Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[Skidog]

I didn't realize at first that Scoug got that chart from somewhere else. The fact he thought it was good enough to pass along here is just incredible.

The simple fact is that the Earth--or at least a very large part of it-- is going to be uninhabitable by humans at some point in the future. We'd like that point to be thousands of years from now rather than one hundred.

yeah we'd sure like it that way, but if humans did indeed create the mess, or speed up its natural process, we get what we deserve. We wont be the first species on this blue ball to go extinct.

We are just hoping for our escape plan so we can fuck up another perfectly good planet.

[old goat]

skicougar is a man, or boy.

[ron johnson]

What we’ve learned through studying these long-term processes is that CO2 is the guerrilla in the climate system. CO2 controls these large scale shifts in climate over the Earth’s history. So if there’s more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere either through the release of deep deposits or through extraction due to chemical weathering it’s these large scale changes in greenhouse gases that tend to shift the significant modes in climate. That's how we know greenhouse gases really are the largest contributor to the Earth’s climate outside the sun which is producing energy for the whole system.

I'm a bit surprised to read this coming from you. You should know better than to think that CO2 is the guerrilla in the system and that it controls the large climate shifts throughout history. That is not the case at all.

[SumJongGuy]

skicougar is a man, or boy.

Spoiler alert!!!!

[MultiVerse]

CO2 is the guerrilla in the climate system. The Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum PETM is one example of CO2’s smoking gun, evidence that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations directly influence earth’s temperature.

During the PETM a massive injection of carbon CO2 and CH4 led to more than 5-degrees-C of warming. Off the coast of Antarctica, a location today that is close to freezing, the oceans were about 20C (68F) at the peak of the PETM. Evidence has been found of palm trees in Alaska and Canada. Tropical ocean temperatures were really hot. Research indicates that temperatures off the coast of West Africa were 36C which is 97F.

The content of CO2 in the atmosphere increased 3-4 times during the PETM. Below is what the PETM looks like in the Big Horn Basin in Wyoming. These rocks were deposited by rivers and on floodplains. They contain an amazing fossil record:



https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/639

[k2skier112]

I'm a bit surprised to read this coming from you. You should know better than to think that CO2 is the guerrilla in the system and that it controls the large climate shifts throughout history. That is not the case at all.

shut up you ignorant fucking cunt

[ron johnson]

MV, if CO2 is the guerilla in the climate system, can you please explain how it is possible that temperatures have crashed after reaching peak CO2 levels as seen over the past 400,000 years? The planet should have continued warming if that is the case.

[MultiVerse]

Now Ron is moving the goalposts. Just a few short posts ago he denied CO2 is the guerrilla in the system and that it controls the large climate shifts throughout history. He wrote, "That is not the case at all." So now he's trying to change the subject.


Liars and deniers like Ron are only animated by deception and dishonesty.

Ron's attempt to change the subject to glacial interglacial periodicity was already discussed earlier in this thread. His own source at the time wrote the Arctic should currently be in a cooling phase.

The bottom line is because of the geologic time record we understand CO2 and greenhouse gases are really important in regulating the climate mode we are in. Seeing greenhouse gas concentrations increase, we know that greenhouse gases trap heat so what we’re doing is we are changing our atmospheric concentrations to a level that we haven’t seen in this current icehouse phase. To levels not seen in hundreds of thousands years.

Note how Ron's chart tops out at 280ppm/CO2. We are now well over 400ppm. If we increase CO2 to a certain level any periodicity disappears, we will stop having interglacial cycles. That's important to keep in mind.

[Bunion 2020]

I don't notice anything Ron posts or has posted. I put him on ignore long ago.

Deniers are like whack-a-mole. I no longer play that game.

Fuck Ron and the horse he rode in on.

[The Tortoise]

The only thing Ron has brought is giving Multiverse the chance to fill this thread with knowledge. I don't know how he has the patience, but I have been appreciating his insights.

[The AD]

MV, if CO2 is the guerilla in the climate system, can you please explain how it is possible that temperatures have crashed after reaching peak CO2 levels as seen over the past 400,000 years? The planet should have continued warming if that is the case.

So this is your evidence that temperature and CO2 levels are not correlated? Did you even look at the graph?

God, I think even the moon landing deniers have stronger 'evidence' than the climate deniers do.

[MultiVerse]

It's one of Ron's weakest denier talking points. The standard denier argument with that chart, Ron has already brought it up several times, is CO2 lags warming. What the chart shows however is CO2 amplifies warming.


Because of orbital changes, the planet wobbles, either the Southern Hemisphere (or the Northern Hemisphere) slowly warms up whereas in the opposite hemisphere (which is still cold) CO2 leads the warming.

The wobbling of the planet’s orbit changes its orientation to the sun causing more or less sunlight to hit higher latitudes, especially the polar regions. Under the right conditions as the earth warms up more CO2 is released into the atmosphere which explains, in part, why CO2 sometimes appears to initially lag a warming trend even though CO2 drives most of the warming. The opposite happens, the planet cools, if atmospheric carbon dioxide is low enough and polar regions receive less sunlight.

During the last deglaciation the earth started slowly warming due to orbital change but then the vast majority of warming, something like 80-90%, occurred in response to CO2 increases.

[old goat]

Planets evolve naturally although not on a human time scale. Cores cool, orbits change, the sun changes. The difference now is that people are changing the planet on a human time scale. In the great scheme of things it doesn't matter. If you care about your kids and grandkids it does.

[SkiCougar]

impacts of carbon taxes on energy costs.



yep, increases of 100 to 300%; that's not a regressive tax of the lower incomes and poor.

[SumJongGuy]

impacts of carbon taxes on energy costs.



yep, increases of 100 to 300%; that's not a regressive tax of the lower incomes and poor.

It will certainly hit people who choose not to use public transportation harder than those who already use public transportation.

[ron johnson]

Now Ron is moving the goalposts. Just a few short posts ago he denied CO2 is the guerrilla in the system and that it controls the large climate shifts throughout history. He wrote, "That is not the case at all." So now he's trying to change the subject.

Liars and deniers like Ron are only animated by deception and dishonesty.

Ron's attempt to change the subject to glacial interglacial periodicity was already discussed earlier in this thread. His own source at the time wrote the Arctic should currently be in a cooling phase.

The bottom line is because of the geologic time record we understand CO2 and greenhouse gases are really important in regulating the climate mode we are in. Seeing greenhouse gas concentrations increase, we know that greenhouse gases trap heat so what we’re doing is we are changing our atmospheric concentrations to a level that we haven’t seen in this current icehouse phase. To levels not seen in hundreds of thousands years.

Note how Ron's chart tops out at 280ppm/CO2. We are now well over 400ppm. If we increase CO2 to a certain level any periodicity disappears, we will stop having interglacial cycles. That's important to keep in mind.

How in the world am I moving the goalposts? You said that CO2 is the "guerilla in the climate system," and it "controls these large scale shifts in climate over earth's history." If that is the case, it makes zero sense that temperatures would crash after hitting peak CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. There must be a different force larger than that of CO2 to cause the cooling.

[ron johnson]

So this is your evidence that temperature and CO2 levels are not correlated? Did you even look at the graph?

God, I think even the moon landing deniers have stronger 'evidence' than the climate deniers do.

Like MV said, the graph makes it look like temperature and CO2 are moving in lock step due to the large time scale. However, temperature is leading CO2 by ~800 years.

[ron johnson]

It's one of Ron's weakest denier talking points. The standard denier argument with that chart, Ron has already brought it up several times, is CO2 lags warming. What the chart shows however is CO2 amplifies warming.


Because of orbital changes, the planet wobbles, either the Southern Hemisphere (or the Northern Hemisphere) slowly warms up whereas in the opposite hemisphere (which is still cold) CO2 leads the warming.

The wobbling of the planet’s orbit changes its orientation to the sun causing more or less sunlight to hit higher latitudes, especially the polar regions. Under the right conditions as the earth warms up more CO2 is released into the atmosphere which explains, in part, why CO2 sometimes appears to initially lag a warming trend even though CO2 drives most of the warming. The opposite happens, the planet cools, if atmospheric carbon dioxide is low enough and polar regions receive less sunlight.

During the last deglaciation the earth started slowly warming due to orbital change but then the vast majority of warming, something like 80-90%, occurred in response to CO2 increases.

The chart does not show that CO2 amplifies warming. That is a theory. The only thing the chart shows is that rising temperatures cause CO2 levels to rise. CO2 may still influence temperatures, but the graph is neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, the positive feedback would cause run away greenhouse effect. That hasn't happened, so obviously some other factor is more important than CO2.

[iceman]

fuckin ron.

[MultiVerse]

Of course Ron willfully ignores how the vast majority of interglacial warming, something like 80-90%, occurs in response to CO2 increases.

Ron has already admitted in this thread that greenhouse gases act to amplify warming associated with very long timescale variations in the Earth's orbital configuration.

[Mofro261]

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury if Mercury is closer to the sun?


Answer 1:
This is a great question! The answer to it lies in the fact that Venus has a very dense atmosphere made up of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and sulfuric acid, while Mercury has a very thin atmosphere with various gases, but very little carbon dioxide. So what's so important about carbon dioxide? Well, sunlight will pass through Venus' clouds (which contain mostly carbon dioxide) and warm the surface of the planet. Usually, the surface of a planet is warmed during the day and cools off at night by releasing infrared radiation (heat) back into space. But the carbon dioxide in Venus' clouds absorbs energy from infrared radiation very well and "traps" the heat on the planet, making it very warm. This has sometimes been called a "runaway greenhouse effect." We don't see this happen on Mercury because its atmosphere is not thick and does not have much carbon dioxide in it. I hope this helps!

[MultiVerse]

Deniers can't win on the science so they attempt to confound by manufacturing controversy.

The way this works now is after Ron engages in a bunch of handwaving and misrepresentation about the science it becomes time fall back on the flowchart of denialism. A synopsis of the deniers position:

1) The planet isn’t warming, it's a conspiracy, but 2) Even if it is warming, it’s caused by the solar maximum, but 3) Even if it is warming and caused by people, the effects are unimportant, but 4) Even if it is warming, caused by people, and serious, the effects are positive, but 5) Even if it is warming, caused by people, serious, and bad, the effects are impossible to stop, but 6) Even if it is warming, caused by people, serious, bad, and possible to mitigate, it’s too costly for the world to manage, but 7) Even if it is warming, caused by people, serious, bad, alleviable, and economically feasible, other countries won’t cooperate, and 8) Even if it is warming, caused by humans, serious, bad, fixable, economically feasible, and possible to coordinate, domestic politics means it’s still impossible to solve.*

*Besides 9) what about Greta and scaring children, Ocasio eats babies, plastic straws... which by rule is also 1.5), 2.5), 3.5), 4.5), 5.5), 6.5), 7.5), 8.5), 9.5)

[SumJongGuy]

Deniers can't win on the science so they attempt to confound by manufacturing controversy.

The way this works now is after Ron engages in a bunch of handwaving and misrepresentation about the science it becomes time fall back on the flowchart of denialism. A synopsis of the deniers position:

1) The planet isn’t warming, it's a conspiracy, but 2) Even if it is warming, it’s caused by the solar maximum, but 3) Even if it is warming and caused by people, the effects are unimportant, but 4) Even if it is warming, caused by people, and serious, the effects are positive, but 5) Even if it is warming, caused by people, serious, and bad, the effects are impossible to stop, but 6) Even if it is warming, caused by people, serious, bad, and possible to mitigate, it’s too costly for the world to manage, but 7) Even if it is warming, caused by people, serious, bad, alleviable, and economically feasible, other countries won’t cooperate, and 8) Even if it is warming, caused by humans, serious, bad, fixable, economically feasible, and possible to coordinate, domestic politics means it’s still impossible to solve.*

*Besides 9) what about Greta and scaring children, Ocasio eats babies, plastic straws... which by rule is also 1.5), 2.5), 3.5), 4.5), 5.5), 6.5), 7.5), 8.5), 9.5)

And finally, i shouldn't have to do anything because Al Gore has a big house..

[SB]

[ron johnson]

Of course Ron willfully ignores how the vast majority of interglacial warming, something like 80-90%, occurs in response to CO2 increases.

Ron has already admitted in this thread that greenhouse gases act to amplify warming associated with very long timescale variations in the Earth's orbital configuration.

I may have said that CO2 has had some amplification of warming in these cycles, but nothing like this 80-90% you are claiming.

Can you just answer the question I have proposed to you? Or will you keep deflecting? If CO2 is the control knob of the large climactic shifts in earth's history, how is that possible given that we see abrupt temperature declines when CO2 levels reach their highest levels over the past 400,000 years?