For which you’ve never forgiven it, apparently! And now the residual animus colors and drives everything you think! Simple indeed.
Or … not!
Not… at all. I bought in to anti-nuclear (fission) irrationality for 55 years. I’m now only in to evidence based claims. That does colour all my thinking yes. What is astounding is how much superstition and irrationality, cognitive bias, one retains without realising it. Until it’s pointed out. So I’m rationally pro-nuclear (and pro-plastic and pro-fertilizer and pro-mining and pro-infrastructure and pro-dam and pro-electricity and pro-tractor and everything that makes life incredibly good for the WEIRD world) now, but only fission not the absurd delusion of economic nuclear fusion, another con I realised only in the past few years.
1 Like
Here is the historic levels of carbon dioxide and temperature:
Naturally, carbon dioxide is at equilibrium with temperature because the oceans are the main driver of carbon dioxide removal. The CO2 is dissolved into the oceans just like a soda pop. At any given temperature and CO2 concentration the oceans can only hold so much. Some of the extra CO2 is going to be absorbed oceans, but not all of it. This is why we see a sudden spike in recent times, well above any natural levels:
For the first time in the last 800,000 years the release of carbon dioxide is no longer a product of increasing temperatures. In the past, the Milankovitch cycles changed Earth’s temps which then changed the amount of CO2 the oceans could hold. That’s the reason for the tight correlation between the two in historic records. That is no longer the case. Now, CO2 is being released independently of temperature, and the result is an increase in the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere.
Ignoring the real cause of increased temperatures won’t work, either.
4 Likes
I see that I can’t help you, Klax. That ship has sailed.
In other words you have no idea.
1 Like
ZZZzzz…
I’ve been chipping away at this problem all my life at the dinner table. 
I see… so the phrase “maxed out” which you used translates to highest in a selected section of past history. In other word almost total BS. The truth is that since ALL of the O2 is a product of the biosphere, the true maximum CO2 is 20% of the atmosphere.
This came with a quiz asking how far back in time do you have to go to have CO2 concentrations as high as they are today? The answer is 2.5 million years.
Again, I have no intention whatsoever to say that there isn’t a problem. There certainly is a problem. I am dubious of the politicized treatment of the topic I am seeing and very doubtful that the reducing emissions is going work in solving the problem. If anything you have simply demonstrated that the natural variations are enormous. Though I don’t think we want to return Earth’s climate to what it was millions of years ago. So it would be a good idea to get better control of the factors which drive these variations. It is pretty obvious that temperature is a big factor in driving much of the variation. We certainly know how temperature affects conversion to O2 by plankton, but we also know how the radiation coming through the ozone holes has an even greater effect on the conversion to O2 by plankton. Instead of sanctifying recent natural cycles we will do better to see how we can augment conversion as much as we have been adding to emission.
P.S. The effect of temperature on plankton also increases the irony pointed out in the OP about the effect of the “solar lockdown” on earth climate. I think we should consider taking more control over the factors behind these variation rather proposing that we be controlled by them.
Actually the more I look into it, the less certain I am sure that we do understand the effects of temperature on phytoplankton. The main effect of higher temperatures is slower plankton growth and this varies greatly with the type of plankton. My conclusion is that the effect of radiation is much more clear and direct, and while temperature may be a good hypothesis for explaining the recent cycles in CO2 concentrations, the radiation from the ozone holes is more significant for the problem of climate change.
The loss of 70% due to UV radiation is something I read in another report but it is easy to calculate from data available on other sites… like this one from here.
After dark adaptation, phytoplankton show a high quantum yield of up to 70% of all photons used for photosynthesis. When exposed to excessive radiation this yield drops very fast to about 20%.
The reduction by 50% from 70% to 20% gives a loss of 71%
Oh, and yeah, I think the whole carbon footprint shaming spiel is bunch of made up self-righteous bull malarkey – just another way for the wealthy middle class to feel superior and look down their noses at everyone else.
This could be a helpful thread for you from Katharine Hayhoe who recently wrote this article for BioLogos:
The useful thread in how we can test many potential hypotheses and why “natural cycles” are not responsible for the present warming:
2 Likes
That doesn’t mean you have to deny the mountains of science demonstrating that burning fossils fuels is the reason CO2 concentrations are so high right now.
That’s like saying we can’t convict people of murder because people still die of natural causes. We can determine if humans are the cause of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Do you think it is just a coincidence that CO2 concentrations follow the use of fossil fuels so closely?
Then why is CO2 highest when temperature is highest as seen in the ice records? The data is consistent with CO2 dissolving in water being the major player, not plankton.
3 Likes
The holes are over the poles. It also doesn’t explain the pretty obvious relationship between temperature and CO2 which is consistent with CO2 dissolving in the oceans.
3 Likes
1 Like
Irrelevant. That only accounts for the natural variation not the recent increases in CO2. The increas of CO2 matches the creation of holes in the ozone layer which sit right on top of the highest concentrations of phytoplankton seriously reducing their effectiveness at converting CO2 into O2. Of course increased CO2 emissions are not helping but I don’t think that is the main problem and I don’t think attempts at reducing emissions is the best way of dealing with the problem. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t change to electric cars and other such things. Absolutely we should do so as quickly as possible because using up all of our fossil fuels so fast is a bad idea destructive of the future for many other reasons.
No my reason for opposition is that I think it is missing a crucial part of the problem. You could say that is MY politics. Until that part of the problem is recognized properly then I going to speak out.
Incorrect. You are inserting your own words into my mouth. The analogy would only hold if I said we shouldn’t do anything to reduce our use of fossil fuels (connection to action) because of the natural variations. I certainly did not make any such argument.
Yeah and that is where the phytoplankton is.
Yep. Though it takes time for the ozone layer to repair itself. The trend looks good and I guess we will see what impact that has on the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
In reaction to article from Prof. Katharine Hayoe.
At the hearing for the deputy NASA administrator today, nominee Jim Morhard was asked by EdMarkey if he agrees with the scientific consensus that humans are the dominant influence on climate. He said he couldn’t say. Well, I’m a scientist, and I can.
No disagreement there. Whether it is the increased emissions or the holes in the ozone layer it is still humans that are doing it.
A lot of people stare at that graph over the last 800,000 years and think there it is staring us right in the face – the jump in CO2 levels are right there for all to see. But the fact I see staring me in the face is that balance of oxygen and carbon dioxide has always been a product of the biosphere. Neither CO2 nor methane is something new introduced by mankind so isn’t it more likely that the problem is something which mankind really did introduce into the atmosphere, like the fluorocarbons which damaged the ozone layer.
1 Like
Hi Mitchell,
Here’s a good question: The atmospheric carbon levels were much higher millions of years ago, so why should we be worried that they’re rising today?
The answer is threefold:
- Until a few thousand years ago, coastlines were not densely populated. Today, hundreds of millions of our fellow humans live at coastal elevations.
- Until a few thousand years ago, human settlements had a light infrastructure that could be displaced with relative ease. Today, the coastal mega-cities rely on public infrastructure that cannot be moved without unimaginably massive costs.
- The anthropogenic sea rise is going to arrive quite rapidly by historical standards.
A reasonably likely result of these three factors, in combination, is a displacement of populations and economies that will be an epic calamity.
The historical record shows that displacements much smaller than the one seemingly on the way are often accompanied by armed conflict and famine. Perhaps our great-grandchildren will figure out a way to manage these massive disruptions with a gracious kum-ba-yah mutual generosity and technologies we cannot even imagine today, but I wouldn’t count on it.
Peace,
Chris
3 Likes
Yep. Like I said. I don’t think we want to return Earth’s climate to what it was millions of years ago. And you give some good reasons why this is not a good idea. None of this changes the fact that emissions is only half of the equation, the conversion of CO2 to O2 is the other half. If we want to get a handle on the potential change of Earth’s climate then we need to deal with both sides of the equation.
When Chris? How quickly will coastal cities be overwhelmed? Which cities? Djakarta first? Amsterdam? When will we see the start of this epic calamity? Where?
The answer to stretching that out for yet more centuries, is, of course, nuclear (fission) power. Which will not be availed until we’ve deconstructed the environmentalist lies of the past 60 years.
1 Like
Wake up! Billions are going to die!! Blow stuff up!!! Destroy civilization to save it!!!
For my whole life I have seen political parties mastering the art of taking credit for changes which were going to happen anyway. Wars coming to an end. The Soviet empire coming to an end. Trump taking credit for any improvement with the corona virus. And if the Democrats pass anything to reduce emission in the tiniest amount I have no doubt they will take credit if CO2 levels come down OR global temperatures come down. Does anyone here know what the letters BS stand for?