Atmospheric carbon to hit five-million-year record, marine expert warns

May 03, 2013

(Phys.org) —The Earth's atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) is about to rise to 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in five million years, a scientist at The University of Queensland warned today.

UQ Global Change Institute Director Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg said the record 400ppm level of was expected this week, according to readings at the US Government's Earth Systems Research Laboratory in Hawaii.

He said if current trends continued, atmospheric CO2 was expected to increase to more than 80 per cent above pre-industrial (pre-1750) levels by 2050 with the corresponding devastation to marine ecosystems like .

This rate of increase has few, if any, parallels in the past 50 million years.

From tropical to polar oceans, the magnitude and speed of the changes expected as a result of global warming and increasing ocean acidity is likely to exceed the ability of many to adapt and survive.

Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said the necessary transition to a low-carbon economy was not happening fast enough to have much effect on the problem of rapid anthropogenic .

"This is a really serious problem that demands immediate action," he said.

"There's a lot of evidence to suggest that we should stay well clear of the 450ppm or 2 degrees celcius guardrail set by the IPCC and other scientific organisations.

"But we are really underestimating the rate of change," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said.

"This week's milestone serves as an important wake-up call for policy-makers and industry to re-double their effort to deal with the planet-threatening problem of climate change."

The growing atmospheric concentrations of man-made greenhouse gases are driving irreversible and dramatic changes to the way marine ecosystems like coral reefs, function with potentially dire impacts for hundreds of millions of people across the planet.

The "fundamental and comprehensive" changes to marine environments, include rapidly-warming and acidifying oceans, changes in water circulation and oxygen levels.

These are driving major changes in marine ecosystems: less abundant coral reefs, sea grasses and mangroves (important fish nurseries); fewer, smaller fish; a breakdown in food chains; changes in the distribution of marine life; and more frequent diseases and pests among marine organisms.

Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said the cost of transforming the world's energy systems to address rising CO2 levels was little more than one-tenth of one per cent of growth in global gross domestic product per annum.

He cited an IPCC analysis (bit.ly/MDRl1U) which shows that slowing global GDP growth by 0.12 per cent a year over the next 50 years would stabilise global temperature.

"That expenditure is the equivalent to taking off one year of GDP growth over the next 50 years," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said.

"It would enable atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to stabilise at levels that will give , such as the Great Barrier Reef a chance.

"Without this action, they don't stand a chance.

"Rising sea surface temperatures, caused by increasing concentrations of , including CO2, in the atmosphere, increase the likelihood of mass bleaching events, which kill coral reefs.

"If the current trends of increasing levels continue the Great Barrier Reef will not exist.

"It's clear we have one last opportunity to make the changes needed to preserve this brilliant and economically-important ecosystem on our planet.

"And the costs are minimal when they compared to the huge and impossible costs of trying to adapt ecosystems, agriculture and the many other systems which support humanity."

Explore further: Australia set to pay polluters to cut emissions

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Price to save coral reefs is "one year of GDP growth"

Jul 08, 2012

(Phys.org) -- The cost of transforming the world’s energy systems to address rising carbon dioxide levels is little more than one-tenth of one per cent of growth in global gross domestic product per annum, according ...

New tactics needed to save oceans from CO2 emissions

Aug 20, 2012

(Phys.org) -- A University of Queensland scientist is involved in an international collaboration that has proposed a new strategy for marine conservation, which involves unconventional, proactive tactics, in a paper published ...

Ocean changes may have dire impacts on people

Jun 17, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The first comprehensive synthesis on the effects of climate change on the world’s oceans has found they are now changing at a rate not seen for several million years.

Reef 'at risk in climate change'

Apr 06, 2007

Australian scientists who contributed to the latest global greenhouse study say the Great Barrier Reef is one of the nation's great assets most at risk under climate change.

Recommended for you

Bladderwrack: Tougher than suspected

13 hours ago

The bladderwrack Fucus vesiculosus is actually one of the most important species of brown algae along the North Atlantic coasts. But for years their populations in the Baltic Sea were declining. Looking for the reasons, biolog ...

User comments : 66

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Claudius
1.5 / 5 (30) May 03, 2013
"If the current trends of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels continue the Great Barrier Reef will not exist."


This from a marine biologist, not a climatologist. Another "climate authority," an economist, made a similar pronouncement a few days ago. These are the kind of people who are demanding action.

CO2 levels are going up, temperatures are not increasing as expected, and the northern hemisphere has been having some of the most severe winters in many decades. There is as yet no proven reason for the assumption that CO2 is driving climate change, at best it is a guess.

The reasoning was that temperature was increasing and so was CO2. Those involved basically couldn't explain it, but since they lacked any other explanation, chose CO2 as the culprit. This is sloppy science at best.

Collecting and analyzing data is not science. If it were, TV ghost hunters are scientists.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (21) May 03, 2013
....... temperatures are not increasing as expected, and the NH has been having some of the most severe winters in many decades. There is as yet no proven reason for the assumption that CO2 is driving climate change, at best it is a guess.


Claudius...
The NH as a whole had a warmer winter than ave, especially the Arctic - which is a worry re coming summer's melts. Winters do bring severe weather you know. Its weather.

See ..http://ocean.dmi....n.uk.php

And here the temp anomalies this last winter ( enter data ) ...
http://data.giss....;pol=reg

Also:http://thinkprogr...g-trend/

Oh, and could you please point me to the cause of the post-industrial warming, that just happens to mirror the rise in CO2.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (23) May 03, 2013
This from a marine biologist, not a climatologist. Another "climate authority," an economist, made a similar pronouncement a few days ago. These are the kind of people who are demanding action.

No, he isn't talking about climate, he is talking about ocean acidification. It just happens to agree with global warming. Can't you read?
*snip*and the northern hemisphere has been having some of the most severe winters in many decades.

No, the NH is having severe precipitation this winter. As predicted as far back as 1984.
There is as yet no proven reason for the assumption that CO2 is driving climate change, at best it is a guess.

Again Claudius? Really? You don't understand it, so it must not be happening. So you claim it's because scientists couldn`t explain it, so made it up? There really isn't such a conspiracy dumdum, except in your paranoid, delusional mind.
Neinsense99
3.5 / 5 (26) May 03, 2013
Claudius is a quick as ever with the devastating criticism of questionable claims that he pretends people made.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (28) May 03, 2013
This from a marine biologist, not a climatologist. Another "climate authority," an economist, made a similar pronouncement a few days ago. These are the kind of people who are demanding action.

And, yet, when such people deny GW/AGW, they're "qualified experts." :rolleyes:
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (28) May 04, 2013
This rate of increase has few, if any, parallels in the past 50 million years

It has happened NATURALLY in the past, so pray tell, what devastation did it wreak on marine life then?
After the AGW Alarmists other hallmarks; deceit and intimidation, have failed, they are left with propaganda as their science.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (27) May 04, 2013
This rate of increase has few, if any, parallels in the past 50 million years

It has happened NATURALLY in the past, so pray tell, what devastation did it wreak on marine life then?
After the AGW Alarmists other hallmarks; deceit and intimidation, have failed, they are left with propaganda as their science.

Another steaming heap of TROLL DUNG.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (27) May 04, 2013

Another steaming heap of TROLL DUNG.
-- deepsandTurd aka FecalMatter
It would take FecalMatter to be an expert in DUNG
The Alchemist
1.4 / 5 (27) May 05, 2013
Again Maggnus? I can keep printing all the physical proofs that CO2 is orders of magnitude too small to be having a increased GH effect, and easily refuting your counter-points. To summerize, even if I agree with all of deepsand's assumptions, and take a positive exponent of them (not because he said so, but because it's necessary), CO2 is still too weak to have any physical effect. There is no thermodynamic way/model you can use to make the CO2 increase a germane factor.
Except of course the lie: 80% increase in the 320 ppm CO2 must mean an 80% increase in GH gas effects. In truth, CO2 must increase to at least 1% (1e4 ppm) of the total atmophere before it's effects are significanly different from what they are now, or 80% ago.
deepsand
3 / 5 (24) May 05, 2013

Another steaming heap of TROLL DUNG.
-- deepsandTurd aka FecalMatter
It would take FecalMatter to be an expert in DUNG

PUERILE TROLL
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (27) May 05, 2013
Again Maggnus? I can keep printing all the physical proofs that CO2 is orders of magnitude too small to be having a increased GH effect, and easily refuting your counter-points.

No, you just keep making the naked assertion.

You've proved nothing.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (18) May 05, 2013
Educate yourself....

http://www.enchan...inct.GIF

"It has happened NATURALLY in the past, so pray tell, what devastation did it wreak on marine life then?" - antigorical

Moron...
VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (19) May 05, 2013
What is stopping you from submitting a paper to the journal NATURE with your "proof"?

If real, it would overturn much of the science developed since the mid 1800's, and modify the rest.

"CO2 is orders of magnitude too small to be having a increased GH effect" - Alchemist

Your name would be remembered along with Einstein and Newton if you actually had such a proof.

What is keeping you from writing the paper? Did you lose your crayons?

VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (20) May 05, 2013

"This from a marine biologist, not a climatologist. " - ClaudiusTard

Hmmmm.. ClaudiusTard claims that Marine Biologists have no credentials or background to provide scientific assessment of Marine Biology.

Yup. He is that Stupid.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (25) May 05, 2013
@Deepsand-you're the one to talk. I built up my pretty model. You submitted your criticisms, and you WWWAAAYYY undercounted their effects. I tallied them at the exponentially higher levels, still couldn't manage to produce an effect.
I think you're just a sore looser. We can start over if you'd like. The arguement was that there is orders of magnitude more availabe absorbable heat than CO2 can create a significant effect against.
I've already steadied myself for your baseless assertation. But again, I can generate it again and again. Until you come up with an effect I didn't account for, or undercounted (like you did)... I guess I should be more forgiving, you probably think Stirling's Approximation is used to count bird flocks in the Winter.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (25) May 05, 2013
@Deepsand-you're the one to talk. I built up my pretty model. You submitted your criticisms, and you WWWAAAYYY undercounted their effects. I tallied them at the exponentially higher levels, ...

You CONJECTURED a lot, you ASSERTED a lot; but, you PROVED NOTHING.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (25) May 05, 2013
Educate yourself....

http://www.enchan...inct.GIF]http://www.enchan...inct.GIF[/url]

"It has happened NATURALLY in the past, so pray tell, what devastation did it wreak on marine life then?" - antigorical

Moron...
-- vendicarTurd

This rate of increase has few, if any, parallels in the past 50 million years.
So, TURD, as the article claims, how many of those events you posted, occurred in the last 50 million years.
TURD.

Educate yourself....

http://www.enchan...inct.GIF]http://www.enchan...inct.GIF[/url]

"It has happened NATURALLY in the past, so pray tell, what devastation did it wreak on marine life then?" - antigorical

Moron...

deepsand
3.1 / 5 (23) May 05, 2013
Educate yourself....

http://http://www.enchan...inct.GIF

"It has happened NATURALLY in the past, so pray tell, what devastation did it wreak on marine life then?" - antigorical

Moron...


STUPID TROLL.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (26) May 05, 2013

STUPID TROLL.

REPUGNANT TURD
The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (23) May 05, 2013

You CONJECTURED a lot, you ASSERTED a lot; but, you PROVED NOTHING.

Ah... now I under stand. Those words in caps.: They don't mean what you think they mean. If that were the case, why did we have a discussion for three pages?
Either way, challenge declined, I see, scuttle back into the fist-less glove shadows, my friend.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (14) May 05, 2013
Again Maggnus? .


You're full of crap Alchemist. You have no proof, and your "pretty" model fails by orders of magnitude! That you don't understand the physics (and they are simple physics!), yet claim to be a physicist makes you look even more foolish than your oft repeated but never shown pretend "pretty model". If you had anything, anything at all, you would submit your paper for publication and not pollute a science site with your endless unmitigated misunderstandings.

deepsand
3.1 / 5 (21) May 05, 2013

You CONJECTURED a lot, you ASSERTED a lot; but, you PROVED NOTHING.

Ah... now I under stand. Those words in caps.: They don't mean what you think they mean. If that were the case, why did we have a discussion for three pages?
Either way, challenge declined, I see, scuttle back into the fist-less glove shadows, my friend.

Silly rabbit.

I know just what those words mean; and, they correctly factually portray your claims.

You've nothing but naked assertions.
The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (21) May 06, 2013
@Maggnus-why just me? you all are so smart as well. Why isn't this all put to bed by you folks? Doesn't mouthing the studies of experts resolve the issue?
At least I am out here dong more than mouthing propoganda. Actually, my pretty models demo CO2 fails by orders of magnitude (OOM). But the 10000x OOM too small you are alluding to, is just about right: 1/10000 of the Sun's power is just about right to affect climate. Oh, but yeah, you scurried away from that topic when that was demo'd. Surprising me not at all.
Seems I hit a nerve? Relax, as Mulder says, the truth is out there. What he didn't realize was: The truth is WAY OUT there. Open your mind to possibilty.
And you know, I'd be plently happy if you looked at the components of my pretty models and said, "hmmm, you know that's not right, you should use this amount/formula/approx.."
All I get is qualitative, substanceless comments, and of course, on-liners.
The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (21) May 06, 2013
@Vendi, here is a "proof." See if you can find a flaw in the assumptions, before you declare the ship sunk, can you?
The excitation state of CO2 is in micro seconds. The speed of light times a microsecond is at best 300 meters. There are approx 13 x 300 relevant meters of CO2 in the atmosphere. The number of photons able to excite CO2 is approx. 2e72 http://en.wikiped...oton_gas . The number of CO2 molecules excitable is approx 2.5e28. Doing order of magnitude, but by no means accurate statistics, means there are over 39 oom as many photons needed to saturate CO2, so that it has a 10e-6 chance to relax, or that the atmosphere would have to have approx. 39x more CO2 to be near unsaturation during daytime.
What this means intuitively is that all available CO2 is in an excited state and unable to further contribute an insulating effect. In other words, the "insulation" can no longer work because it is the same temp. as the outside (analogy failing, but you get the idea).
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (23) May 06, 2013
Alchemist is an idiot.

Each and every molecule of CO2 relaxes, by his own words, in micro seconds, with half of the re-radiated IR photons being Earthbound.

Thus, atmospheric CO2 acts as a translucent reflector, with increased amounts of CO2 making it increasing reflective.
The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (20) May 06, 2013
@deeps- Yes 1/2 up, 1/2 down, we did that before. Your ultimate "pigeon chess" victory was to say I had my definition of "saturation" wrong, remember? To be clear, I am not using a spurrious definition of saturation which I don't know about.
Your last sentence is, true, and part of the model, I am getting deja vu. Next are going to say adding CO2 increases the effect linearly? Because 1. we are talking about a static case of, say 400 ppm, and 2. Again the effect increases as an positive EXPONENT.
Do you want to give up and let someone who might have a significant criticism try? Please anybody with more than a high school understanding of physics?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (18) May 06, 2013
Other need to knows for the model. I assume the "photon bath" is generated by a blackbody at 0 C. Which is generous, as the Earth is usually above freezing. Again, CO2 interacts by absorbing and re-radiating, 1/2 up, 1/2 down. You can add 1/3up, 1/3down, 1/3 side-ways etc., and see it really doesn't make much difference, but the math is hard. Otherwise I gave worst-cases favoring CO2 impact, for example, assuming that the concentration of CO2 is constant to the top of the atmosphere, not correct, but it allows CO2 to have OOM more impact than if I used an negative exponential decline.
If I missed any other assupmts., I'm sure no one will notice and do the "pigeon chess" thing... oops, I mean... please tell me.
deepsand
3 / 5 (18) May 07, 2013
@deeps- Yes 1/2 up, 1/2 down, we did that before. Your ultimate "pigeon chess" victory was to say I had my definition of "saturation" wrong, remember? To be clear, I am not using a spurrious definition of saturation which I don't know about.
Your last sentence is, true, and part of the model, I am getting deja vu. Next are going to say adding CO2 increases the effect linearly? Because 1. we are talking about a static case of, say 400 ppm, ...

You may be talking about a static case, but that is not what's happening in real life.
The Alchemist
1.1 / 5 (20) May 07, 2013
@deepsand, If it pleases you, a time factor, increased concentration, or other variable functions can be placed into the schema,which may be interesting. However, I did put this together for order of magnitude demonstration, so the results would only "give you an idea" when the threashold was approached.
Howhot
4.7 / 5 (14) May 07, 2013
@Alchemist, You know I was struggling to understand what theory you where proposing and trying to understand if I should pay attention to it. But, I just didn't find it. The bottom line is this factoid; current CO2 levels are 400ppm (*globally*) and compare that to 280ppm pre-industrial levels. That is a 42% increase from pre-industrial CO2 levels of 280ppm in just under 250 years! Let me repeat that;

A 42% INCREASE in CO2 in under 250 years!

I don't know if your brain can grasp how incredibly short that is in geologic terms, but that is a flash event, as potent as a large meteor strike in comparison. Those usually are extinction events. This man-made disaster is shaping up to be the same in a couple of decades more.

deepsand
3.1 / 5 (19) May 08, 2013
@deepsand, If it pleases you, a time factor, increased concentration, or other variable functions can be placed into the schema,which may be interesting. However, I did put this together for order of magnitude demonstration, so the results would only "give you an idea" when the threashold was approached.

Pigeon chess.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (19) May 08, 2013
@Howhot, that is another thing. Mauna Loa weather station-this single point for the AlGore-ithm is on top of an increasingly active volcano!
I don't know why that doesn't stun everyone. There are thousands of weather posts, why use ONE on top of an active volcan as your data source? You may as well us one in the heart of a city. You can remove the variations there as well. Easier in fact, morning rush, rush hour. Wind is well defined and measurable in most places that aren't mountains...
The rest is made to look continuous by meshing up the data from another SINGLE source.
On and on...
A second series of data sources would greatly relieve my paranoia, if you have them. Otherwise, a Global Warning is in my dust bin.
And even so (I thought it was 80%) 42% of a small number is still a small number. The Greenhouse Effect does not increase by 42% because CO2 does. Applying another rough model, ignoring H2O: It would increased 2e-4% ((e today - e init) x absorbance).
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (19) May 08, 2013
@deepsand
Pigeon chess.

No, actually an offer to let you interject into the proposal, allowing you to see how your criticisms might change the results.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (17) May 08, 2013
@Howhot, that is another thing. Mauna Loa weather station-this single point for the AlGore-ithm is on top of an increasingly active volcano! I don't know why that doesn't stun everyone.

Well, we are are certainly not stunned to see that you've conveniently ignored what you've already been told on this matter.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (17) May 08, 2013
@deepsand
Pigeon chess.

No, actually an offer to let you interject into the proposal, allowing you to see how your criticisms might change the results.

Asked and answered.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (19) May 08, 2013
@Howhot-actually spent the last hour researching other spots. They have all got problems-Samoa has agreement in magnitude, but not character, you know the AlGor-ithm increases rapidly in recent time, Samoa is linear. It is also near an active volcano. The polar and Alaskan have inversion and weather dump problems. I researched the (possibly out of date) methods for Mauna Loa and they are definitely wearing a camel-hair shirt in their calculations. I am going to see if there is a CO2 station in the mountains of Pennsylvania. That out to do it.
The Alchemist
1.1 / 5 (20) May 08, 2013
Just realized, CO2 measurements on top of a mountain will be non-linearly lower than other gas proportions, CO2 is less due to concentration, and it is dense (CO2: 44, O2 32). This means that CO2 concentrations should be non-trivially higher at ground level, particularly near sources. I don't see anyone compensating for this.
Also, CO2 will be non-trivially sucked up by thousands of miles of ocean in travelling to Macadamia Nut station, so it's remoteness is not a good thing for it's accuracy.
Is that good or bad news?
Or am I missing something? (Morons: If you say "yes," please say what. Non-morons: Hi, great talking to you, appreciate your input. :)
antigoracle
1 / 5 (18) May 08, 2013

Or am I missing something? (Morons: If you say "yes," please say what. Non-morons: Hi, great talking to you, appreciate your input. :)

Moron in me: Yes, you're missing a brain.
Non-moron: Yes, you're missing a brain and your hypothesis does not matter. Macadamia nut station shows ever increasing CO2 and therefore serves the purpose of the AGW Alarmist Cult. Think about your statement and what it would mean for temperature readings near cities and you'll realize why the Cult won't agree.
runrig
5 / 5 (12) May 08, 2013
Mauna Loa was originally chosen as a monitoring site because, located far from any continent, the air sampled is a good average for the central Pacific. Being high, it is above the inversion layer where most of the local effects are present. There was already a rough road to the summit built by the military. The contamination from local volcanic sources is sometimes detected at the observatory, and is then removed from the background data.

http://en.wikiped...ervatory
Howhot
5 / 5 (10) May 09, 2013
The bloavinatious one @Anti whose worth exceeds that of his underwear says;
Macadamia nut station shows ever increasing CO2 and therefore serves the purpose of the AGW Alarmist Cult.


Oh you must mean this one:
http://www.esrl.n.../trends/

Here the other one from a network of global monitoring stations.
http://www.esrl.n.../trends/global.html

It's amazing how the two graphs look so much alike.
Howhot
5 / 5 (10) May 09, 2013
The overly stressed Hotone messed up the second like; The one from the collection of global monitoring stations is here;

http://www.esrl.n...bal.html

I don't live in Hawaii so I had to go to wikipedia to see if the "macadamia nut island" Manua Loa was still an active volcano and it is. But I think Runrig puts your concerns to rest. The background signal is removed and there signal is in consensus with the other global monitoring systems.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (17) May 09, 2013
@runrig, Yeah, I saw all that--as a meteorologist you must see the flaws in the arguments. I read the approximations they are using, and they do not account for any changes. They rely on a lot of hope, and they are far too consistent to be real data.
The other arguments still apply: For example the concentration of CO2 should diminish away from major land bodies using fossil fuel. Islands in the middle of the Pacific should be less. Unless it is being affected by local fossil fuel consumption, or volcanism, OR CO2 is considerably higher on the mainlands.
Seeking your conjecture on these items.
Respectfully requested-
TA
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (18) May 09, 2013
TA seems to have missed the fact that the Mauna Loa station is approx. 2 miles above sea level, not merely above the inversion layer, but sufficiently well into the troposphere for mixing to have obscured local effects.

How else to explain that the two graphs Howhot presented show identical trends and seasonal variations?
runrig
5 / 5 (12) May 09, 2013
@runrig, Yeah, I saw all that--as a meteorologist you must see the flaws in the arguments. I read the approximations they are using, and they do not account for any changes. They rely on a lot of hope, and they are far too consistent to be real data.
..........................


Alchemist:
As a meteorologist and also by logic I can see why Mauna Loa is as least as good a sampling site as any other. The one about being above the quasi-permanent trade wind inversion is the obvious one – height being required for that. It needs to be fairly central to the Pacific and given the geology of Pacific islands, then any height will likely involve a volcano.
The sampling is consistent ( IMO ) because of it's height and remoteness - it is well mixed and as such is a powerful barometer of the world's CO2 concentration.

http://scienceblo...l-mixed/
Mike_Massen
3.6 / 5 (14) May 12, 2013
antigoracle lumbered with this suggestion (maybe he was an observer then therefore well past alzheimers now) with
This rate of increase has few, if any, parallels in the past 50 million years

It has happened NATURALLY in the past, so pray tell, what devastation did it wreak on marine life then?
I beg your pardon ?

When has it naturally climbed >150 ppm in less than 250 years in some unclear segment/period of 50 million years ago ?

antigoracle
1 / 5 (17) May 12, 2013
antigoracle lumbered with this suggestion (maybe he was an observer then therefore well past alzheimers now) with
This rate of increase has few, if any, parallels in the past 50 million years

It has happened NATURALLY in the past, so pray tell, what devastation did it wreak on marine life then?
I beg your pardon ?

When has it naturally climbed >150 ppm in less than 250 years in some unclear segment/period of 50 million years ago ?


Whatever they put in that Kool-Aid is working, because the AGW Cult definitely only see what they want to, like Hockey Sticks and no MWP. "This rate of increase has few..." are their words not mine. So I repeat - It has happened NATURALLY in the past, so pray tell, what devastation did it wreak on marine life then?
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (11) May 12, 2013
antigoracle didnt actually ask any useful question given the Provenance
..has happened NATURALLY in the past, so pray tell, what devastation did it wreak on marine life then?
Please, learn to be precise, are you referring to 50 million years ago and suggest how it was determined either way and what were the changes to sea levels at that time, any actual facts ?

Can anyone suggest any sort of definitive data from any period so far back then, that is, if you antigoracle are asking a precise question and not just wasting all our space and time ?
The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (17) May 12, 2013
@Mike:
...Can anyone suggest any sort of definitive data from any period so far back then, that is, if you antigoracle are asking a precise question and not just wasting all our space and time ?

Yes, this kind of statement is a pet peeve. Yes it may have happened "naturally," such as by the ascention of blue-green algae, massive volcanism, etc., however, naturally is NOT a white-wash: Something is always a causal agent.
Leading to the question: What is the causal agent today?
I am afraid it is fossil fuels. Not only fossil fuels, but the Earth-system is at meta-equilibrium with the Sun. Who knows what critical effects take over at certain critical points?
I didn't exactly answer your question, but I hope it's sufficinet.
The Alchemist
1.1 / 5 (17) May 12, 2013
@runrig-Thanks.
Though not 100% sold on the mixing thing-I am definitely partially sold on it. CO2 is definitely upset by wind, but is also mixed.
I find that many of the strengths of Muana Loa are also weaknesses: Remoteness. Shouldn't the ebb and flow from the island itself be more influential than remote mainlands, where the CO2 has to travel over thousands of miles of CO2 absorbing ocean? If not, why isn't there a compensating factor, or at least a warning: "CO2 level are actually higher than they appear."
Of course there remains NOAA's poor explanations. And of course, mountain winds are unreliable and turbulent.
I hate to repeat, but hey, either I'm ignorant, or the Al-Gorithm is a lie.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (18) May 12, 2013
@runrig-Ah the Trade wind thing didn't register before. Still not there but honing it on the picture. Thx.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (18) May 12, 2013
antigoracle lumbered with this suggestion (maybe he was an observer then therefore well past alzheimers now) with
This rate of increase has few, if any, parallels in the past 50 million years

It has happened NATURALLY in the past, so pray tell, what devastation did it wreak on marine life then?
I beg your pardon ?

When has it naturally climbed >150 ppm in less than 250 years in some unclear segment/period of 50 million years ago ?


Whatever they put in that Kool-Aid is working, because the AGW Cult definitely only see what they want to, like Hockey Sticks and no MWP. "

Repeating your naked assertions is fruitless.

This rate of increase has few..." are their words not mine. So I repeat - It has happened NATURALLY in the past, so pray tell, what devastation did it wreak on marine life then?

Immaterial to the present conditions.
Howhot
5 / 5 (9) May 13, 2013
In speaking about how rapidly industrial age planetary CO2 levels have risen;
This rate of increase has few, if any, parallels in the past 50 million years
which was correctly noticed and publicized as the famous "Hockeystick" graph by Al Gore. The Nobel laureate VP who has championed the cause to do something about it, for a better world and environment.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (16) May 15, 2013
In speaking about how rapidly industrial age planetary CO2 levels have risen;
This rate of increase has few, if any, parallels in the past 50 million years
which was correctly noticed and publicized as the famous "Hockeystick" graph by Al Gore. The Nobel laureate VP who has championed the cause to do something about it, for a better world and environment.

It must really be dark in the depths of your ignorance. Every Hockeystick has been proven to be fabrications based on lies. Your Vicar Gore not satisfied, with the millions he made from his movie - A Convenient Lie, tried make himself the first Carbon Billionaire with his Carbon Exchange.
Howhot
5 / 5 (8) May 16, 2013
t must really be dark in the depths of your ignorance. Every Hockeystick has been proven to be fabrications based on lies. Your Vicar Gore not satisfied, with the millions he made from his movie - A Convenient Lie, tried make himself the first Carbon Billionaire with his Carbon Exchange.


Well no, it is *you* who are in the dark recesses if ignorance. Prove to me how the hockey stick model is wrong. CO2 levels are climbing exponentially and so are global temperatures. What is to deny about that? It's just fact. As much as you deniers like to deny, the numbers are just like sushi, raw and unaltered truth.

If some how you think you can win the climate argument based on Al Gore rightwing non-sense and propoganda crap, you are sadly mistaken because Gore didn't lie. The man is a hero for championing the cause of Global Warming, the environment, and the human condition. He continues to be so. It's too bad he wasn't appointed president instead of GW He would have rocked!
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (17) May 16, 2013
In speaking about how rapidly industrial age planetary CO2 levels have risen;
This rate of increase has few, if any, parallels in the past 50 million years
which was correctly noticed and publicized as the famous "Hockeystick" graph by Al Gore. The Nobel laureate VP who has championed the cause to do something about it, for a better world and environment.

Every Hockeystick has been proven to be fabrications based on lies.

Only in your fantasy world.

Repeatedly telling a lie with expectations of its becoming truth is a clinical sign of insanity.

antigoracle
1 / 5 (18) May 16, 2013

Repeatedly telling a lie with expectations of its becoming truth is a clinical sign of insanity.

Repeatedly believing the Hockey stick lies as gospel truth, clinically proves you are a fanatical AGW idiot.
http://joannenova...no-data/
http://www.redsta...-trends/
http://notrickszo...joyride/
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (17) May 16, 2013

Repeatedly telling a lie with expectations of its becoming truth is a clinical sign of insanity.

Repeatedly believing the Hockey stick lies as gospel truth, clinically proves you are a fanatical AGW idiot.
http://joannenova...no-data/

Your repeatedly citing junk will not alter the facts.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (18) May 16, 2013

Repeatedly telling a lie with expectations of its becoming truth is a clinical sign of insanity.

Repeatedly believing the Hockey stick lies as gospel truth, clinically proves you are a fanatical AGW idiot.
http://joannenova...no-data/

Your repeatedly citing junk will not alter the facts.

Nothing will alter the fact that you are an AGW idiot and temperature drives CO2.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (18) May 16, 2013
... Gore didn't lie. The man is a hero for championing the cause of Global Warming, the environment, and the human condition. He continues to be so. It's too bad he wasn't appointed president instead of GW He would have rocked!

It must be really dark up in Vicar Gore's colon where AGW Turds like you desire to be. It does explain your ignorance. Just look at the size of him before and after he made his millions of his CO2 LIES. Does that look like someone who is conservative. He is not only burning more power than most third world villages but eating more than them too. Your Vicar installs a few solar panels and geothermal units, which have been proven to draw more power than they produce, buys carbon credits in his own company and blind AGW morons like you worship him as a hero. Well they say ignorance is bliss, so stay stupid because when reality finally hits there won't be enough Kool-Aid.
Howhot
5 / 5 (8) May 16, 2013
Repeatedly telling a lie with expectations of its becoming truth is a clinical sign of insanity.

Well, what I can't figure out is how you can still type with that straight jackiet on. I see your only recourse was to post three links all going to rightwing leaning dark money websites. What I have never understood is how some people are so fooled by this lunacy. With respect to your so called PROOF If it looks like horse poo, smells like horse poo, chances are it is exactly that; horse poo.

As far as your Anti-gore rant, the man has made a good living from being the good guy. He's donated most of the proceeds from his books to environmental causes. You must be just jealous of his success. Unlike the 1%'ers on your side of the lunatic fringe who secretly (the weasels they are) use 501c(4)s to funnel millions into political propaganda websites that further their own business interests. To them it's money well spent because you bought into it hook-line-and-sinker!
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (15) May 16, 2013

Repeatedly telling a lie with expectations of its becoming truth is a clinical sign of insanity.

Repeatedly believing the Hockey stick lies as gospel truth, clinically proves you are a fanatical AGW idiot.
http://joannenova...no-data/

Your repeatedly citing junk will not alter the facts.

Nothing will alter the fact that you are an AGW idiot and temperature drives CO2.

Still projecting, I see.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (16) May 16, 2013
It must be really dark up in Vicar Gore's colon ...

Can't speak re. Mr. Gore's anatomy; but, it's certainly dark where you have your head stuck.

antigoracle
1 / 5 (17) May 17, 2013
It must be really dark up in Vicar Gore's colon ...

Can't speak re. Mr. Gore's anatomy; but, it's certainly dark where you have your head stuck.


Your condition has not only left you deaf, dumb and stupid, but blind also. I take pity on you.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (17) May 17, 2013
We cognoscenti have neither need nor want of your pity. Best reserve it for yourself on your day of judgement.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (16) May 18, 2013
Best reserve it for yourself on your day of judgement.

Is that AGW cult speak for what you have planned for those you so ignorantly branded heretics.

http://www.hereti...ics.html
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (14) May 18, 2013
Wherein AO offers his usual non-substantive drivel, fluff and tripe.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.