REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Carbon dioxide, currently and through the millenia

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, May 17, 2013 13:33
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 750
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, May 17, 2013 8:38 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


OUr current carbon dioxide concentration- at 400 ppm- is well above the average for the past several hundred thousand years.



Scripps Institution of Oceanography estimates the last time the concentration was at least 400 ppm occurred 5 to 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene Epoch.

I tried looking up the Pliocene climate. Aside from the fact that the mean sea level was about 90-120 feet higher than today (say goodbye to a lot of coastal cities) and that it was hotter than today, there seem to be significant problems in understanding climate from millions of years ago.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 17, 2013 8:42 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Ouch.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 17, 2013 8:58 AM

BYTEMITE


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/12/21/205242/agu-richard-alley-e
xplains-biggest-control-knob-carbon-dioxide-in-earths-climate-history/?mobile=nc




There have been higher CO2 numbers in the distant past, but that does not mean the current increases aren't significant. I just want to be clear on that.

It should also be clear that CO2 levels are related to temperature and glaciation periods.

Lastly, what the close up view of the last 800,000 years indicates that this recent temperature increase and this CO2 increase is not part of a natural earth cycle.

Select quotes from the article:

Quote:

Q: If we burn all the available fossil fuel reserves, where do we get to? A: If you burn it all at once, there is some chance of getting above the cretaceous level, but lots of uncertainty, including how much reserves there really are. In a “burn it all” future, it’s likely to get really hot: +6 to 7C.

Q: We know if we stop emitting, it will slow down global warming. But from geology, what do we know about removal? A: Anything that increases weatherabilty of rocks. But seems unlikely that we can make it go fast enough to make a difference, at an economic level. Key question is how much energy we would we need to do it, e.g. to dig up shells from ocean bed and allow them to carbonate. It’s almost certainly easier to keep it out of the air than to take it out of the air.



In the broader view, science must avoid politics. But that does not mean there is not an issue, nor that there aren't things that can be done.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 17, 2013 9:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Of course. But those were eras in which most of our current ecosystem would die. And in the transition, which would be a bitch, humans would probably go extinct.

The earth will survive anything WE can do to it. But we may not. It's really up to use to decide how much trouble we want to make for ourselves.

If this were a spaceship, we would be taking far better care of it. Well, it IS a spaceship, it's just that people don't see it that way.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 17, 2013 9:17 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Of course. But those were eras in which most of our current ecosystem would die. And in the transition, which would be a bitch, humans would probably go extinct.


Well... Depends which era and how fast the change would be. Certainly early earth conditions are not survivable by modern lifeforms, but we're unlikely to ever get that high. Early Earth Carbon is trapped in the rock by a vast majority. Our carbon output from burning petroleum is unlikely to really exceed Cretaceous levels (as that was the time period in which a great deal of our fossil fuels were created under the ambient conditions). I guess the carboniferous could also be a consideration, if we fell back on coal after running out of petroleum. But that seems stupid even for us.

If a change is too fast for an ecosystem to adapt, it WILL die no matter that similar ecosystems survived higher temperatures and CO2. That's what the problem is, less so much the big numbers.

Quote:

The earth will survive anything WE can do to it. But we may not. It's really up to use to decide how much trouble we want to make for ourselves.

If this were a spaceship, we would be taking far better care of it. Well, it IS a spaceship, it's just that people don't see it that way.



Agreed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 17, 2013 9:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


And the change is very fast. For example, it took the Siberian Traps a half-million years to release the amount of carbon dioxide that we've released in 200 years.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 17, 2013 9:26 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And the change is very fast. For example, it took the Siberian Traps a half-million years to release the amount of carbon dioxide that we've released in 200 years.



Yes.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 17, 2013 1:03 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Our average global temp should be 150 degrees F.

Guess co2 ain't the driver of this global climate bus that some had believed.



Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 17, 2013 1:27 PM

BYTEMITE


150 F? Where are you getting that information from?

I find the graph about 400 million years of geologic strata data of glaciation periods combined with the CO2 levels extrapolated from the fossil record to be telling.

CO2 seems to be a greenhouse gas it seems to be related to temperature judging by the geological data. What is your counter argument?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 17, 2013 1:33 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


*related to * ?

Well, sure, there's some relation, but obviously isn't not the driving factor here.

And if you don't know I was joking about 150 degree F comment, then ... I don't know what else to tell you.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Kamala Harris for President
Tue, November 5, 2024 09:40 - 638 posts
Multiculturalism
Tue, November 5, 2024 08:22 - 52 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Tue, November 5, 2024 08:04 - 418 posts
More men contract and die from Covid-19
Tue, November 5, 2024 07:57 - 17 posts
Elon Musk
Tue, November 5, 2024 07:52 - 30 posts
All things Space
Tue, November 5, 2024 07:23 - 258 posts
Elections; 2024
Tue, November 5, 2024 06:48 - 4514 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Tue, November 5, 2024 06:17 - 7422 posts
South Korea
Tue, November 5, 2024 05:00 - 4 posts
Worst poll yet!
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:43 - 19 posts
Poll Shows Americans' Massive Disapproval Of Both Parties: "Now It's Just An Oligarchy"
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:36 - 24 posts
New CNN Poll Raises Eyebrows
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:32 - 10 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL