciation. The earth is alive and breathing. This is knowledge you again can thank climate scientist for.

A simple googling on one of the authors of this paper you put up here, K.G. Schulz from germany, reveals other papers he have worked on, for example:

"If CO2 emissions continue to rise at current rates, upper ocean pH will decrease to levels lower than have existed for tens of millions of years and critically at a rate of change 100 times greater than at any time over this period3."

Enhanced biological carbon consumption in a high CO2 ocean - Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research

Pulling up papers from scientists who know that recent climate changes are driven by human activitites, while you try to score points about CO2 not driving anything is not very wise. Again, emberassing to witness your massive lack of knowledge on this topic, though you are starting to improve.

In the beginning of this thread you said: "CO2 is never known to be a climate driver."

Now it's: "..increase in CO2 concentration cannot be the sole/major driver in climate change."

Greetings with improvements.

 

[flip]

Really? Because it looks like you're already getting nowhere pretty quickly. Besides, this is the War and Political News section and global warming is very closely linked to economics and politics.

But hey, if you still don't want to grapple with the issues I've brought up, that's fine. It's a free country.

No problem.

 

[flip]

Yet, the subject was about CO2 concentration and not about the chemical compositions in our atmosphere.

Never say never if humans could survive in when CO2 concentration in air is 5000 ppm (and just to make the case no one has shown me any records that a person died from a 5000 ppm exposure to CO2 concentration. Now, as for surviving, could you or others survive and live at an elevation of 12,000 to 15,000 feet in terms of high altitude living?
Living in High Altitudes

The answer is that maybe you cannot but others have because they've adapted to that high altitude environment. At those elevations there is less oxygen available yet people, such as the Tibetan and Andean people, are able to adapt easily to that high altitude environment. The 5000 ppm CO2 concentration (which was that amount 500 million years ago) simply takes up more volume leaving less oxygen to inhale and absorbed into your body. So, if CO2 slowly over centuries gone up to 5000 ppm people will still be around as they slowly adapted to the higher and higher CO2 concentration. It's pretty similar to those who are currently living at elevation of 12,000 to 15,000 feet are able to adapt in a much lower oxygen environment.

A different mix of gases and thin air is two different things. High altitudes can be unhealthy, and higher concentrations of CO2 is known to be unhealthy. Notice the difference?

 

[shel90]

Kokonut, you said....

Again, 5000 ppm is quite harmless.

this is what I found....

•2,000 – 5,000 ppm – level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present.

•>5,000 ppm – Exposure may lead to serious oxygen deprivation resulting in permanent brain damage, coma and even death.



Chemical Fact Sheets -- Carbon Dioxide (CO2)


It seems to me that 5,000 ppm is right smack on the line between unhealthy to dangerous. I wonder if someone who has a weak immune system or a chronic illness would suffer from oxygen deprivation at 5,000 ppm? Just wondering...

 

[KarissaMann05]

Kokonut, you said....

Again, 5000 ppm is quite harmless.

this is what I found....

•2,000 – 5,000 ppm – level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present.

•>5,000 ppm – Exposure may lead to serious oxygen deprivation resulting in permanent brain damage, coma and even death.



Chemical Fact Sheets -- Carbon Dioxide (CO2)


It seems to me that 5,000 ppm is right smack on the line between unhealthy to dangerous. I wonder if someone who has a weak immune system or a chronic illness would suffer from oxygen deprivation at 5,000 ppm? Just wondering...

Yep yep. I do think you did say it well. I'm positive that I remembered about CO2 when I was in middle and high school. My former science teachers told me the same thing. It's not healthy, I believe so, and it does affect us. You are not alone. I wonder, too...

 

[flip]

Kokonut, you said....

Again, 5000 ppm is quite harmless.

this is what I found....

•2,000 – 5,000 ppm – level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present.

•>5,000 ppm – Exposure may lead to serious oxygen deprivation resulting in permanent brain damage, coma and even death.



Chemical Fact Sheets -- Carbon Dioxide (CO2)


It seems to me that 5,000 ppm is right smack on the line between unhealthy to dangerous. I wonder if someone who has a weak immune system or a chronic illness would suffer from oxygen deprivation at 5,000 ppm? Just wondering...

Interesting facts. It seems to me that the limit at 5000 ppm is to stay well below 10.000 ppm, where CO2 starts to become toxic. Amounts of CO2 increases quickly in the air, especially when in a closed space, and it's the toxicity of CO2 that kill people according to this link:
Toxicity of Carbon Dioxide CO2 Gas Exposure, poisoning symptoms, exposure limits, and Links to Toxic Gas Testing Procedures C02 Gas toxicity CO2 exposure limits

For 2500-5000 ppm of CO2, the discomfort comes from other gases from human respiration and perspiration. High ppm of CO2, but still below 5000 ppm is unhealthy because it shows it's a lot of indoor polutants around. This have less with lack of oxygen or CO2 as toxic to do, from my understanding. I have checked a flat for CO2 levels to detect if indoor air quality is ok or not, not because it lacks O2 or have too much CO2. Still it's not nice to know one have high amounts of a possible toxic substance in the air.

 

[kokonut]

Let me repeat, I said that strolling around in 5000 ppm will ruin your health. If this equals an instant death to you, you must have some cognitive sort of problems. Unhealthy people tends to die earlier than healthy people, that's it.

Now, do you agree with your goverment that over 800 ppm of CO2 is unhealthy?

Over 800, no. Like I said you have to look at the scale of things when it comes to the amount of CO2 that takes over the volume of air. Even at 5000 ppm there is no indication that it will "ruin" your health just by simply strolling around in that environment. 5000 ppm = .5% which means 99.5% is air. People have not died nor suffered life-threatening complications from exposures to 5000 ppm. Do you have any reports to back this up? A stroll through 5000 ppm isn't hazardous. You make it sound like the equivalent of walking in a room full of carbon monoxide, this is carbon dioxide we're talking about. Consider 5000 ppm as the "upper limit" but certainly it is, again, harmless at that level since you'd be breathing 99.5% of air versus 99.95% of air with ppm at 500 ppm. Or for 800 ppm then that means you'd be breathing 99.92% air, down from 99.96% at 380 ppm. A change of .04 percent. Pretty insignifican in terms of volume lost to CO2 replacing air.

What ruins your health is to stroll around in a thick, hazy smog environment, carbon monixide exposure, even breathing pure Oxygen 100% of the time will eventually kill you. We're not breathing pure CO2 here folks. We're not talking about an environment of 10,000, 50,000 ppm here. Even if ppm today get up to 1000 ppm in, say, 50 years from now, it'd still be an insignificant amount of volume change over.