CO2 gas is our friend, not our enemy

[Koovie]

I beg to differ. CO2 level 5 million years ago was about 415 ppm. Temperature back then was much hotter.

Yes. So? The climate does not change as fast as day and night. It takes time. And we can already measure that.

The time you are talking about, the Pliocene is often used to predict what will happen if CO2 in the future:

During the Pliocene sea level was over 20 m higher than today! Global temperature was around 3°C warmer and the ice covering substantially lower than today.

Now again, whether thats good or bad depends on the PoV. But I guess your brain can make the necessary illustrations on such a world. Just remember: Most of humanity lives at the shores, billions rely on glacial waters, desertification will mean that living space gets even more cramped and endangered etc etc etc.

Humans have never experiences such a world because there were no humans back then!

But remember, the hotter, the more CO2 in the air as the ocean out gasses. Think of the CO2 in your coke bottle. When you open the bottle, the coke becomes warmer and CO2 blows right out of the bottle. The higher the temperature, the less CO2 in the ocean, the less ocean acid level, the more CO2 in the air.

Ok. Thanks for the insight into the equilibrium distribution of CO2 between water and the atmosphere. Please dont forget next time to tell us what exactly you are trying to convey with that.

The optimum CO2 level should be about 1000 ppm. At this level, animals are not harmed and at the same time plant growth is significantly boosted.

1000 ppm?! Do you realize that there would be almost no ice on the Earth? That the sea level would be so high that most habitats of humans would be not habitable at all?

Seriously WTF

You just lost your last drop of credibility with that....

 

[Maarkhoor]

@WAJsal @Akheilos @Zibago @Jonah Arthur @Imran Khan

 

[Imran Khan]

well i am confused now a days

 

[ultron]

1000 ppm?! Do you realize that there would be almost no ice on the Earth? That the sea level would be so high that most habitats of humans would be not habitable at all?

That's bull. 1000 ppm is only 0.1%. For there to be no ice CO2 would have to be at 100,000 ppm at least. For every doubling of CO2, temperature goes up by 1 C.

CO2 is great at following changes in temperature, not the other way around. Remember this chart? That's what I'm talking about If CO2 affects temperature like Al Gore says, we'd be like 40 C by now

During the Pliocene sea level was over 20 m higher than today! Global temperature was around 3°C warmer and the ice covering substantially lower than today.

CO2 level was 415 ppm back then because temperature was 3 C warmer than now, not the other way around.

 

[Koovie]

That's bull. 1000 ppm is only 0.1%. For there to be no ice CO2 would have to be at 10,000 ppm at least. For every doubling of CO2, temperature goes up by 1 C.

10,000 ppm ?!
Please stahp! You making me laugh so hard now...
Your knowledge is BS. Prove it first.

 

[ultron]

10,000 ppm ?!
Please stahp! You making me laugh so hard now...
Your knowledge is BS. Prove it first.

Ye. Gore sure knows his science. NOT

 

[Koovie]

Ye. Gore sure knows his science. NOT

Spare me that stuff for now and start posting actual science please. I dont understand what you re trying to prove with these YT videos. Who is that man anyways?

Now... you said the that the CO2 concentration has to go up to 10,000 ppm (Which already shows me that you have no fu**ing clue about this topic ). Strangely such concentrations have not been recorded since the Cambrian explosion:

If your research shows something else, feel free to publish it



Now to the ice:

The polar regions have not always been in a frozen state like today and sea level changed in dependence to that.

During the Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum (around 50 ma ago) for example most of the polar regions were not frozen.
"We show that sea surface temperatures near the North Pole increased from ~18°C to over 23°C during this event. Such warm values imply the absence of ice and thus exclude the influence of ice-albedo feedbacks on this Arctic warming."

From a paper published in Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7093/full/nature04668.html

Now to the effects of CO2:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas:
"A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect."

As shown in the chart above, CO2 concentrations dont have to be high (in a relative sense) to affect the climate.



Now CO2 is in a dynamic equilibrium state (Between water and the atmosphere). Your statements concerning the correlation between CO2 and the climate are mixed up and lack understanding beyond reason.

Again, if you are so sure with your results, why dont you publish them genius? After all your findings would contradict 99% of the scientific community

Here are two of hundreds of papers saying the basic thing:
"Greenhouse gases (GHGs) warm the surface and the atmosphere with significant implications for rainfall, retreat of glaciers and sea ice, sea level, among other factors." Air pollution, greenhouse gases and climate change: Global and regional perspectives

Or this one: " recent assessment of the results produced by atmospheric general circulation models indicates that the globally averaged surface air temperature could increase by 1.5° to 4.5° C in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2." http://nature.berkeley.edu/biometlab/espm298/Sellers et al. 1996 Science.pdf

 

[ultron]

Spare me that stuff for now and start posting actual science please. I dont understand what you re trying to prove with these YT videos. Who is that man anyways?

Now... you said the that the CO2 concentration has to go up to 10,000 ppm (Which already shows me that you have no fu**ing clue about this topic ). Strangely such concentrations have not been recorded since the Cambrian explosion:

If your research shows something else, feel free to publish it



Now to the ice:

The polar regions have not always been in a frozen state like today and sea level changed in dependence to that.

During the Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum (around 50 ma ago) for example most of the polar regions were not frozen.
"We show that sea surface temperatures near the North Pole increased from ~18°C to over 23°C during this event. Such warm values imply the absence of ice and thus exclude the influence of ice-albedo feedbacks on this Arctic warming."

From a paper published in Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7093/full/nature04668.html

Now to the effects of CO2:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas:
"A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect."

As shown in the chart above, CO2 concentrations dont have to be high (in a relative sense) to affect the climate.



Now CO2 is in a dynamic equilibrium state (Between water and the atmosphere). Your statements concerning the correlation between CO2 and the climate are mixed up and lack understanding beyond reason.

Again, if you are so sure with your results, why dont you publish them genius? After all your findings would contradict 99% of the scientific community

Here are two of hundreds of papers saying the basic thing:
"Greenhouse gases (GHGs) warm the surface and the atmosphere with significant implications for rainfall, retreat of glaciers and sea ice, sea level, among other factors." Air pollution, greenhouse gases and climate change: Global and regional perspectives

Or this one: " recent assessment of the results produced by atmospheric general circulation models indicates that the globally averaged surface air temperature could increase by 1.5° to 4.5° C in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2." http://nature.berkeley.edu/biometlab/espm298/Sellers et al. 1996 Science.pdf

NObody knows what CO2 level was hundreds of millions of years ago. 5 million years ago it was about 415 ppm.

 

[Koovie]

NObody knows what CO2 level was hundreds of millions of years ago..

There is a field of science called geology. Frantically dismissing it without ANY proof shows (ONCE AGAIN) that you have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about my friend.

 

[ultron]

There is a field of science called geology. Frantically dismissing it without ANY proof shows (ONCE AGAIN) that you have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about my friend.

Anyone who thinks he knows CO2 level hundreds of millions of years ago is full of it.

 

[Koovie]

Anyone who thinks he knows CO2 level hundreds of millions of years ago is full of it.

The more you talk, the more you expose your level of ignorance my friend.

We can reconstruct the atmospheric CO2 levels of the past with C isotopes of the respective sediment layer.

 

[egodoc222]

Sarcasm?

Tell me why people are dying left and right in China's capital and here and there in Los Angeles?

You need to learn the difference between air pollution and global warming....
People are dying there because of inhaling toxic fumes or drinking contaminated water....but not because their @sses are on fire(global warming)

As they say, the dose makes the poison.

Of course: CO2 is a crucial ingredient for life on Earth! Without it, the temperatures would be too cool and throughout the geological history the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have gone up above 800 ppm (Todays level is 400ppm). Problem is that during those periods, the Earths climate was much warmer than todays with the obvious consequences for the poles, the sea level etc etc etc...

Whether thats bad or not depends on the perspective, but from our point of view its obviously bad. Most of humanity lives close to the sea, glaciers provide the drinking water for hundred of millions, desertification will threaten millions, complex and vulnerable cycles are at risk etc etc etc

The man in the video totally ignores these facts. And no wonder people like him are laughed at within the scientific community.





Your education was a hoax too it seems.

So what do you think is the reason for earth going past the last ice age....cavemen making fire?

 

[Skull and Bones]

CO2 levels should be stabilized at around 300 ppm, this pseudoscience of non correlation of CO2 with temperature is funded by big oil corporations, just like they promoted lead is safe for kids back in the 50s.

 

[Koovie]

So what do you think is the reason for earth going past the last ice age....cavemen making fire?

Actually the ice age isnt over. We still have vast areas covered in permanent snow.

And reasons for the constantly changing climate are immense and many:
-Plate tectonics=> Volcanoes releasing gases and particles, continental movements closing and opening circulations in the ocean (Like El Nino), Ocean to continent "ratio" (I just made up that term) has an effect of the climate etc etc etc
- Ice reflects sunlight (=albedo)
- Flora and fauna have profound effects of atmospheric composition
etc etc etc

The factors are many as you see.

 

[egodoc222]

Actually the ice age isnt over. We still have vast areas covered in permanent snow.

And reasons for the constantly changing climate are immense and many:
-Plate tectonics=> Volcanoes releasing gases and particles, continental movements closing and opening circulations in the ocean (Like El Nino), Ocean to continent "ratio" (I just made up that term) has an effect of the climate etc etc etc
- Ice reflects sunlight (=albedo)
- Flora and fauna have profound effects of atmospheric composition
etc etc etc

The factors are many as you see.

Exactly....they are many factors....what ever humans do are too trivial to change the climatic system!!!

CO2 levels should be stabilized at around 300 ppm, this pseudoscience of non correlation of CO2 with temperature is funded by big oil corporations, just like they promoted lead is safe for kids back in the 50s.

You need to look up 'carbon cycle'!