Worldwide CO2 Concentrations have Surpassed 410 Parts Per Million

a reply to: Phage

Volcanoes had been happily pumping out CO2 for hundreds of thousands of years without changing CO2 levels much.

I'm not that good at math, 800 thousand is what percentage of 4.5 billion? I keep getting this very small number, like under 0.02 percent of the earths history

Can you tell me what the best estimates for C02 levels in the atmosphere, for an age more than just a tiny fraction of the earths history? I'll pick a number at random, 500 million years ago, C02 concentration in atmosphere?

I'm not saying that volcanoes are responsible for the rise in the C02 levels, don't put that on me.

Is isotopic fingerprinting so good that it rules out outgassing from the oceans themselves due to a rise in temperatures?

a reply to: NorthernLites

I'm not that good at math, 800 thousand is what percentage of 4.5 billion?

Doesn't matter. Humans have only been around for about 250,000 and burning fossil fuels for something over 100.

Is isotopic fingerprinting so good that it rules out outgassing from the oceans themselves due to a rise in temperatures?

Not necessarily. But since oceanic CO2 levels are rising and not decreasing, that would not seem to be the case.

a reply to: Phage

Did you miss the question that was asked of you Phage?
This one...
Or maybe you cannot find the answer?

Can you tell me what the best estimates for C02 levels in the atmosphere, for an age more than just a tiny fraction of the earths history? I'll pick a number at random, 500 million years ago, C02 concentration in atmosphere?

a reply to: NorthernLites

Did you miss the question that was asked of you Phage?

The answer is readily available but it's irrelevant. There was no human civilization to be impacted (or humans for that matter) by a rapid rise in global temperatures.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: NorthernLites

Did you miss the question that was asked of you Phage?

No. It's irrelevant. There was no human civilization to be impacted (or humans for that matter).

The question is not irrelevant. The Liberal Alarmists bandy numbers around as if C02 levels are higher than any point in earths history. C02 levels have been MUCH MUCH higher, and I think you know this. The earth did not burst into flames and life got along just fine. Liberal alarmists deny the existence of this data, it is directly conflicts with their Gorian religion.

a reply to: NorthernLites

The Liberal Alarmists bandy numbers around as if C02 levels are higher than any point in earths history.

False. And climatologists certainly do not do so.

a reply to: Phage

But since oceanic CO2 levels are rising and not decreasing, that would not seem to be the case.

Wait, are you going to tell me that the oceans C02 levels are higher than they have been for 800.000 years, or to put it another way, 0.02 percent of the earths history? Where is your evidence for this?

Whats your opinion on this paper?

www.pnas.org...

a reply to: NorthernLites

Wait, are you going to tell me that the oceans C02 levels are higher than they have been for 800.000 years, or to put it another way, 0.02 percent of the earths history?

I made no such statement about oceanic CO2 levels. But again, there were no humans influencing CO2 levels until very recently so to speak of "the Earth's history" in this context is specious.

Whats your opinion on this paper?

I think that it says that oceans are absorbing anthropogenic CO2.

The Atlantic Ocean is the most important CO 2 sink, providing about 60% of the global ocean uptake, while the Pacific Ocean is neutral because of its equatorial source flux being balanced by the sink flux of the temperate oceans. The Indian and Southern Oceans take up about 20% each.

Measurements of the atmospheric CO 2 concentration indicate that it has been increasing at a rate about 50% of that which is expected from all industrial CO 2 emissions. The oceans have been considered to be a major sink for CO 2 . Hence the improved knowledge of the net transport flux across the air–sea interface is important for understanding the fate of this important greenhouse gas emitted into the earth’s atmosphere.

www.pnas.org...


But that paper is 20 years old. Here's a more recent one. I think it says the same thing. What do you think?
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

How about this one?
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

a reply to: Phage

Why don't you start making statements about the history of the earth itself with relation to C02 in the atmosphere?

I will tell you why, because it busts your narrative all to hell, you are nothing but a liberal alarmist Phage, an educated one with answers. That makes you nothing more than a propagandist Phage, carry on, you do truth a service, people will see right thru your agenda, keep going bro, you are the best thing that ever happened to science..

Just a guy that has answers to bend it all to his side... Russians were paid to sway the election, you do it out of the goodness of your heart and the willingness of your masters to reward you.

*snip*

a reply to: NorthernLites

Why don't you start making statements about the history of the earth itself with relation to C02 in the atmosphere?

Because that's not the topic. The topic is the human impact on CO2 concentrations. Humans didn't have any effect until quite recently, in geologic terms.

Feel free to start a thread on the geological history of CO2 levels.

a reply to: Phage

I think that it says that oceans are absorbing anthropogenic CO2.

That sounds like a good thing to me.

Oceans absorb the excess CO2.
Oceanic plant life uses the CO2 (carbonic acid) to grow faster.
Fish populations that eat the oceanic plants increase.
Fish become more abundant.
The price of fish goes down.
I like fish!

Don't you like fish?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I like fish. I like catching them and I like eating them.

Coral reefs don't like warm water or decreased pH levels though, and a good amount of ocean ecology depends upon coral reefs. It certainly does in my neck of the woods.

As far as phytoplankton goes, the results are mixed but as on land, the changes could be dramatic and not necessarily good.

“Normally, over evolutionary time, things come to a stable point where multiple species can live together,” Dutkiewicz says. “But if one of them gets a boost, even though the other might get a boost, but not as big, it might get outcompeted. So you might get whole species just disappearing because responses are slightly different.”

Dutkiewicz says shifting competition at the plankton level may have big ramifications further up in the food chain.

Us fish eaters are part of that food chain.
news.mit.edu...

a reply to: buddha

what happens when there is 16 mil people?

i asked a stupid question to the wrong person.

a reply to: MarlbBlack

As I said, I did not say anything about oceanic CO2 levels 800,000 years ago. I was talking about atmospheric CO2 levels. And the way we know that is because we have actual samples of the atmosphere from 800,000 years ago.

cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov...

a reply to: Phage

dang ur quick hope you are having a good night, i didn't mean what i did i read through the thread again. I just feel strange when planetary information is brought into it when no one has any clues of 2000 years ago.

yes we can study bedrock (or whatever rock you want to look at lol) I;m like you just a lot dumber looking for answers.

a reply to: MarlbBlack

There are plenty of clues, many of which are beyond my knowledge of chemistry to fully grasp. But the ice core samples are straight forward. They are actual samples (not clues) of the atmosphere showing a continuous timeline of 800,000 years. It is quite awesome, actually.

a reply to: Phage

You ever read the ASTM procedure for determining the C02 level in ice cores? I didn't think so, cause there isn't one... It's a fly by nite, do what you want, collect your own data kinda approach. Do me a favor and dig up the procedure and read it, see what you think. I have, not impressed. Sweep gas at 280 ppm does the test a disservice. Until there is a proper ASTM procedure, all of those numbers are JUNK.

a reply to: NorthernLites

I'm not sure what testing of consumer goods and services has to do with climatology. Do they also govern data from interplanetary probes or is that bogus too?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: NorthernLites

I'm not sure what testing of consumer goods and services has to do with climatology. Do they also govern data from interplanetary probes or is that bogus too?

You ignorance is showing, ASTM standards are not just for consumer goods and services. Maybe take a few minutes and do some research, being the enlightened one on ATS means you shouldn't make yourself look so foolish to those in the know.