- Joined
- Jun 17, 2013
- Messages
- 4,111
- Reaction score
- 12,437
For one thing, I'm glad that you agree that the CO2 level has been over 4000 ppm in the past in the hundreds of the millions of years ago (when there were no humans and no internal combustion engine). So we agree that the increase of 200 to 400 ppm (that is falsely attributed to the Industrial Age. Okay, we don't agree on "falsely", and I will expand on why I say falsely if someone asks.) is insignificant compared to the natural variation that occurs without humans.
An increase of 200 to 400 ppm over the course of a hundred thousand years is insignificant. An increase of 200 to 400 ppm over the course of a few decades is enormously significant, and absolutely can and should be directly attributed to the Industrial Age. If you want to prove that wrong though, give me a single other instance where atmospheric CO2 rose by 3 ppm per year. You've got hundreds of millions of years to choose from. Shouldn't be too hard, right?
Besides the Industrial Revolution, the largest known global warming event in history was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum about 56 million years ago. During that time, CO2 rose by an annual rate of up to 0.4 ppm per year. That was by far the highest rate of CO2 increase in the history of the planet, and it's almost 10x less than what we're experiencing now. The rate at which we're adding CO2 to the atmosphere is absolutely unparalleled, and it's still accelerating.
I know you don't want to acknowledge that, but it's a fact regardless. Once you come to terms with that, you'll realize that human beings releasing massive amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is the only possible cause.
You are being dishonest about diversity of lifeforms: I stated that high temperature and CO2 periods are "known as Climate Optimums based on expansion of the fossil record under these conditions.", which includes the Cambrian Explosion of Life (around 500-600 MYA), in which the temperature and CO2 were as high as they have ever been since, while you have cherry-picked the Devonian Extinction, which also includes all-time lows in CO2 and temperature. Please describe the climate of a Climate Optimum according to the geologic record.
I'm not being dishonest about shit, and if you think I am, point out the statement.
500 million years ago during the "Cambrian Explosion of Life", diversity of life was vastly lower than what it is today. We're talking about thousands to tens of thousands of species then (almost entirely marine-based) vs millions today (terrestrial, marine, and sky). You can think that's "dishonest" all you want, but those are the facts.
You're comparing two different epochs, hundreds of millions of years apart, and trying to say that the environment for one would totally be fine for the other. And you're basing this off...nothing. It's pure stupidity.
The reason that I am focused on 50-60 MYA is because we are agreed that the CO2 was over a thousand ppm and the temperature was high enough for there to be crocodiles and palm trees in the arctic (from fossil evidence dated to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or PETM). There were also primates. So at a time, when CO2 was "dangerously high" (above 350 ppm according to John Kerry) and the temperature was orders of magnitude higher than today's ice age, primates survived.
Oh man it's a good thing crocodiles and palm trees could survive in the Arctic, because Florida would be reclaimed by the sea in your scenario, along with almost every single modern coastal region on Earth. But hey, marmosets would totally be able to survive, so we're good!
Your argument is that humans will go extinct above 420 ppm because they have never existed above this level.
That's my argument huh? You should probably quote where I said that, otherwise you'll end up looking like a dishonest cunt, and we wouldn't want that, would we?
I mentioned earlier that we are living in the interglacial of an Ice Age, based on the Milankovich Cycle (You should look this up if you don't know what it means.) that goes back about a 1M years in ice cores.
That's neat. What argument are you trying to make with that information?
So if I could press a button to create your doomsday scenario of PETM-like conditions (palm trees and crocodiles in Canada) at 1000ppm CO2 or more, I would push it.
Well no shit you would. And it would be a cataclysmic disaster for most life on Earth.
What is your choice?:
A) PETM-like conditions (What you are afraid of)
B) Laurentide and Weischelian Ice Sheets (What is actually going to happen)
Ooh I get a choice? Okay my choice is to maintain atmospheric CO2 levels around 300 ppm. This has proven to be a comfortable level for (most) current life on Earth. As a species, we have the capability of doing this, but we're tribalistic dumbasses, so we will continue to burn fossil fuels and jack more and more CO2 into the air until global warming fucks us over. Any changes one way or another should maintain historical averages (0.01-0.001 ppm per year), so that ecosystems have time to adapt to the change.
And speaking of time to adapt, within the next 100-200 years we will have the technology and knowledge to maintain whatever atmopsheric CO2 levels we wish, thus avoiding excessive planetary warming or cooling. We basically already have the tech with regards to carbon capture and sequestration. The hard part is making it economically feasible, and then getting the retarded hillbillies on board with it.
Last edited: