Danny, Danny, Danny.Hmm. My mistake. Ricky isn't on ignore, though. Though uninformative, his posts are usually short, consisting of the same three words: "Danny, Danny, Danny."
Made me laugh.
Danny, Danny, Danny.Hmm. My mistake. Ricky isn't on ignore, though. Though uninformative, his posts are usually short, consisting of the same three words: "Danny, Danny, Danny."
Rest assured, Co2 will come down as the earth cools, and the earth will cool again,....not that it matters that much. (as far as we know)The Jurassic epoch lasted about 56 million years, and CO2 levels varied within. Most Jurassic life was in the oceans. There were dinosaurs and a lot of plant life at times during the Jurassic - but mostly the early parts of the Jurassic - when temperatures were quite warm.
Instead of just thinking about what the CO2 levels were, consider what a change in CO2 levels does. The following chart correlates changes in CO2 levels with major extinction events. While there was plenty of life during the Jurassic, it was not the same life that existed in previous epochs. New forms of life supplanted the old.
There is a pretty good argument that all of the major extinction events are associated with changes in atmospheric CO2, even the KT extinction event. The causes of the changes in CO2 levels may differ. For example, flood basalt events are likely candidates for causing the levels to rise during the Permian Extinction event, and a giant meteor is believed to have caused the KT extinction event.
To many, including myself, there is no question that fossil-fuel usage had led to an increase in atmospheric CO2 in our own time, and that our climate is changing as a result. In a time when the climate should be cooling, it gets hotter every year. That, coupled with habitat encroachment, is causing a new holocene extinction event.
![]()
You and espola are politically "sympatico".I know you are right. There are some posters whom I have blocked, so I rarely see their posts and I almost never respond to them. They don't respond to fact or logic. In this case though, I responded to Espola. I don't think he and I are politically sympatico, but I don't think he is a jackass, at least in response to my prior posts. Plus, he and I seem to share an interest in military history.
Looks like the number of extinction events have gone down as the earth's C02 levels have dropped. (according to this chart)
I agree. CO2 levels have risen and fallen dramatically. The Earth warms and cools cyclically. But I am not sure there has ever been a period in Earths history, certainly not since the KT extinction event, where climate change with such pace. Usually it takes thousands of years, in the case of Pleistocene ice ages, to tens of millions of years, in the case of Cryogenian Snowball Earth. We are seeing climate change in a space of less than 100 years.Rest assured, Co2 will come down as the earth cools, and the earth will cool again,....not that it matters that much. (as far as we know)
Pretty funny. I'm not saying that life cannot adapt to higher or lower CO2 levels. The fossil record proves it can. But changing CO2 levels does change the type of life. After every extinction event (and there are about 25 documented events) new types of life come to dominate. We would not exist except for the KT extinction event. Dinosaurs would not have existed but for the Permian extinction event. If it weren't for the Silurian extinction event, the most prolific life form might still be trilobites.Looks like the number of extinction events have gone down as the earth's C02 levels have dropped. (according to this chart)
Should we make SUV ownership mandatory?
I agree. CO2 levels have risen and fallen dramatically. The Earth warms and cools cyclically. But I am not sure there has ever been a period in Earths history, certainly not since the KT extinction event, where climate change with such pace. Usually it takes thousands of years, in the case of Pleistocene ice ages, to tens of millions of years, in the case of Cryogenian Snowball Earth. We are seeing climate change in a space of less than 100 years.
The terms "magnitude," "epoch," and "carbon cycle" are argot. It sounds like you have a background in the sciences. Except the word "per se," which makes you sound like a lawyer.Right, rate of the current forcing regime, not its magnitude per se, that is distinct from past epochs. Nothing in the natural carbon cycle works fast enough to modulate.
Jurassic period- 4,000 ppm, and life thrived. Giant life forms as well as increasing divergent variations overall.
sciences....lawyer.
Well, watch out where the huskies go ...To paraphrase Zappa, just another barbarian with a wrench in my pocket....
"We are in a global cooling period and all the data we have in our computer system warns that the earth is turning cold not warm."
Sucker.
Models built with the intent of satisfying a political agenda are not likely to be correct.
I agree. CO2 levels have risen and fallen dramatically. The Earth warms and cools cyclically. But I am not sure there has ever been a period in Earths history, certainly not since the KT extinction event, where climate change with such pace. Usually it takes thousands of years, in the case of Pleistocene ice ages, to tens of millions of years, in the case of Cryogenian Snowball Earth. We are seeing climate change in a space of less than 100 years.
I dont believe the change in global temperatures within the last 150 years are exceptional.I agree. CO2 levels have risen and fallen dramatically. The Earth warms and cools cyclically. But I am not sure there has ever been a period in Earths history, certainly not since the KT extinction event, where climate change with such pace. Usually it takes thousands of years, in the case of Pleistocene ice ages, to tens of millions of years, in the case of Cryogenian Snowball Earth. We are seeing climate change in a space of less than 100 years.
Perspective.Like others, not sure where you were going with this. If it has to do with gas/heme exchange and CO2 toxicity, it takes a lot of CO2 to prevent exchange. If its the "lots of CO2 in past atmospheres and yet all the seas didn't boil so that means that CO2 being driver of current climate change is wrong" canard keep in mind that for the geologic periods cited the sun's luminosity on the main sequence was about 5% less than current. So that's ballpark 55 W/m2. In comparison, variation in irradiance based on 11 year cycle is about 1 W/m2
as well as a recently honed political weapon.
Only by nutters who distort the Science.
And you believe that all the models that show Global Warming have been done so with no political agenda in mind?Models built with the intent of satisfying a political agenda are not likely to be correct.
I dont believe the change in global temperatures within the last 150 years are exceptional.
Read this. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjjkeuOj7rYAhUEwFQKHVY5B_sQFgg0MAE&url=https://history.aip.org/climate/cycles.htm&usg=AOvVaw3KG0jUSnOadR7pO7-hWLBd
And you believe that all the models that show Global Warming have been done so with no political agenda in mind?