CO2

[Peter M]

Past earth climate change or cycles have been largely predicated with C02 levels.

C0 levels throughout the Holocene have been very stable- around 285ppm- in the last century or so they have risen 100ppm to 390ppm.Past earth climate change- which some say is natural- it is however still based on carbon forcings.

For example the PETM

The most extreme change in Earth surface conditions during the Cenozoic began at the temporal boundary between the Paleocene and Eocene 56 million years ago. This event, the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, alternatively "Eocene thermal maximum 1" (ETM1), and formerly known as the "Initial Eocene" or "Late Paleocene Thermal Maximum",^[/url] was associated with rapid (in geological terms) Climate change/global warming, profound changes in ecosystems, and major perturbations in the CARBON CYCLE

Average global temperatures increased by ~6°C (11°F) within about 20,000 years. This is based on several lines of evidence; a prominent negative excursion in the carbon isotope composition,

of carbon-bearing phases characterizes the PETM in numerous widespread locations from a range of environments. Second, carbonate dissolution marks the PETM in sections from the deep-sea. With available information, estimates of the carbon addition range from about 2500 to over 6800 gigatons released.

The amount of methane released was also large- which added to the 6 degree rise- over a period of 20,000 years- when the C02 level reached 1000ppm- today we could see C02 reach 600ppm by mid century, and 900pmm by 2100- a vastly quicker time span.

[BethesdaWX]

Not really. Our current temperature is actually COLD for an interglacial....Notice that earlier in this same interglacial, temperatures reached 2C warmer than our current temp.

Its all a natural flux, you don't need to cum yourself over nothing. relax.

[Peter M]

Not really. Our current temperature is actually COLD for an interglacial....Notice that earlier in this same interglacial, temperatures reached 2C warmer than our current temp.

Its all a natural flux, you don't need to cum yourself over nothing. relax.

[Peter M]

And I should believe you right- and your nonsensical graph, right? Or should I believe what the many eminent t scientists from NOAA, NASA (Dr. Hansen) as well as the national academy of sciences are saying- the choice is a no brainer.

[skierinvermont]

Past earth climate change or cycles have been largely predicated with C02 levels.

C0 levels throughout the Holocene have been very stable- around 285ppm- in the last century or so they have risen 100ppm to 390ppm.Past earth climate change- which some say is natural- it is however still based on carbon forcings.

For example the PETM

The most extreme change in Earth surface conditions during the Cenozoic began at the temporal boundary between the Paleocene and Eocene 56 million years ago. This event, the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, alternatively "Eocene thermal maximum 1" (ETM1), and formerly known as the "Initial Eocene" or "Late Paleocene Thermal Maximum", was associated with rapid (in geological terms) Climate change/global warming, profound changes in ecosystems, and major perturbations in the CARBON CYCLE

Average global temperatures increased by ~6°C (11°F) within about 20,000 years. This is based on several lines of evidence; a prominent negative excursion in the carbon isotope composition,

of carbon-bearing phases characterizes the PETM in numerous widespread locations from a range of environments. Second, carbonate dissolution marks the PETM in sections from the deep-sea. With available information, estimates of the carbon addition range from about 2500 to over 6800 gigatons released.

The amount of methane released was also large- which added to the 6 degree rise- over a period of 20,000 years- when the C02 level reached 1000ppm- today we could see C02 reach 600ppm by mid century, and 900pmm by 2100- a vastly quicker time span.

Yep I have read elsewhere that the PETM is a classic example of CO2 induced warming. The problem with the interglacials is that they were not induced by CO2, they were simply magnified by it so it is hard to deduce cause and effect (ignoring the fact that physics says both CO2 and Milankovich cycles were causative). But the PETM, on the other hand, was actually induced by a disruption to the carbon cycle which caused rapid warming.

[skierinvermont]

Not really. Our current temperature is actually COLD for an interglacial....Notice that earlier in this same interglacial, temperatures reached 2C warmer than our current temp.

Its all a natural flux, you don't need to cum yourself over nothing. relax.

This graph does not have the resolution to show the last 10,000 years in detail. If it did, you would see that current temperatures are near the warmest of the current interglacial.

It's a good thing that the current interglacial is 1-2C cooler than past interglacials, because those interglacials had sea levels 20-50+ meters higher than present. Unfortunately, we will surpass those interglacials in warmth within the next 100 years.

[BethesdaWX]

This graph does not have the resolution to show the last 10,000 years in detail. If it did, you would see that current temperatures are near the warmest of the current interglacial.

It's a good thing that the current interglacial is 1-2C cooler than past interglacials, because those interglacials had sea levels 20-50+ meters higher than present. Unfortunately, we will surpass those interglacials in warmth within the next 100 years.

Unfortunately, your argument makes no sense.

If the resolution were higher, you'd see even MORE peaks...and MORE drops. The fact that it is picking up on the warm spike during the RWP with a low resolution, only makes my argument stronger.

So thankyou

[skierinvermont]

Here is a graph that accurately represents the past 10,000 years. As you can see, it in no way resembles the one Bethesda posted which was designed to illustrate the last several 100,000 years, not 10,000.

[BethesdaWX]

Here is a graph that accurately represents the past 10,000 years. As you can see, it in no way resembles the one Bethesda posted which was designed to illustrate the last several 100,000 years, not 10,000.

Who says this is more accurate that Ice core data?!?!?

LMFAO!

[skierinvermont]

The graph I posted is ice core data. But go ahead and continue to entertain us with your childish antics.

The only difference is my graph was designed to illustrate more precisely and accurately changes over the last 10,000 years, while your graph was created to illustrate the last .5 million.

[BethesdaWX]

The graph I posted is ice core data. But go ahead and continue to entertain us with your childish antics.

The only difference is my graph was designed to illustrate more precisely and accurately changes over the last 10,000 years, while your graph was created to illustrate the last .5 million.

How about you try posting a source with the actual information? The "hockeystick" of the 20th century warming has been debunked several times over. Do I have to go into that again? I hope not to confuse you again.

Sure, lets just disregard the higher treelines & lower ice-caps only 1000 years ago.......you have yet to refute this. It is documented in hundreds of peer reviewed articles, that all around the world, sometime between the years 550AD to 1350AD, Ice caps were smaller on both poles, treelines were higher globally, and Arctic Summers were often somewhat ice free....viking expeditions into the arctic were rarely hindered by ice.

Be sure not to confuse "regional" differences in peak warming of the period, as it is sure to differ.

[Clifford]

One thing that you find is that while CO₂ changes more or less follow the temperature upswings, the CO₂ levels don't track well with the temperature downturns. So, while the temperature plummets by 5-10°C, the CO₂ seems to remain high for a couple of thousand years.

Here is the Wikipedia graph of the absorption/transmittance of Atmospheric gasses under the primary Earth Spectrum, and primary Solar Spectrum.

Somewhere between 14 and 16μm is the primary CO₂ absorption spectrum.

Earth's primary IR Emission Window between CO₂ and Water Vapor's absorption is between 8 and 14μm.

Methane has a small peak in the "window". Thus, at high concentrations, it could cause a problem. However, it is dwarfed by the influence of water.

Water, however, will also block both incoming and outgoing light in vapor form. In solid and liquid form, it refracts and scatters the light, so its impact on cloudy days is likely far greater than shown, both keeping the sunlight out, and keeping the heat in.