Atmospheric CO2 levels have reportedly surpassed 415 parts per million

[wiyosaya]

The mini ice age was caused by an asteroid impact, and it basically ****ed up the planets climate for a couple of years. Ultimately, that was transitory.

Uh, no, the mini ice age was not caused by an asteroid impact. It was caused by a volcanic caldera. https://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html

Everything so far in this thread is not all that hard to look up, yet it seems so many in this thread are so willing to ingest and digest the abject they are fed from others that have nothing other than a profitable agenda to pursue, or a propensity to pretend that they know what they are talking about when in reality, what they know is just abject

 

[wiyosaya]

So you are saying they were lying to us back then, yet are telling us the truth now? My point is the evidence is very sketchy and seems over the years people have changed the definition so many times it sounds like the boy who cried wolf. How about the good from co2 in the atmosphere. The rain forests can grow much faster and wider than ever with higher levels of co2 and ozone.

https://www.masterresource.org/positive-externalities-climate-change/co2-positive-social-cost/

"Warmth, and more moisture and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere provide ideal growing conditions for the green world. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is replenished mainly from warming oceans but also from termites, volcanoes and exhaling animals, assisted by about a 3% contribution from burning carbon fuels."

Dude, what is it? You are citing an almost certainly right-wing biased source from the petroleum industry and you think that is valid?

 

[Robertrogue]

Dude, what is it? You are citing an almost certainly right-wing biased source from the petroleum industry and you think that is valid?

If you actually take in account of the actual temperature decreases and increases over the last 5000 years, (actual data) there have been 78 swings in the earths temperature and most significant changes were not caused by cars, electric plants, or man made chemicals. If we literally remove all man made causes for 100 years and get everything back to 1700 numbers, one major volcano or one opening of a fault line anywhere in the world could eliminate all the fix. I think it is funny that humans think so highly of themselves to think they are the problem and the fix. That is truly narcissistic and very egotistical. If you believe all the propaganda and the flawed science then you have to believe everything. I don't believe everything I question everything!!

 

[Uncle Al]

"...impaired human cognitive function". Well I think that pretty much nails it in right there doesn't it? Isn't that an exact description of our current world?

All kidding aside how the hell does anyone claim "highest level ever" or "lowest level ever" crap and get away with it? Getting accurate readings and recording them accurately are only things we have recently become good at. We don't really KNOW this information except for in the past 50-100 years or so. All this tech to take readings isn't always accurate, and certainly wasn't more than 100 years ago. So to make these sort of claims sounds like scare-tactic BS to me.

Don't get me wrong here, I think we should do absolutely everything in our power to reduce and eliminate pollution but to make grandiose claims in an effort seems a shady, unethical tactic. In the end these efforts are often nullified anyway by human greed and corruption. And due to our greed and corruption no one can believe a damn thing anyone says without doing the testing themselves.

Now Tesla, com'on and hurry up! Save the world!

Perhaps you are not aware of the studies of geology, specifically those studies of ice core samples taken at the poles. They have accurately calculated this and a number of important specific's over a period far in excess of 1,000 years. The data doesn't lie, only those that would want us to believe differently. Not unlike the truthers, anti-vax, anti-moon walk, the president and other professional liars.

 

[amstech]

Bring back Captain Planet.

 

[wiyosaya]

If you actually take in account of the actual temperature decreases and increases over the last 5000 years, (actual data) there have been 78 swings in the earths temperature and most significant changes were not caused by cars, electric plants, or man made chemicals. If we literally remove all man made causes for 100 years and get everything back to 1700 numbers, one major volcano or one opening of a fault line anywhere in the world could eliminate all the fix. I think it is funny that humans think so highly of themselves to think they are the problem and the fix. That is truly narcissistic and very egotistical. If you believe all the propaganda and the flawed science then you have to believe everything. I don't believe everything I question everything!!

There is a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone. —Rod Serling

 

[wiyosaya]

I think it is funny that humans think so highly of themselves to think they are the problem and the fix. That is truly narcissistic and very egotistical. If you believe all the propaganda and the flawed science then you have to believe everything. I don't believe everything I question everything!!

So are you expecting some all-powerful being to swoop in and save the day?

Go anywhere, even any place where no human has ever set foot and you will find industrial pollution. Tell me that is not indicative of a problem.

Or how about just reading this and then tell me that there are no cases where humanity has been the problem and the fix. http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/72771.html

My apologies if you think that nothing can be done.

“If you assume that there is no hope, you guarantee that there will be no hope. If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, that there are opportunities to change things, then there is a possibility that you can contribute to making a better world.”

― Noam Chomsky

 

[Danny101]

Problem is science has gone past pure truth these days and seems that conclusions are often based on who's paying for it. So how can we trust what is being said, if it's also political?

 

[netman]

When it gets to 600 ppm, it would be unhealthy for humans...

 

[gamerk2]

Uh, no, the mini ice age was not caused by an asteroid impact. It was caused by a volcanic caldera. https://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html

Everything so far in this thread is not all that hard to look up, yet it seems so many in this thread are so willing to ingest and digest the abject they are fed from others that have nothing other than a profitable agenda to pursue, or a propensity to pretend that they know what they are talking about when in reality, what they know is just abject

Your information is old; there was an article about a month ago that indicated an asteroid impact at about the same time as the mini-ice age started.

That being said, I wouldn't be shocked if multiple-independent systems (impact, volcanism, etc) all played a part.

 

[gamerk2]

If you actually take in account of the actual temperature decreases and increases over the last 5000 years, (actual data) there have been 78 swings in the earths temperature and most significant changes were not caused by cars, electric plants, or man made chemicals. If we literally remove all man made causes for 100 years and get everything back to 1700 numbers, one major volcano or one opening of a fault line anywhere in the world could eliminate all the fix. I think it is funny that humans think so highly of themselves to think they are the problem and the fix. That is truly narcissistic and very egotistical. If you believe all the propaganda and the flawed science then you have to believe everything. I don't believe everything I question everything!!

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Highlights the timescales were talking here. Temperature levels over the past 10,000 years have been within +-1 degree Celcius of the average of the 60's-90's. Even a megavolcano wouldn't put a dent in global temperatures for more then a handful of years.

Meanwhile, you ignore that Temperature and CO2 levels provably track eachother. You ignore the +150ppm of CO2 that has *magically* appeared in the atmosphere over the past 100 or so years, and has no correlation whatsoever with the warming trend we are currently seeing.

Yes, Earths temperature changes. NO ONE ARGUES THAT. But not at the rate of degrees per century; that is unprecedented. And even then, you argue that humans can't possibly be the problem because it's "egotistical", but where were you when acid rain was a thing? Or where cities were so pollution heavy that people literally died? Or when we literally made a massive hole in the earths ozone layer that took decades to close? Oh, but those never existed, and it's "egotistical" to argue we could impact the global environment in that way.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Problem is science has gone past pure truth these days and seems that conclusions are often based on who's paying for it. So how can we trust what is being said, if it's also political?

You make it sound like science is an opinion or something. It's not, so you may want to educate yourself on how science works instead of making it fit a preconceived idea. Science is a process.

The point of following the scientific process is to make predictions based on the conclusions of previous tests. And then test them to see if they match your predictions or not. It's a way of finding things out about the world around you.

Of course anyone can twist those conclusions any way they want but when they do that, they then make new predictions which can be tested and either pass or fail.

 

[wiyosaya]

Your information is old; there was an article about a month ago that indicated an asteroid impact at about the same time as the mini-ice age started.

That being said, I wouldn't be shocked if multiple-independent systems (impact, volcanism, etc) all played a part.

Do you have a link? Please post it, otherwise, your point is moot.

The only things I find are for an impact 13,000 years ago. Not for the mini ice age that started around 750 AD.

And there are lots of articles out there that say a strike could cause a mini ice age; that has been known for a while.

 

[Lew Zealand]

And by the way, any logical arguments about one side or the other here will convince nobody. Despite personal claims that people have an open mind, they actually have already made up their minds and then use their preferred data to prop up their opinion.

The problem is not a lack of data, it's a lack of understanding the process of obtaining that data. And if you don't understand the process then you see it as a black box and mistrust it. Hard to fix that willful ignorance.

 

[wiyosaya]

Problem is science has gone past pure truth these days and seems that conclusions are often based on who's paying for it. So how can we trust what is being said, if it's also political?

Well, that is where your BS detector comes in. Most times, anything that is politicized has political origins such as this. https://www.masterresource.org/positive-externalities-climate-change/co2-positive-social-cost/ The author, in this case, used to work for the Cato institute. A little research into a source goes a long way.

Other indicators something is politicized is when it is contradictory to consensus in science.

That said, science views nothing as an absolute and leaves plenty of room for greater understanding as time goes on. There are scientists on top of scientists that review each others' work and there have been recent cases where material was published and then caught by other scientists reviewing that work. That is how science works. Developing an understanding and then deepening that understanding is the basis of science.

 

[Robertrogue]

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Highlights the timescales were talking here. Temperature levels over the past 10,000 years have been within +-1 degree Celcius of the average of the 60's-90's. Even a megavolcano wouldn't put a dent in global temperatures for more then a handful of years.

Meanwhile, you ignore that Temperature and CO2 levels provably track eachother. You ignore the +150ppm of CO2 that has *magically* appeared in the atmosphere over the past 100 or so years, and has no correlation whatsoever with the warming trend we are currently seeing.

Yes, Earths temperature changes. NO ONE ARGUES THAT. But not at the rate of degrees per century; that is unprecedented. And even then, you argue that humans can't possibly be the problem because it's "egotistical", but where were you when acid rain was a thing? Or where cities were so pollution heavy that people literally died? Or when we literally made a massive hole in the earths ozone layer that took decades to close? Oh, but those never existed, and it's "egotistical" to argue we could impact the global environment in that way.

Sorry, I do not think that humans are the only cause, coincidentally there happens to be a natural warming of the planet at this time. Maybe 1 degree or even 3 degrees average. The last 800000 years this has been the norm about every 600 to 900 years some were about 1500 years apart. Just like every other part of nature it is part of life, money and less "co2" is not going to change anything. One house fire emits more than 10,000 cars worth of co2 in that short time period than the cars in a month. I can pull up timelines too, see;
http://www.perceptions.couk.com/glacials.html

I know that the ice cores are great for the info from the past, however, you have to assume several key factors that are completely unknown because there is no source to dispute or confirm the findings, only theory and hypothesizes. even "carbon dating" is inaccurate. So still, I will not fall for the money grabbing of the left and their "climate change" bologna. Have a wonderful day. Also, remember, facts are only factual when substantiated by facts proven to be factual and all research can be proven or disproved by researchers paid by the people wanting their belief to be proven.

 

[Lew Zealand]

I went to a single link from that website and the information there said the opposite of what that website is claiming. And that link was to a newsmedia report, not even a scientific journal.

What a useless website. A bunch of context-free graphs with unlabeled axes and misleading links interspersed with verbal diarrhea.

 

[Robertrogue]

I went to a single link from that website and the information there said the opposite of what that website is claiming. And that link was to a newsmedia report, not even a scientific journal.

What a useless website. A bunch of context-free graphs with unlabeled axes and misleading links interspersed with verbal diarrhea.

You still don’t get it, you are only seeing what you want. Anyway, my point has been expressed.

 

[Lew Zealand]

You still don’t get it, you are only seeing what you want. Anyway, my point has been expressed.

Who's not getting it, now?

I went to the website you linked.
I followed a link, which had a short claim attached to it, from your website to another
I read the article.
That article said the *opposite* of what your website is claiming.

So the first piece of data I tried to follow was wrong or intentionally misleading. I then opened the first graph on the site as an image so I could look more closely and the vertical axis is not labeled. And it contains multiple cites, as opposed to the single cite from the article from which it was taken.

My conclusion based on this is that website exists to spam with enough bogus claims or data to at least confuse people. And confusion is all that climate deniers need.

 

[Robertrogue]

Who's not getting it, now?

I went to the website you linked.
I followed a link, which had a short claim attached to it, from your website to another
I read the article.
That article said the *opposite* of what your website is claiming.

So the first piece of data I tried to follow was wrong or intentionally misleading. I then opened the first graph on the site as an image so I could look more closely and the vertical axis is not labeled. And it contains multiple cites, as opposed to the single cite from the article from which it was taken.

My conclusion based on this is that website exists to spam with enough bogus claims or data to at least confuse people. And confusion is all that climate deniers need.

I said, there is no concrete evidence proving global warming!! No one can prove it because all the science involve and studies done have to “assume” and theorize what the temps and co2 levels were a thousand years ago! So anyone can prove and disprove any statistics and /or information because all the scientists agree they are “assuming” what they are calculating and seeing is what it is. You can pull into from multiple sites and if you dig deep enough you will se it is perceived and if you want to see a rabbit in the clouds if you look hard enough and long enough there will be a rabbit.

 

[Lew Zealand]

I said, there is no concrete evidence proving global warming!! No one can prove it because all the science involve and studies done have to “assume” and theorize what the temps and co2 levels were a thousand years ago! So anyone can prove and disprove any statistics and /or information because all the scientists agree they are “assuming” what they are calculating and seeing is what it is. You can pull into from multiple sites and if you dig deep enough you will se it is perceived and if you want to see a rabbit in the clouds if you look hard enough and long enough there will be a rabbit.

Dude, chill. No need to yell.

The evidence for temps and CO2 levels a thousand years ago are based on scientific principles which are proven every day in many *other* uses and tests, not just related to atmospheric phenomena like CO2 levels.

You choose not to believe the consensus of 97% of climate scientists because you have already come to a conclusion of your choice. As a comparison, I am interested in what's actually happening in the atmosphere, not in having "the answer" or the "right" opinion. The world will move on and do its thing in complete ignorance of my opinion and yours.

I am interested in why things are happening the way they are right now and if the consensus of people actually working on the problem comes to a conclusion, it is reasonable to believe what they're saying. Does that make sense? I don't go to my doctor to get my transmission fixed, I go to my mechanic. Likewise, I don't get information about climate change from some pseudoscience website which doesn't actually publish any science. I read articles from the scientists actually doing the work.

 

[wiyosaya]

I said, there is no concrete evidence proving global warming!! No one can prove it because all the science involve and studies done have to “assume” and theorize what the temps and co2 levels were a thousand years ago! So anyone can prove and disprove any statistics and /or information because all the scientists agree they are “assuming” what they are calculating and seeing is what it is. You can pull into from multiple sites and if you dig deep enough you will se it is perceived and if you want to see a rabbit in the clouds if you look hard enough and long enough there will be a rabbit.

You may think that there are assumptions made, however, the process is founded in scientific theory. If you care to educate yourself, here is some detail on how it is done - http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/

 

[Danny101]

There are two other processes that can affect temperatures of the earth. Has climatologists even factored these in addition to Co2? The Sun and it's cycles, including the axis wobble. When the earth orbits the sun, the northern hemisphere is closest to the sun during the winter and farthest during the summer. The northern hemisphere therefore has less of a swing in temperatures than the southern does. This is why it's colder in the antarctic during their winters and hotter in Australia during their summers. But the tilt cycle continues and at some point, the switch will be made. To me, all seasons seem to be occurring sooner each year.

 

[Lew Zealand]

There are way more than just 2 other processes which contribute to the CO2 or general thermal load in the atmosphere. And yes, climatologists do consider everything including things you may not have heard of. Like thawing tundra and cow farts (OK everyone knows that one) and concrete manufacture and cooling due to increased cloud cover. The list goes on and on. What would be the point of ignoring certain things while considering others? That would just make a worse model from which even fewer conclusions can be made.

 

[Ultraman1966]

Riveting. Utterly riveting. CO2 levels have surpassed 415 ppm. Wow. Think about it guys. 415 ppm is 1 ppm higher than 414 ppm. Holy Hell... Soon it'll reach 417 ppm and the author will be obliged to throw in a pic of a nuke going off.

Just because something is low in absolute numbers to what you're used to does not mean that it is ineffective. Something doesn't need to change hugely to have detrimental effect; Carbon dioxide has strong thermal forcing properties and a long atmospheric lifetime. Even if we ignore this, its absorption by the oceans is literally changing the pH of the oceans. FYI, the oceans are where the majority of life on earth inhabits and gives us the most oxygen.