Wow, a moron righty that can read! Amazing!
Now, how much has the level of CO2 gone up since the Industrial revolution?
Guess Who’s for a Carbon Tax Now
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
Wow, a moron righty that can read! Amazing!
Now, how much has the level of CO2 gone up since the Industrial revolution?
Off the top of my head, I believe its about 100ppm in the last 200 years.
I found this interesting... since we all know the data shows that co2 levels follow ocean temps.
Here is one possible explanation of how this works.
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well‑known but under‑appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2‑rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere.
Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.
Here is one possible explanation of how this works.
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well‑known but under‑appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2‑rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere.
Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.
And what is that in percentage? How much more CO2 is in the air now than there was two hundred years ago, in percentage.
I guess I have to answer myself. The answer is 40%.
Question to the deniers......
How can a 40% rise in an important greenhouse gas NOT cause warming? Is the brain of a right winger capable of rational thought and logic?
First of all your chart grafts instrument data onto proxy records.
Its all a bit speculative what the temps and levels were in that graph.
2. we were coming out of an ice age so of course co2 was low. for much of that time co2 was so low it almost choked off the plants... so we would have had fewer in the carbon cycle. Go back before that and you will see that our currently levels are not high compared to the whole geological record.
3. all the data shows co2 levels follow the warming oceans... so the question should be what is causing the oceans to warm.
I tell you this.. man made co2 is not causing the oceans to warm. its the sun the tides and the underground volcanoes and vents.
Its all a bit speculative what the temps and levels were in that graph.
2. we were coming out of an ice age so of course co2 was low. for much of that time co2 was so low it almost choked off the plants... so we would have had fewer in the carbon cycle. Go back before that and you will see that our currently levels are not high compared to the whole geological record.
3. all the data shows co2 levels follow the warming oceans... so the question should be what is causing the oceans to warm.
I tell you this.. man made co2 is not causing the oceans to warm. its the sun the tides and the underground volcanoes and vents.
I guess I have to answer myself. The answer is 40%.
Question to the deniers......
How can a 40% rise in an important greenhouse gas NOT cause warming? Is the brain of a right winger capable of rational thought and logic?
Anyone sane that is not an intellectually dishonest (lying) sack of shit lawyer want to answer? Ie NOT jerm?
Last edited:
name one lie you lying piece shit how dare you call me a liar. You have never pointed out one lie.
1. since if you moron leftist lying brain can see that the purple line is co2 levels. so you lied by calling me a liar... see the second chart below. there is your proof we are at historically low levels.
2. Now tell me... if the the data were not proxy data... who was using thermometers 1000 years ago. (so you lied again calling me a liar.)
3. you of course know were were coming out of glacial period or ice age 10,000 years ago. You would know this if you had a real degree in science. so you lied again.
4. and finally here is the proof that change in ocean temps lead change in co2 levels...
so don't ever call me a liar again you drone.... troll.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
Abstract
Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets; 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.
for once in your cheap life admit the truth.
You know change in co2 levels follows but lags change in ocean temps.
I have shown you the charts and the papers many times.
If that is a lie... I will stop posting...
1. since if you moron leftist lying brain can see that the purple line is co2 levels. so you lied by calling me a liar... see the second chart below. there is your proof we are at historically low levels.
2. Now tell me... if the the data were not proxy data... who was using thermometers 1000 years ago. (so you lied again calling me a liar.)
3. you of course know were were coming out of glacial period or ice age 10,000 years ago. You would know this if you had a real degree in science. so you lied again.
4. and finally here is the proof that change in ocean temps lead change in co2 levels...
so don't ever call me a liar again you drone.... troll.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
Abstract
Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets; 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.
for once in your cheap life admit the truth.
You know change in co2 levels follows but lags change in ocean temps.
I have shown you the charts and the papers many times.
If that is a lie... I will stop posting...
You don't listen jerm. I said...
Anyone sane that is not an intellectually dishonest (lying) sack of shit lawyer! Ie NOT jerm!
So take your insane gibberish elsewhere you lying sack of shit.
And no surprise, you didn't even come close to answering. BIG SURPRISE!!! LOL
Anyone sane that is not an intellectually dishonest (lying) sack of shit lawyer! Ie NOT jerm!
So take your insane gibberish elsewhere you lying sack of shit.
And no surprise, you didn't even come close to answering. BIG SURPRISE!!! LOL